HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-2013 HSC AgendaCITY OF DUBLIN
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2013, 7:00 PM
DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER, 100 CIVIC PLAZA, REGIONAL MEETING ROOM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.1 Welcome to Human Services Commissioners
3.2 Administration of Oath of Office to newly appointed Human Services Commissioners by City Clerk
3.3 Public Comments
At this time, the public is permitted to address the Human Services Commission on non-agendized
items. The Commission must, however, comply with all State Laws in regard to items not appearing on
the posted agenda. The Commission may respond to statements made or questions asked, or may
request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may
contact the Office of the Community Development Department related to the proper procedure to place
an item on a future Human Services Commission agenda. The exceptions under which the Human
Services Commission MAY discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are
contained in G.C. 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3).
4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - None
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None
6. PUBLIC HEARING – None
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1 Human Services Commissioner Orientation
The Commission shall review the adopted Commission bylaws including the role, responsibilities, scope
of the Human Services Commission and the Tri-Valley Needs Assessment. Discussion shall include a
review of the Brown Act and Roberts Rules of Order.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive Report
8.2 Fiscal Year 2014-2015 City of Dublin Community Grants Program
Staff will provide an overview of the City’s Community Grants Program and the Commission’s role in
recommending grant funding allocations to the City Council. Discussion shall include a review of
potential conflicts of interest related to each Commissioner’s community group/organization affiliations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive Report
8.3 Establish Future Human Services Commission Quarterly Regular Meeting Schedule and Appointment
of Officers
Commissioners shall provide input on a preferred regular quarterly meeting date for future Human
Services Commission meetings. These meetings shall take place annually in January, April, July and
October. Additionally, the Commission shall annually appoint a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson per
the Bylaws and Rules of Procedure for the Human Services Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide input on the date for regularly scheduled Human Services
Commission meetings and conduct appointment of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for one-year
terms.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Human Services Commission and / or Staff related to meetings
attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10. ADJOURNMENT
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a)
If requested, pursuance to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as
required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation
thereof. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the Office of the Community Development Department at (925)
833-6610 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports (Agenda Statements) and attachments related to each item is available for public review at least 72 hours
prior to a Human Services Commission Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to the Commission less than 72 hours prior to a Humans Services Commission
Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is available in the Community Development Department at the Civic Center.
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO: 8.1
AGENDA STATEMENT
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
DATE: November 4, 2013
TO: Human Services Commission
SUBJECT: Human Services Commission Orientation
Prepared by Amy Cunningham, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Human Services Commission shall review the adopted Commission bylaws, including,
the roles, responsibilities, scope of the Commission and the Tri-Valley Needs Assessment.
Discussion shall include a review of the Brown Act and Roberts Rules of Order.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
RECOMMENDATION: Receive orientation information.
DESCRIPTION:
The Human Services Commission will be provided with overview information about City Commissions and the role and
responsibility of the newly formed Human Services Commission. A review of the following shall be included: the
adopted Commission bylaws; Commission information from the City of Dublin’s Commissioner’s Resource Book; the
Brown Act; Roberts Rules of Order; City of Dublin Administrative Policies relating to Commissioners; new Commissioner
Human Resources forms; and the Eastern Alameda County 2011 Human Services Needs Assessment: Findings Report.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS / PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Human Services Commission Bylaws
2. Excerpts from Commissioner’s Resource Book (p. 15-27) and supplemental
information
3. Eastern Alameda County 2011 Human Services Needs Assessment: Findings Report
(Tri-Valley Needs Assessment)
Bylaws and Rules of Procedure Page 2 of 3
Human Services Commission Adopted August 20, 2013
D. If a Commission member ceases to reside in the City of Dublin, said Commissioner’s
office shall be declared vacant.
IV. VACANCIES
A. Vacancies on the Commission occurring other than by expiration of term shall be filled
for the unexpired portion of the term in the same manner as the original appointment.
V. OFFICERS
A. Election and Term of Office. The Commission shall elect a Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson at the first meeting in January of each year or, if a quorum is not present, at the
next meeting at which a quorum is present. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall serve
until their successors are elected, or until their terms as members of the Commission expire,
whichever is first. The Commission shall, unless no Commissioners meet the criteria, elect
Commissioners to the positions that have not previously served in the position and that have
not declined the appointment, with the intent that no one should serve in the position for no
more than two consecutive years.
The secretary to the Commission will be the City Manager or his/her designee.
B. Vacancies. In case of any vacancy in the Office of Chairperson or Vice Chairperson, the
vacancy shall be filled by an election held at the first regular meeting after the occurrence of
such vacancy. The person so elected shall serve the balance of the term.
C. Duties of Officers. The Chairperson performs the following duties:
1. Presides at all meetings of the Commission.
2. Appoints committees and chairpersons of committees as necessary.
3. Signs correspondence on behalf of the Commission.
4. Represents the Commission before the City Council.
5. Performs other duties necessary or customary to the office.
D. The Committees. The Commission or the Chairperson, upon direction of the
Commission, may appoint several of its members, but fewer than a quorum, to serve as a
Committee. On certain occasions, such as when a particular kind of expertise or public
representation is desirable, the Commission may appoint non-members to the Committee.
Committees make recommendations directly to the Commission.
A Committee may not represent the Commission before the Council or other bodies unless it
has first received the authorization of the Commission to do so.
Bylaws and Rules of Procedure Page 3 of 3
Human Services Commission Adopted August 20, 2013
VI. MEETINGS
A. The Commission shall hold regular meetings at least once per quarter at a designated
time and place which shall be fixed and determined by the Commission and entered upon its
minutes. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public. Special meetings of the
Commission may be called by a majority of the members thereof, or by the Chairperson thereof.
Notice of any such special meeting shall be given as required by law.
B. A majority of the voting members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the
purpose of transacting business. The secretary shall keep minutes of all regular and special
meetings of the Commission, and these shall be sent to all members and administrative officers
in advance of the meeting in which they are to be approved.
VII. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION
A. The Commission shall consider and make recommendations as it deems necessary to
the City Council and to City Staff in all matters pertaining to human service needs in the Tri-
Valley. Such recommendations would include, but are not limited to the Community Grants
Program, the 2011 Tri-Valley Needs Assessment, and the federal Community Development Block
Grant Program.
VIII. DUTIES OF COMMISSION TO BE ADVISORY ONLY
A. It is intended that the Commission shall be an advisory body to the City Council.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed as a limitation on the power of the City Council or
the Administrative Staff of the City or any other agency in their supervision, or authority over
property or personnel which are under their respective jurisdictions.
IX. STAFF ASSISTANCE
A. The City Manager shall provide the Commission with such information and Staff
assistance as the Commission may, from time to time request, subject to the limitations
imposed by the City Council.
X. AMENDMENTS
A. These Bylaws and Rules of Procedure may be amended in the same manner as originally
adopted.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 16 November 2012
MMeeeettiinngg AAtttteennddaannccee
Every member of a Commission or Advisory Committee is required to regularly attend
the scheduled meetings of their particular Commission or Committee. The meeting
attendance and maintenance of membership guidelines are set forth in various sections
of the Dublin Municipal Code or individual Commission Bylaws, which are included as
attachments in this handbook.
In general, the Municipal Code and/or Commission Bylaws for the Planning
Commission, Parks and Community Services Commission, Heritage and Cultural Arts
Commission, and Senior Center Advisory Committee state that:
• No person shall serve on a Commission/Committee for more than two
consecutive four-year terms. A person shall be considered to have served a
“term” of office if such person has served for two years plus one day.
• A Commission/Committee member must attend 75% of meetings in a 12-month
period. In addition, they could be notified that the possibility of removal exists
after three consecutive absences, from regular and special meetings.
• A Commission/Committee member may be removed from office by the Mayor,
with the approval of a majority of the City Council. Removal and appointment
of Commissioners shall be made only at a regularly scheduled meeting of the
City Council.
OOppeenn MMeeeettiinngg RReeqquuiirreemmeennttss
Purpose: Open meeting laws represent the State Legislature’s determination of how the
balance should be struck between public access to the activities of a public body and the
need for candid discussion, debate, and information gathering not open to the public.
The balance has been struck in favor of public access and limitations on this access have
been construed narrowly.
The Ralph M. Brown Act, also known as the Open Meeting Law, was first enacted in
1953. In a nutshell, it requires local government business to be conducted in open and
public meetings. The Brown Act is based upon state policy that the people must be
informed so they can keep control over their government.
Who is Covered: “Legislative bodies” are the basic local governmental unit subject to the
Brown Act. A “legislative body” includes a commission or committee, whether the
commission or committee is decision-making or advisory. Even subcommittees which
are less than a quorum of the commission are subject to the Brown Act if the
subcommittee is a “standing” committee, i.e., one which has continuing subject matter
jurisdiction.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 17 November 2012
Public Meetings: The Brown Act (Attachment 7) requires that most meetings shall be
open to the public. A meeting, generally, occurs when a majority of the legislative body
gathers at the same time and in the same place to hear, discuss or deliberate upon
anything that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or city. In
order to be lawful, a meeting must be noticed, have an agenda, and other procedural
rules must be followed.
Commissions/Committees must be careful about “serial meetings.” These are meetings
by which a majority of the legislative body uses any direct communication or
technological device, such as telephone, fax, email, cellular phone, text, etc., to develop
collective concurrence on actions to be taken. These type meetings are by definition
unlawful because there is no way to notice such meetings or to provide for public
participation.
A majority of the legislative body, however, may attend a purely social gathering or
attend conferences or seminars without running afoul of the Brown Act, so long as a
majority does not discuss among themselves City business of a specific nature.
Finally, a legislative body can meet in closed session for certain express purposes such as
litigation, labor or property negotiations. Those exceptions, however, will rarely apply
to commissions or committees.
Private Meetings: Persons with development applications or other matters pending
before a Commission may approach individual Commissioners. Whether to meet
privately with such persons is always a difficult decision for a Commissioner to make.
To help make that decision, Commission members should remember the following
points:
• The public’s business should be discussed in public whenever possible.
• City Staff can advise you regarding the legality and/or propriety of private
meetings.
• The Commission will make better decisions when all members have access to the
same information.
• You should inform the full Commission at the public meeting when you have
held a private meeting.
Penalties: There are civil remedies and criminal misdemeanor penalties for Brown Act
violations. The civic remedies include injunctions against further violations, orders
nullifying any unlawful action, and orders determining the validity of any rule to
penalize or discourage the expression of a member of the legislative body. Criminal
penalties will result if a person is found guilty of a wrongful intent to deprive the public
of information to which it is entitled under the Brown Act.
Certainly the best way to avoid these type penalties is to conduct the Commission’s
meetings in public, keep to matters on the agenda, and check with the City Clerk if you
have any questions or doubts about whether an act may run afoul of the Brown Act.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 18 November 2012
MMeeeettiinngg PPrroocceedduurreess
Call to Order: The chairperson or vice chairperson shall call the meeting to order at the
hour appointed. In the absence of both, the meeting shall be called to order by a
Commissioner and those Commission members present shall proceed to elect a
temporary presiding officer.
Preservation of Order: The presiding officer shall preserve order and decorum, shall
prevent verbal attacks on Commission members, staff and/or citizens, and shall confine
debate to the item under discussion. The Commission, however, shall not prohibit
public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the
acts or omissions of the Commission. Commission members shall not delay or interrupt
the proceedings nor disturb another Commission member while speaking.
Disorderly Conduct: Any person whose conduct disrupts a meeting or its orderly
consideration of the public’s business may be barred from the meeting by the presiding
officer, unless permission to continue is granted by a majority vote of the Commission.
Point of Order: The purpose of a point of order is to correct a breach in the rules when
the presiding officer does not correct it, or when the presiding officer makes a breach of
the rules. It does not need a second, can interrupt a speaker, and is ruled upon by the
Chair. If a member does not agree with the Chair’s ruling, the member can appeal from
the decision of the Chair.
Motion to be Stated: The presiding officer shall state all motions submitted for a vote
and announce the result. A roll call vote shall be taken upon the request of any member.
Actions Limited to Posted Agenda Items/Matters too Late for the Agenda: No action
shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda unless: 1) the
Commission determines by majority vote that an emergency situation exists, as defined
in GC Section 54956.5; 2) the Commission determines by a two-thirds vote (i.e., 4/5 vote
for a five-member Commission or 5/7 vote for a seven-member Commission), or, if less
than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members
present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came
to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted; or 3) the item
was included in a posted agenda for a prior meeting held within five (5) calendar days
and was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken.
Public Comment: Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for
members of the public to directly address the Commission on any item of interest to the
public, before or during the Commission’s consideration of the item, that is within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that there be no discussion
nor action taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise
authorized by CG Section 54954.2(b). Citizens desiring to speak on an item not
scheduled on the agenda may do so under Oral Communications at the beginning of the
meeting.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 19 November 2012
PPuubblliicc HHeeaarriinnggss
Commencement: Noticed public hearings shall commence at the time specified in the
notice of hearing, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible, and shall continue until
completed, unless continued to another meeting date. Any public hearing may be
continued to a subsequent meeting by majority vote of the Commission.
Hearing Procedures: The presiding officer shall announce the subject of the public
hearing and declare the public hearing open. If necessary to assure completion of the
public hearing, the presiding officer may establish time limits for the presentations by
individual speakers.
To assure due process to all interested parties, the public hearing shall be conducted as
follows:
1. Review of Written Material/Oral Presentations
a. Generally, this includes review and filing of staff reports and other written
material included in the agenda packet. Members of the public are
encouraged to provide any written material to the Commission in advance of
the Commission meeting.
b. An oral report may be presented by a City Staff member.
c. Staff responds to Commission member questions.
2. Open Hearing for Public Comment
a. The purpose of the public comment portion of the hearing is to provide an
opportunity for concerned members of the audience to testify in support or
opposition to the matter being heard. In general, speaker order should be:
1) Summary presentation by Staff
2) Questions by Commission
3) Comments by Applicant
4) Comments by others in favor
5) Comments by those in opposition
6) Rebuttal by Applicant, if necessary
7) Additional comment by Staff, as appropriate
b. No person may speak without first being recognized by the presiding officer.
The presiding officer shall instruct speakers:
1) to complete a speaker card with the speaker’s name and address
(optional);
2) to speak from the podium;
3) to give their name and address (optional) before starting their
presentation, and to spell out their last name;
4) to keep comments within specified time limits, if any; and
5) to avoid repetition.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 20 November 2012
c. An effort will be made to answer questions from speakers at the end of the
public comment period, prior to Commission deliberation.
d. Members of the Commission may ask questions of speakers, or each other,
during the public comment portion to obtain information, without expressing
personal opinion or debating the merits of the item under consideration.
3. Deliberation
a. After determining that no other member of the audience wishes to speak, the
presiding officer shall declare the public hearing and comment opportunity
closed, and the matter returned to Commissioners for deliberation.
Thereafter, no additional testimony shall be received by the Commission
except as provided in 3b. below or upon reopening the public hearing.
b. While specific questions should be asked of the public prior to the close of the
public hearing, it is appropriate for a Commissioner to direct questions to
Staff, the applicant, or other members of the public before taking action.
4. Commission Action
a. The Commission may at this time:
1) Continue the public hearing. This should be done if any additional
information is requested (e.g. a staff report). After opening a public
hearing, continuing it to a specific date does not require additional
notice;
2) Close the public hearing, but continue debate and action to a later
time. Continuing to a specific date does not require additional notice;
3) Discuss/debate the issue and continue the item for action at a later
time; and
4) Close the public hearing, discuss/debate the issue, make a motion
and take action.
5. Permitting Public Comment After a Motion
a. After a motion has been made and seconded, the presiding officer may
permit further comment on the motion, provided no Commission member
objects. The purpose of this opportunity shall be to address matters specific
to the motion, and not to restate prior testimony. To do so, the presiding
officer must first reopen the public hearing.
b. After all such comment is heard, the presiding officer shall re-close the public
comment opportunity.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 21 November 2012
RRuulleess ooff DDeebbaattee
1. General
Prior to the making of a motion, it is acceptable for Commission members to state
their opinions on the item in question and to ask questions of staff, the public, and
other Commission members. Once all members have had such an opportunity, the
presiding officer shall request a motion.
2. Commission Members/Presiding Officer Right To Debate
Any Commission member, including the presiding officer, may make, second, and
debate motions. The presiding officer shall not be deprived of any rights and
privileges of a Commission member.
2. Qualification to Vote
Every Commission member and the Chairperson shall have the opportunity to
vote on any issue, except that a Commission member who has a conflict of interest
regarding a matter being considered by the Commission shall declare the conflict
and recuse him/herself from participating in any deliberations and decision
regarding that matter. A Commission member so recusing him/herself shall not
be allowed to vote on such matter. An official has a conflict of interest when it is
reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect,
distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a member of
his or her immediate family, or on any of their economic interests (Attachment 7,
Political Reform Act section, for further information).
4. Types of Motions
Motions shall be made and amended in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order
(Attachment 9). Generally, once a motion has been made and seconded, the
Commission may consider additional motions to amend, substitute, postpone, and
table the original motion.
5. Debate of Motions
a. Getting the Floor
Every member desiring to speak on a seconded motion shall address the
presiding officer, and, upon recognition, shall confine him/herself to the
question under debate, avoiding personalities and indecorous language.
Once recognized, the Commission member shall not be interrupted unless to
call him/her to order, or as herein otherwise provided.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 22 November 2012
b. Privilege of Closing Debate
Generally, after reasonable debate has been conducted, the presiding officer
will call for the question that will begin the voting procedure. The right to
call for the question, provided that reasonable debate has been conducted, is
retained by the Commission member who made the motion for approval or
denial of the item.
6. Voting Procedures
a. Presence for Vote
Any member of the Commission, once having answered the call of the roll or
having been noted as being present at a meeting, shall advise the presiding
officer prior to leaving the meeting for the remainder of a meeting.
A Commission member, once having answered the call of the roll or having
been noted as being present at a meeting, and not excused as herein
provided, has an obligation to vote on each and every matter considered by
the Commission even though he/she may temporarily be absent from the
Commission.
The vote on any matter being considered by the Commission may be delayed
by the presiding officer until all members of the Commission who are present
for a meeting and not excused as herein provided are present at the
Commission table.
Not withstanding other provisions of these policies, no Commission
member can be forced to vote.
A majority of the members present is required to take action.
b. Silence
During a collective vote (ayes & nays), silence of any member denotes
an affirmative vote.
7. Tie Votes
a. A tie vote on a motion shall be considered no action.
b. With respect to any matter on which the Commission is considering the
matter on an appeal, a tie vote on a motion shall be deemed no action and the
decision which was appealed shall stand.
Any person whose application is denied as a result of this policy may reapply
in accordance with the provisions of the Dublin Municipal Code. Nothing
contained in this policy shall prohibit a Commission member from
participating in a decision involving a resubmitted application if the
Commission member is no longer required to abstain.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 23 November 2012
8. Continuance of an Item
The following procedures are acceptable for continuing an item:
a. Continuance by a Commission Member
Any Commissioner may request to continue an item (not subject to a legally
or City-imposed deadline) to the next Commission meeting or to another
date agreeable to a majority of the Commission. An agenda item may be
continued only once using this procedure.
b. Continuance Requested by Someone Not a Commission Member
Anyone may request a continuance of an item and the Commission, by a
majority vote, may grant one continuance, provided however, that a request
for a further continuance may be granted by a 4/5 vote of the Commission
only if it finds that:
1) the need for the continuance was beyond the control of the person
requesting it, and
2) the need for the continuance arose after (a) the date of the notice of
public hearing was published if the item is subject to a public hearing,
or (b) the time the Commission agenda was posted for items not
subject to a public hearing.
9. Protests
Any Commission member shall have the right to enter into public record reasons
for dissent or protests against any motion carried by the majority.
10. Motion to Reconsider
Any member who voted with the majority may move for reconsideration of any
action at the same meeting or at the next regular meeting, providing no legal
rights have intervened to create an estoppel. A majority of the Commission
present must approve the motion to reconsider. After a motion for
reconsideration has once been acted on, no other motion for reconsideration
thereof shall be made without unanimous consent.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 24 November 2012
CCooddee ooff CCoonndduucctt
Commissioners have an obligation to represent the community in an open and honest
manner. In doing so, individuals must avoid placing themselves in a position which
tends in any way to bring their private interests into conflict with their official duties.
Commissioners should conduct themselves in a dignified and courteous manner. It is
important that each member work to establish a good working relationship with other
members of the group, and make every attempt to respect the other person’s viewpoint.
In order to minimize conflict of interest exposure and to maintain a high level of trust
with the community, a Code of Ethics is established as follows:
The Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA), as amended, establishes conflict of interest
guidelines for elected officials and certain appointed officials (including Planning
Commissioners). In addition, the City Council has adopted a Conflict of Interest Code
for designated City employees and certain consultants. The following guidelines are
established to highlight and augment the PRA and the adopted Conflict of Interest
Code.
1. No elected or appointed official (including Commission and Advisory Committee
Members) or employees of the City of Dublin shall engage in any business or
transaction or shall have financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which
is incompatible with the proper discharge of his/her official duties or which would
tend to impair his/her independence or judgment or action in the performance of
such duties. Examples of such activities include, but are not necessarily limited to,
the following:
a. Using the prestige or influence of the City office for private gain or advantage
of him/herself or another, unless so specified by contract.
b. Using time, facilities, equipment or supplies of the City of Dublin for private
gain or advantage of him/herself.
c. Using official information not available to the general public for his/her
private gain or advantage or that of another.
d. Receiving or accepting money or other personal consideration from anyone
other than the City of Dublin for the performance of work done or actions
taken in the regular course of duties for the City of Dublin.
e. Receiving or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift or favor from anyone
doing business with the City of Dublin under circumstances from which it
could reasonably be inferred that such was intended to influence him/her in
his/her official duties, or as a reward for official action.
f. Engaging in or accepting private employment or rendering services for
private interests that may inhibit the proper discharge of his/her official
duties.
2. Elected and appointed officials shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act and all
applicable open meeting laws.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 25 November 2012
3. Every elected official, officer, appointee, consultant or contract personnel of the City
of Dublin shall disclose completely the nature and extent of any interest, direct or
indirect, which conflicts with his/her responsibility or duty.
In addition to the above, the PRA requires State and local agencies to adopt and
promulgate conflict of interest codes. The City’s conflict of interest code is included in
Section 2.24 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
In general, the code requires certain City officials and employees to file statements of
economic interests with the City Clerk. Once completed, the City Clerk will forward
appropriate statements to the State Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The
Planning Commission is the only Commission required by State law to file a statement
of economic interest. The City Clerk will provide the necessary forms and any
information required to complete this documentation.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1234, if the City provides compensation, salary, stipend or
reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses to a member of a legislative body,
then all “local agency officials” must receive ethics training in compliance with AB 1234.
Therefore, all Commission and Committee members will receive at least two hours of
training in general ethics principals or ethics law relevant to his or her public service
every two years.
City Officials, as well as City Staff, are also expected to adhere to certain standards and
protocol as defined in the City’s Administrative Policies (see Attachment 8) related to
Drug Free Workplace Policy, Harassment Policy/Complaint Procedures, and Official
Travel and Other Business and Reimbursement of Expenses Policy. Questions regarding
these policies should be directed to your Staff liaison or the City Manager.
RReessppoonnssiibbiilliittiieess ooff CCoommmmiissssiioonneerrss
To be selected as an active member of a Commission provides an opportunity for
genuine public service. Although the duties of each Commission vary widely, there are
certain responsibilities that are common to all Commission members. The following is a
summary of the important responsibilities of Commission members:
Understand the Role and Responsibilities of the Commission: One of the first
responsibilities of a new member is to understand the Commission’s scope of
responsibility and operating procedures. This information may be obtained by referring
to your Commission Bylaws (attached herein). The Planning Commission should also
be familiar with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. City Staff will provide
copies of this information to Planning Commissioners upon your appointment to that
Commission. Other Commissions may receive this information upon request.
The City Staff responsible for the programs within each Commission’s scope of interest
are available to assist new members in becoming familiar with their roles and their
duties and will provide information about City policies, minutes of past meetings, and
other helpful data.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 26 November 2012
Be Careful to Represent the Entire Commission: Individual members should refrain
from representing their views or recommendations as those of the Commission unless
the Commission has officially voted to approve the recommendation. Commission
members making recommendations or expressing views not approved by the majority
of the Commission should indicate that they are representing only themselves as
individuals. When making statements to the press, members should indicate which
actions are only recommendations and indicate when final action will be taken by the
City Council or the Commission.
Represent the Whole City: Although Commission members may be selected, in part,
because they represent clearly defined groups, once selected, each Commission member
should represent the entire public interest of the City and not just his/her respective
group or interest. The question, “What is best for the entire community?” should take
precedence over “What is best for my interest group?”
Keep the Lines of Communication Open: As an influential member of the community, a
Commissioner is in the unique position of serving as a liaison between the City and the
general public in helping to reconcile contradictory viewpoints and building a
consensus around common goals and objectives. A Commissioner must serve as a link
between the community, Staff, and City by presenting City programs and
recommendations and also providing a channel for citizen expression. A primary role of
the Commission is to determine the attitudes of the citizens concerning City programs.
Do Your Homework and Be Thorough in Your Recommendations: Commission
members, in connection with their role, often spend many hours in research on a
particular problem. Commissioners should be familiar with the portions of the General
Plan, Municipal Code, and Zoning Ordinance applicable to their area of responsibility
and should thoroughly review staff reports, plans, and material submitted by the
applicant in advance of meetings. You may contact the Staff person assigned to your
Commission to request this information.
Be Conscious of Your Relationship to the City Council, Other Commissions and City
Staff: It is important to remember that City Staff works for the City Manager, and
through him, for the City Council and the community at large. Staff does not work for
Commission members. It is, therefore, not appropriate for Commissioners to direct Staff
or to become involved in the administrative or operational concerns of the City
departments. While Staff can provide routine information on ongoing projects, a formal
request to the City Council must be made for Staff involvement in major projects.
If Commissioners have questions or are concerned with Staff services provided to the
Commission, the City Manager should be contacted immediately to review the matter.
City Staff is required by the City Council to make individual professional
recommendations which may, or may not, agree with those of the Commission. Staff is
required to present fairly the Commission’s recommendations and explain them, but
will not defend them if in disagreement. When appropriate, the Commission Chair or
delegated representatives should be present at the City Council meeting to report on the
Commission’s recommendations.
Commissioner’s Resource Book 27 November 2012
Your Commission is not a substitute for regularly constituted government. The
responsibility for allocating scarce public resources rests with the community’s elected
representatives, the City Council, and cannot be designated to an outside group,
however capable and interested it might be.
Commissions should review City policies related to programs under their scope of
interest and make recommendations for changes to the City Council. However,
Commissions must adhere to the policies approved by the City Council as expressed in
the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other official documents.
Establish a Good Working Relationship with Other Commission Members: On many
occasions, the success or failure of the efforts of a Commission member is largely
dependent on the degree of cooperation among the individual members of the
Commission. To help build a consensus around common goals and objectives,
Commission members will often have to reconcile contradictory viewpoints.
Each Commission member should do his/her part to ensure that meetings proceed in an
orderly and constructive manner. The Chair is primarily responsible for seeing that
consideration of items on the agenda move along without delay, but with reasonable
time allocated to each item. Each Commission member can assist the Chair by becoming
familiar with the basic rules of parliamentary procedure and by adequately preparing
any presentations he/she makes to the Commission.
Political Participation: No restriction is placed on Commissioners’ participation in
political activities at all levels of the government, whether local, state or federal. If
Commissioners use the title of their appointed office when participating in these
activities, they must make it clear that they are not representing or speaking for the
Commission, but rather using the title for identification.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY!
G:\Commissioners Handbook 2012\Tab 13 Travel Expense Report.xls Page 1 of 4 See "Notes" page for the references noted above
Form Date 01/03/2013
Itemized Receipts & Course or Conference Itinerary shall be provided for all items listed in the cost categories below.
This form must be filed within 14 calendar days from the final day of business related travel.
DUE TO BILLING DEADLINES - IF THE CITY CREDIT CARD IS USED PLEASE COMPLETE & FORWARD EARLIER IF POSSIBLE
EMPLOYEE NAME: CLAIM DATE:
NAME OF EVENT ACCT NO.:
DATES OF EVENT Total
1 CALCULATION OF MAX Breakfast (Max. $12)12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
2 MEALS BASED ON REG Lunch (Max. $18)18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00
3 Dinner (Max. $36)36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00
4 Incidentals (Max. $5) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
5 (Rate as of 10/01/2011)Sub-Total Authorized (Sum 1-4)71.00 71.00 71.00 71.00 71.00
EXPENSE CATEGORY TOTALS
6 MEALS(1)Breakfast - City Credit Card
7 Lunch - City Credit Card
8 Dinner - City Credit Card
9 Incidentals - City Credit Card
10 Breakfast - EMPLOYEE (EE) PAID
11 Lunch - EMPLOYEE (EE) PAID
12 Dinner - EMPLOYEE (EE) PAID
13 Incidentals - EMPLOYEE (EE) PAID
14 Sub-Total Actual Expense - - - - -
15 Less: Credit Card ineligible (enter as a minus)
16 Less: Employee Pd ineligible (enter as a minus)
17 Net To Be Considered (Sum of Lines 14-16)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
18 (Lesser of Line 5 or Line 17)
City of Dublin - Travel Expense Report Form
***For expenses not prepaid in advance by a City check or credit card***
(Meals included with event /
conference are not
reimbursable Mark Cell as
G:\Commissioners Handbook 2012\Tab 13 Travel Expense Report.xls Page 2 of 4 See "Notes" page for the references noted above
Form Date 01/03/2013
EMPLOYEE NAME: CLAIM DATE:
NAME OF EVENT ACCT NO.:
DATES OF EVENT Total
MEAL EXPENSE RECAP
19 Credit Card - Gross Meal Amount Charged 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20 Credit Card - Amount Ineligible To Be Paid By Employee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21 TOTAL CREDIT CARD MEALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
22 Employee Meal Expenditures (w/o ineligible)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 Adjustment For Exceeding Max Per Day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24 TOTAL EE Reimburse Net Of Adj Meals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 MILEAGE(2)Input Number of Miles each day
20 IRS rate 1/1/13-12/31/13 $0.565 $0.00
21 Telephone Calls City Credit Card
22 Personal (3)Employee Paid
23 TOTAL - - - - -
24 MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE $10 In CA/ $20
Outside CA
25 ADJUSTMENTS
PERSONAL CALLS
Less Over Limit On City Credit Card To Be
Reimbursed By Employee - - - - -
26 Less: EE Adj For Over Limit - - - - -
27 Net (Max allow line # 24)- - - - -
28 Telephone Calls City Credit Card
29 Business Related Employee Paid
30 TOTAL - - - - -
G:\Commissioners Handbook 2012\Tab 13 Travel Expense Report.xls Page 3 of 4 See "Notes" page for the references noted above
Form Date 01/03/2013
EMPLOYEE NAME: CLAIM DATE:
NAME OF EVENT ACCT NO.:
DATES OF EVENT Total
31 LODGING(4)City Credit Card
32 Employee Paid - Eligible Only
33 TOTAL - - - - -
34 Adj for ineligible charges on City Credit Card
(Reimburse by EE)
35 TRANSPORTATION(2)City Credit Card - AIRFARE 0.00
36 Air Fare / Rental Car City Credit Card - RENTAL CAR 0.00
Baggage Fee City Credit Card - Gas/Parking/Tolls 0.00
37 TAXI City Credit Card - TAXI 0.00
38 Employee - AIRFARE 0.00
39 Employee - RENTAL CAR 0.00
Employee - Gas/Parking/Tolls 0.00
40 Employee - TAXI 0.00
41 Employee Adjustments 0.00
42 TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
43 OTHER INCIDENTALS(5)City Credit Card
44 Employee Paid
45 TOTAL - - - - -
G:\Commissioners Handbook 2012\Tab 13 Travel Expense Report.xls Page 4 of 4 See "Notes" page for the references noted above
Form Date 01/03/2013
EMPLOYEE NAME: CLAIM DATE:
NAME OF EVENT ACCT NO.:
DATES OF EVENT Total
Meals Mileage
Personal
Calls
Business
Calls Lodging
Transport
ation
Other
Incidentals Total
46 CREDIT CARD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
47 TOTAL CITY CREDIT CARD 0.00
48 EE AMOUNT REIMB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
49 EE Reimb Owed For
Card expenses EE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
50 Adjustments Other:0.00
51
52 TOTAL EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT 0.00
53 Grand Total (Category)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
54 GRAND TOTAL THIS EXPENSE REPORT 0.00
CLAIMANT SIGNATURE DATEDEPT HEAD OR DESIGNEE SIGNATURE (if
Claimant is Dept Head, please have CM or ACM sign)
By my signature, I hereby certify that the statements herein are true and correct, that the reimbursement for travel expenses claimed was necessary and
incurred during the performance of my official duties, and that all reimbursements requested adhere to the City's adopted travel and expense and credit card
policies adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 53232.2 for the expenditure of public resources.
Robert's Rules of Order Motions Chart
Based on Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th Edition)
Part 1, Main Motions. These motions are listed in order of precedence. A motion can be
introduced if it is higher on the chart than the pending motion. § indicates the section from
Robert's Rules.
§ PURPOSE: YOU SAY: INTERRUPT? 2ND? DEBATE? AMEND? VOTE?
§21 Close
meeting
I move to
adjourn No Yes No No Majority
§20 Take break
I move to
recess for
...
No Yes No Yes Majority
§19 Register
complaint
I rise to
a question
of privilege
Yes No No No None
§18 Make follow
agenda
I call for the
orders of
the day
Yes No No No None
§17 Lay aside
temporarily
I move to
lay the
question on
the table
No Yes No No Majority
§16 Close debate
I move the
previous
question
No Yes No No 2/3
§15
Limit or
extend
debate
I move
that debate
be limited to
...
No Yes No Yes 2/3
§14 Postpone to
a certain time
I move to
postpone
the motion
to ...
No Yes Yes Yes Majority
§13 Refer to
committee
I move to
refer the
motion to ...
No Yes Yes Yes Majority
§12
Modify
wording of
motion
I move to
amend the
motion by
...
No Yes Yes Yes Majority
§11 Kill
main motion
I move that
the motion
be
postponed
indefinitely
No Yes Yes No Majority
§10
Bring
business
before
assembly (a
main motion)
I move that
[or "to"] ... No Yes Yes Yes Majority
Part 2, Incidental Motions. No order of precedence. These motions arise incidentally and are decided
immediately.
§ PURPOSE: YOU SAY: INTERRUPT? 2ND? DEBATE? AMEND? VOTE?
§23 Enforce rules Point of Order Yes No No No None
§24 Submit matter
to assembly
I appeal from
the decision of
the chair
Yes Yes Varies No Majority
§25 Suspend rules
I move to
suspend the
rules
No Yes No No 2/3
§26
Avoid main
motion
altogether
I object to the
consideration
of the question
Yes No No No 2/3
§27 Divide motion
I move to
divide the
question
No Yes No Yes Majority
§29 Demand a
rising vote
I move for a
rising vote Yes No No No None
§33 Parliamentary
law question
Parliamentary
inquiry Yes No No No None
§33 Request for
information
Point of
information Yes No No No None
Part 3, Motions That Bring a Question Again Before the Assembly.
No order of precedence. Introduce only when nothing else is pending.
§ PURPOSE: YOU
SAY: INTERRUPT? 2ND? DEBATE? AMEND? VOTE?
§34 Take matter
from table
I move to
take from
the table ...
No Yes No No Majority
§35
Cancel
previous
action
I move to
rescind ... No Yes Yes Yes 2/3 or Majority with
notice
§37 Reconsider
motion
I move to
reconsider
...
No Yes Varies No Majority
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
FEBRUARY 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 2
“Once you are living below the poverty level, you cannot pull yourself out. You have car
repairs, or other issues, and then you cannot get to services you need and you can’t get
your kids to and from school. It is a downhill slide. Now with the economy, the food
budget does not go as far. People are going to food pantries who have never gone
before. There is no incentive to get out of the mess they are in. There is no extra help.”
– Focus Group Participant
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 3
Acknowledgements
This report could not have been completed without the support and participation of the cities of Dublin,
Livermore, and Pleasanton and social service providers throughout Eastern Alameda County. In addition,
thanks are due to all of the residents of the Tri‐Valley who took the time to participate in our focused
discussion groups and complete surveys, without which a comprehensive understanding of social service
needs would not have been possible. Beyond the above, RDA would like to thank the following
individuals for their significant efforts and guidance: Kathleen Yurchak, Community Services Manager,
City of Pleasanton, Jean Prasher, Human Services Program Manager, City of Livermore, and Gaylene
Burkett, Administrative Analyst, City of Dublin.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 4
Table of Contents
Eastern Alameda County ............................................................................................................................... 1
2011 Human Services Needs Assessment: Findings Report ......................................................................... 1
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables and Figures .............................................................................................................................. 7
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
Growing Demand for Services ............................................................................................................ 10
Decreasing and Stagnating Supply of Services ................................................................................... 10
Impact of Supply and Demand Mismatch ........................................................................................... 11
Introduction and Project Overview............................................................................................................. 13
Background ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Vision ....................................................................................... 15
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 16
U.S. Census, American Community Survey and Alameda County Social Service Utilization Data ............. 16
Hard to Reach Population Survey ............................................................................................................... 17
Social Service Provider Survey .................................................................................................................... 17
Key Informant Interviews............................................................................................................................ 18
List of Key Informants ................................................................................................................................. 18
Focus Groups............................................................................................................................................... 19
Demographic Findings ................................................................................................................................ 20
Population Growth .............................................................................................................................. 20
Language ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Income Levels ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Provider Survey Findings ............................................................................................................................. 27
Hard to Reach Population Survey Findings ................................................................................................. 30
Findings by Area of Concern ....................................................................................................................... 33
Behavioral Health ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 34
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 5
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 35
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 35
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 37
Affordable Housing ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Key Findings from Pleasanton Housing Element (2007‐2011) ........................................................... 38
Key Findings from Dublin Housing Element (2009‐2014) ................................................................... 38
Key Findings from Livermore Housing Element (2009‐2014) ............................................................. 38
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 39
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 40
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 42
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 42
Health Care ................................................................................................................................................. 43
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 43
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 43
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 44
Current Gaps in Services or Barriers to Improving Services ............................................................... 44
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 45
Workforce Development ............................................................................................................................ 46
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 46
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 46
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 47
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 48
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 48
Homelessness ............................................................................................................................................. 49
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 49
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 50
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 50
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 51
Transportation Services and Access ............................................................................................................ 53
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 53
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 53
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 54
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 54
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 55
Domestic Violence/Child Abuse .................................................................................................................. 55
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 55
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 55
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 56
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 56
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 56
Disabilities ................................................................................................................................................... 57
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 6
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 57
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 57
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 57
Current Gaps in Services or Barriers to Improving Services ............................................................... 58
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 59
Food and Nutrition ...................................................................................................................................... 60
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 60
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 60
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 61
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 61
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 61
Senior Services ............................................................................................................................................ 62
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 62
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 62
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 63
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 63
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 64
Youth Services ............................................................................................................................................. 65
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 65
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 65
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 67
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 68
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 69
Child Care, Early Childhood Development and Education .......................................................................... 70
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 70
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 70
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 71
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 71
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 72
Changing Demographics and Growing Diversity ......................................................................................... 72
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 72
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 72
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 73
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 74
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 75
Financial Assistance .................................................................................................................................... 75
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 76
Community Issues ............................................................................................................................... 76
Service Delivery Environment ............................................................................................................. 76
Gaps and Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 76
Suggestions for Improvement ............................................................................................................ 76
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 77
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 7
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 78
Develop a strategic plan based on findings from the 2011 Eastern Alameda County Human Services
Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 78
Increase collaboration to improve outcomes for individuals and communities ................................ 78
Focus on outreach ................................................................................................................................... 79
Support the Next Generation of Young Adults ....................................................................................... 81
APPENDIX A: KI Interview Questions .......................................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX B: KI Data Results ....................................................................................................................... 84
APPENDIX C: Focus Group List and Participant Count ................................................................................ 85
APPENDIX D: Focus Group Questions ......................................................................................................... 86
APPENDIX F: Provider Survey Respondent Organizations .......................................................................... 88
APPENDIX G: Provider Survey .................................................................................................................... 89
APPENDIX H: Hard to Reach Population Survey ......................................................................................... 96
APPENDIX I: Hard to Reach Population Survey Respondents ..................................................................... 99
APPENDIX J: Organizations that Attended Community Meetings ............................................................ 101
APPENDIX K: Organizations that Received the Provider Survey ............................................................... 103
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: List of Key Informants .................................................................................................................... 19
Table 2: Focused Discussion Groups ........................................................................................................... 19
Table 3: Population Count by Household Language by City ....................................................................... 24
Table 4: California Healthy Kids Survey Reporting on Alcohol and Drug Use ............................................. 66
Table 5: California Healthy Kids Survey Reporting on Cigarette UseLocation ......................................... 66
Table 6: California Healthy Kids Survey Reporting on Alcohol and Drug Use ............................................. 66
Table 7: California Health Kids Survey Reporting On Violence and Safety Table 8: California Healthy Kids
Survey Reporting on Cigarette Use ............................................................................................................. 66
Figure 1: Eastern Alameda Population Pyramid (Darkest grade: 1990; Mid grade: growth to 2000;
Lightest grade: growth to 2010) Source: US Census/American Community Survey ................................... 20
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 8
Figure 2: Eastern Alameda Population Growth by City ............................................................................... 21
Figure 3: Dublin Population by Ethnicity ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 4: Livermore Population by Ethnicity ............................................................................................... 22
Figure 5: Pleasanton Population by Ethnicity ............................................................................................. 22
Figure 6: Linguistic Isolation in Eastern Alameda County ........................................................................... 23
Figure 7: Percent of Tri‐Valley Population in Poverty ................................................................................. 25
Figure 8: % of Population Receiving General Assistance ............................................................................ 25
Figure 9: % of Population Receiving Food Stamps ...................................................................................... 26
Figure 10: % of Population Receiving CalWorks ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 11: % of Population Receiving Medi‐Cal .......................................................................................... 26
Figure 12: Average Score That Populations Receive Adequate Services ..................................................... 27
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 9
Executive Summary
In early 2011, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton joined together to conduct a broad‐based
assessment of human service needs in Eastern Alameda County 1 . This report expands upon an earlier
Needs Assessment, which was conducted in 2003. Much in the Tri‐Valley has changed since the early
2000s, and additional data from the 2010 U.S. Census and American Community Survey is now available
to demonstrate demographic and economic trends. This report documents many of these changes and
draws on a wide range of community member and service provider perspectives to help demonstrate
how these changes affect the lives of vulnerable residents and the services they receive.
Methods
The Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore contracted with Resource Development Associates
(RDA), a local consulting firm specializing in strategic planning and evaluation for local government and
nonprofit entities, to facilitate a community‐driven Needs Assessment process. RDA uses a mixed‐
method research approach that draws upon quantitative (hard numbers based on large public data
bases and surveys) as well as qualitative (subjective interviews, focus groups, etc.) data sources.
The 2011 Needs Assessment began with the formation of the Eastern Alameda County Human Services
Steering Committee, which includes diverse leadership from city staff, former elected officials,
commissioners, and nonprofit organizations. This committee was tasked with identifying community
stakeholders, reviewing findings, and developing a vision statement to help guide current and future
activities associated with addressing human service needs in the Tri‐Valley.
Data sources for this Needs Assessment include:
• 1990, 2000, and 2010 U.S. Census and American Community Survey data to compare population
demographics across time and between jurisdictions;
• Alameda County Social Service Department reports to demonstrate changes in demand for
services over time;
• Paper and web‐based surveys administered to local service providers and service recipients to
identify the most critical needs, gaps and barriers;
• Key Informant Interviews held with civic, community, and human service organization
leadership to qualify findings and understand the needs of local residents from a high‐level,
broad‐based perspective;
• Focus groups held with service recipients to understand how service delivery systems or gaps in
services impact individual consumers; and
• Community‐wide meetings in Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore to corroborate initial findings
and seek recommendations for improving human services.
1 The authors use the terms “Eastern Alameda County”, “Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore”, and “Tri‐
Valley” interchangeably throughout this report.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 10
Key Findings
Overall, the 2011 Needs Assessment discovered that in Eastern Alameda County there is a significant
and increasing disparity between the growing demand for human services and a stagnating, and at
times, declining supply of services. In other words, the quality of life for many residents is deteriorating,
and at the same time, they are able to access fewer and fewer resources to help them recover. While
this phenomenon is not necessarily unique to the Tri‐Valley, the assessment also found that there are
two distinctive challenges facing the area. First, there is a perception from both outside and within the
Tri‐Valley that because the area is relatively prosperous (compared to the County as a whole) there are
few poor people and therefore no need for service delivery expansion. Secondly, the perception of
relative wealth and privilege has resulted in a sense of stigma associated with asking for help among
individuals and families who are experiencing financial hardship and/or decline in wellbeing due to
illness, age, or other transitions. As a result, many who could benefit most from services are not seeking
them out.
Growing Demand for Services
Population data from the U.S. Census suggest several trends that impact the local demand for services.
First, the overall population in Eastern Alameda County has increased by 51% between 1990 and 2010
(130,540 to 197,289). Significant population growth has occurred among older adults, who are often
most dependent on human services such as supportive housing, long‐term care, in‐home support and
public transportation. The population of both men and women over the age of 85 has tripled between
1990 and 2010. In addition, the population of Hispanic/Latinos and Asian/Pacific Islanders has grown
disproportionately compared to Caucasians and African Americans within the Tri‐Valley. For
Asian/Pacific Islanders, the increase in population has resulted in a corresponding increase in
linguistically isolated households, suggesting that many of the newcomers are recent immigrants with
unique linguistic and cultural service needs.
The demand for services has increased due to current economic trends as well. There was a 58%
increase in the number of individuals in poverty in Eastern Alameda County from 1990 to 2010.
Unemployment rates have risen from below 2% in 2000 to nearly 7% in 2010; and the proportion of
residents receiving general assistance, CalWorks, food stamps, and Medi‐Cal have increased
dramatically. The number of residents receiving food stamps increased from 651 to 4,460 (585%)
between 2003 and 2011 and Medi‐Cal recipients increased from 3,287 to 11,117 (238%) in the same
time period. At the same time, mortgages have ballooned; foreclosures and those at risk of foreclosure
have increased, and market rents have remained constant or have increased. As of 2010, over 30% of
renting households are paying over 35% of their gross income on rent.
Decreasing and Stagnating Supply of Services
The supply of services in Eastern Alameda County has not kept pace with the growing demand; in fact
nearly every service provider interviewed reported budget contractions in recent years. For example,
there are currently no Adult Day Care programs in Eastern Alameda County. The Tri‐Valley YMCA is
currently preparing to open a social Adult Day Care program, in part with philanthropic support. Yet, due
to cuts in State Medicare, the Tri‐Valley YMCA will not be able to expand this social program to include a
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 11
licensed Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) program to meet the needs of low income seniors with health‐
related issues. Other funding restrictions have led to staff reductions at Senior Centers, and reductions
in Paratransit and In‐Home Supportive Services. Budget cuts have also reportedly resulted in reduced
public transportation services, elimination of activities for the developmentally disabled, and reduced
public school staffing. In a survey of Tri‐Valley human service providers, 95% of respondents stated that
they would need more money to provide those services they think are most critical. Critical services they
are unable to provide include mental health care, transportation, substance abuse services, homeless
and affordable housing services.
Both service recipients and providers throughout the assessment process reported that the problems
associated with service delivery in the Tri‐Valley had less to do with the quality of services but rather,
that there were simply not enough services available to meet the demand. Stakeholders described long
waiting lists for affordable housing; subsidized child care and after school care; daytime activities for the
developmentally disabled; and behavioral and specialty physical health care.
While the population of Eastern Alameda County has grown and there are greater demands for human
services, the area remains geographically isolated relative to other cities within Alameda County.
Stakeholders described the Tri‐Valley as the County’s “stepchild” and perceive that some providers
outside the area are not aware of the issues and challenges faced by residents, or even that the cities of
Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton are located within Alameda County. Other stakeholders report that on
a per‐capita basis, the Tri‐Valley receives fewer resources than other areas within the County. At the
same time, the Tri‐Valley area is more geographically dispersed. Many critical services are located
outside the Tri‐Valley, including specialty medical and behavioral health care. As a result, transportation
cost and duration is one of the most significant barriers to receiving services. Other services, such as hot
meals, are provided at a different location each day of the week to accommodate the geographic
dispersal. These transportation‐related barriers disproportionately affect the elderly, persons with
disabilities and families with young children.
Impact of Supply and Demand Mismatch
As described above, the residents of Eastern Alameda County who are most affected by the imbalance
between supply of and demand for services include older adults, individuals with disabilities, and
families with young children. In addition, according to a provider survey, the populations who are least
likely to receive adequate services include those living below the poverty level, the mentally ill, the
homeless and those at‐risk of homelessness, the working poor and non‐English speakers.
According to the providers surveyed, many Tri‐Valley residents do not receive critical services most
notably because of a lack of knowledge of what services are available. Similarly, in a survey of hard to
reach populations, 38% reported that they did not know where to get the help that they needed. During
discussions with providers, many reported a desire to reach out to underserved populations, but also a
fear that by doing so, waiting lists would expand even further.
Service providers in the Tri‐Valley are profoundly aware of the economic and social pressures affecting
many of the community’s vulnerable individuals and families. At the same time, they are expected to do
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 12
more with fewer resources. They are looking at creative strategies to improve service coordination;
leverage resources through increased collaboration; educate their workforce about the changing
demographics and increasing diversity; inform residents about available services and supports; and
measure and improve outcomes through more effective and evidence‐based programs.
Report Structure
This Needs Assessment begins with a vision statement, developed by the Needs Assessment Steering
Committee, of how human services should be delivered in the Tri Valley. We then describe many of the
economic and social trends that are affecting Tri‐Valley residents. This is followed by a description of
findings from provider and hard‐to‐reach population surveys, which articulate the perceived needs and
gaps in service delivery across a wide spectrum of areas of concern.
In the next section of the report, fourteen distinct human service areas of concern (such as affordable
housing, behavioral health care, disability services, transportation, etc.) are described in terms of
current service needs, gaps and barriers to receiving services, how services are delivered, and
recommendations for improving services. The report concludes with a summary of key findings and
recommendations for system‐level improvements in human service delivery in the Tri‐Valley.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 13
Introduction and Project Overview
“The demographics of people who are seeking help have changed. Open Heart Kitchen
for example says that they are now seeing people drive up in luxury autos. When you live
in an area where the most affordable homes are $600,000, you might say of course, like
everyone else, they have needs, but if the family is out of work, it might look like
everything is fine but it is not.” –Key Informant Interview
Background
In 2003, the Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore
commissioned their first Human Services Needs Assessment,
which provided the Tri‐Valley Region with critical local data
for programmatic, policy, and resource allocation decision
making. Socio‐economic conditions have changed since
2003; the demand for human services has increased, yet the
supply of resources to meet these demands has not
followed suit. Service providers are being asked to do more
with less. In 2010, the three cities that comprise the Tri‐
Valley (Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton) decided that a
follow up to the 2003 report was needed to determine what
has changed since the initial report. The goal of the 2011
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
is to update and expand upon the 2003 findings,
demonstrate current and future human service needs and
service delivery gaps, and to provide recommendations to
Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, the County of Alameda,
and community‐based institutions on how to move forward towards addressing the human service
needs of residents.
In early 2011, the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton commissioned Resource Development
Associates (RDA), a consulting firm specializing in planning, evaluation and grant writing for local
government and nonprofit initiatives, to facilitate a community‐based, data‐driven, assessment process.
In order to ensure that the process encompassed representation from the broadest possible stakeholder
perspectives, the consulting team and city staff (Kathleen Yurchak of Pleasanton, Jean Prasher of
Livermore and Gaylene Burkett of Dublin), formed a Needs Assessment Steering Committee comprised
of local service providers and governance leadership. The Steering Committee developed a vision for
future human service efforts in Eastern Alameda County, helped to ensure that the process was
inclusive and representative of the diverse communities within Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, and
reviewed findings to ensure accuracy and completeness. This report is the product of these efforts.
Key Objectives for Human Service
Needs Assessment
• Build consensus on most urgent
community needs, identifying:
o gaps in services
o opportunities or
resources that can be
leveraged
• Help prioritize community‐
building efforts
• Build capacity to collaborate
between agencies and across
jurisdictions
• Establish basis for resource
development
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 14
Overview
The Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, referred
to interchangeably as Eastern Alameda County and the
Tri‐Valley, are geographically and culturally distinct from
other cities within Alameda County. The center of County
government and most nonprofit services are
concentrated “over the hill” in Oakland, Hayward and San
Leandro. Some people in western Alameda County are
not even aware that Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton are part of the County, and many others believe
that due to the relative prosperity of the Tri‐Valley, there are very few people in need of services. The
purpose of this Human Services Needs Assessment is to cast light on the myriad issues faced by lower‐
income and other vulnerable residents within the Tri‐Valley, and to demonstrate the gaps and barriers
associated with meeting human service needs. This Assessment examines the need for services across a
broad range of service delivery systems, including physical and behavioral health, nutrition and food
security, housing and homeless services, education and child development, transportation, and financial
assistance. Because human service needs are interconnected and mutually reinforcing, the report
focuses on the impact of service delivery systems on the people needing the services. This population‐
based approach provides a system‐level rather than a program‐level perspective. This report is not
intended to serve as an evaluation of individual programs; it does not suggest which services in which
area are most effective or least effective. It does, however, provide critical data on key population
demographics impacting service delivery systems, service accessibility, barriers to addressing needs,
existing gaps in services, and, finally, opportunities to address existing and future needs and gaps.
The analysis in this report is based upon quantitative and qualitative data from a range of sources,
including the U.S. Census, the American Community Survey, and Alameda County Social Services Agency.
In addition, 18 interviews with community leaders, 14 focus groups with social service recipients, a Hard
to Reach Population Survey with over 300 responses, and a Social Service Provider Survey completed by
over 70 representatives of 38 Eastern Alameda County social service organizations provided additional
local data. Additional qualitative data was collected during community‐wide meetings held in each of
the three cities in September 2011.
Both the qualitative and quantitative data continues to demonstrate that even during relatively
prosperous times, there was a need for welfare, homeless, food and nutrition and other critical services.
What is new in the current economic climate is the increased need for services among the recently
unemployed and those suffering the consequences of the housing market downturn. At the same time,
the demographic makeup of the Tri‐Valley is changing, with a rapidly growing Asian/Pacific Islander
community and a significant increase in seniors, particularly those over the age of 85. These
demographic shifts, coupled with diminishing resources and budgetary constraints, has transformed and
stressed existing systems of social service provision.
“I went to speak to someone at the
County and they said, ‘Why are you
even talking to me, Pleasanton is in
Contra Costa County.’”
‐‐Meeting Participant
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 15
The most commonly cited community issues include a lack of affordable transportation and difficulty
accessing services, increasing mental health concerns, increasing homelessness, a shortage of affordable
housing, and the need to ensure culturally competent services and outreach to underserved
communities.
Despite these challenges, it is clear that there have been significant successes in the Tri‐Valley. Tax
revenue derived from a high‐end housing market and steadily growing commercial real estate
development have allowed for the building of parks and libraries and the preservation of high‐quality
schools. Many local providers, according to the interviewees, provide high quality and effective services.
Unemployment and poverty rates are lower than they are in many neighboring communities. Yet, there
are issues that remain to be addressed. These issues and areas for growth, along with informants’
suggestions for improvement and findings from data analysis, are addressed in this report.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Vision
In order to ensure diverse representation, the Eastern Alameda County Human Services Steering
Committee included membership from Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton city staff, Human Services
Commissioners from Livermore and Pleasanton, a former elected official, leadership from Childrens
Emergency Food Bank, representatives from Tri‐Valley Haven, Eden I&R, ECHO Fair Housing, Community
Resources for Independent Living, Bay Area Community Services, Community Association for Preschool
Education, Senior Support Program of the Tri‐Valley and Axis Community Health.
Members, many of whom are advocates for a specific population or address a particular concern,
participated in an exercise – in which participants ranked areas of concern by greatest need – in order to
broaden their individual goals and objectives and adopt a community‐wide vision. As a result of this
exercise, the Eastern Alameda County Steering Committee developed the following vision statement to
help guide current and future activities associated with addressing human service needs in the Tri‐
Valley.
In the next 10 years, this committee envisions that all Eastern Alameda County residents
will be able to access basic services such as affordable housing, healthcare, mental
health, and nutrition without having to leave the Tri‐Valley region and without
experiencing stigma associated with asking for help. All individuals and families with
multifaceted needs will have access to accurate information and safe and accessible
services, including supportive permanent and transitional housing, emergency shelter,
therapeutic nursery schools, comprehensive case management, and specialized
healthcare.
Similarly, residents of Eastern Alameda will be able to engage in local grassroots
efforts—such as volunteerism and participation in faith‐based initiatives—to support
and assist their neighbors.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 16
Finally, this committee envisions that county and regional agencies, community‐based
organizations and funders recognize that poverty, discrimination and other human
service challenges cross geographic boundaries, and that resources are distributed based
on current and accurate data on human need and not based on preconceived notions of
. We envision that through this Needs Assessment, the
erable Eastern Alameda County residents will be better
supported.
wealthy versus poor regions
human service needs of vuln
recognized, understood and
Methodology
The 2011 Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment uses a mixed‐method (qualitative
and quantitative) approach to collecting and analyzing local and regional data. Data sources include
quantitative elements, such as the U.S. Census, American Community Survey and Alameda County Social
Services Agency reports, as well as qualitative data gathered from public servants, service delivery
providers, and service recipients. Informants and survey respondents were diverse—representing
parents and providers of services to infants, children and transitional age youth, adults, and older adults;
men and women; ethnic minorities and immigrants; day laborers; residents of different neighborhoods
within Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton; people with disabilities; the homeless and those at risk of
homelessness; the faith community; and the unemployed. This multifaceted and multilevel assessment
approach enables RDA to compare findings from multiple sources, which helps paint a complete picture
of population needs and service delivery gaps.
U.S. Census, American Community Survey and Alameda County Social
Service Utilization Data
To demonstrate demographic change over time in the Tri‐Valley, this report uses U.S. Census data from
1990, 2000, and 2010. At the time of this writing, the U.S. Census Bureau has not released 2010 data for
the city of Dublin due to smaller sample size. Therefore, when describing current demographic
differences between each city, we use American Community Survey Data from 2007 – 2009 as a current
proxy. Census data is used in this report to describe:
• Population growth for each city
• Race/ethnic distribution for each city
• Tri‐Valley trends in:
o Population age and sex distribution
o Linguistic isolation
o Federal poverty rates
o Proportion of household income used for rent
In addition, RDA analyzed Alameda County Social Services data for 2003 and 2011 to demonstrate the
increase in the number of residents using Alameda County subsidized services, including CalFresh,
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 17
CalWorks, General Assistance and Medi‐Cal. Due to the availability of data, utilization records from the
June 2003 Quarterly Report were compared to one month’s data from February 2011. In spite of the
longer period for 2003, 2011 data showed a higher utilization rate. Data analyzed for this report includes
the following, for each city and the Tri‐Valley:
• Medi‐Cal recipients
• Food stamp recipients
• General Assistance recipients
• CalWORKS recipients
Hard to Reach Population Survey
A paper‐based survey comprised of 12 multiple choice and several open‐ended questions was
administered to Tri‐Valley residents identified as ‘Hard to Reach.’ A Hard to Reach individual or family is
defined as one that receives services sporadically, who may need additional services but does not seek
them, has challenges accessing needed services, or is unable to receive services. This population may be
facing physical, cultural, linguistic, emotional, or behavioral challenges limiting their overall access.
The English, Spanish and Chinese surveys were administered to a targeted sample of respondents drawn
from locations in Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton where individuals were most likely to be found,
according to Key Informants and Steering Committee Members. On‐site surveying was conducted at
Open Heart Kitchen during meal services in Livermore and Pleasanton, the Livermore Multi Service
Center, The Groves senior housing in Dublin, the sidewalk in front of Home Depot in Pleasanton, and at
the ACE Train Station in Pleasanton.
Surveyors spent 24 hours visiting these locations and administering surveys. Locations were targeted in
each of the three cities in order to collect data from a representative sample of individuals from Dublin,
Livermore, and Pleasanton. The final sample of in‐person surveys included 73 survey responses.
RDA also sent both soft copies (via email), as well as hard copies of the Hard to Reach Population Survey
to all providers that had participated in the Key Informant Interviews, helped to schedule focused
discussion groups, or responded to the Social Service Provider Survey. Providers were instructed to
administer surveys to individuals receiving services at their respective organizations. Providers were
given four weeks to administer surveys and return them to RDA. Providers submitted 233 surveys to
RDA within the data collection timeframe. In total, 306 responses were received. The Hard to Reach
Population Survey can be found in Appendix H of this report.
Social Service Provider Survey
The Social Service Provider Survey is a 22‐question, web‐based survey administered to social service
providers who serve residents of the Tri‐Valley. The survey consists of nine short response questions and
12 multiple choice questions and was distributed to the directors or administrators of each human
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 18
service organization listed in the Tri‐Valley Pocket Guide. These recipients were asked to email the
survey link to their management, staff and volunteers who serve Tri‐Valley residents. In total, 74 unique
individuals representing 38 Eastern Alameda County organizations responded to the web‐based survey.
The Social Service Provider Survey can be found in Appendix G of this report.
Key Informant Interviews
To ensure high‐end, experienced, and knowledgeable perspectives, hour‐long key informant interviews
were conducted in March 2011 with 18 individuals representing civic, community and human service
organization leadership in the Tri‐Valley. To ensure a diversity of perspectives, RDA and city staff
selected individuals that represent each area of concern as well as individuals who represent many of
the cultural/ethnic communities within Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. Interviews were structured
around 13 general questions and several specific questions tailored to the expertise of the interviewee.
Interviewees were informed that their responses would remain anonymous, but that their participation
would be noted in the final report. Interview questions are located in Appendix A.
List of Key Informants
Contact City/Subject Position/Organization
Carol Thompson Early Childhood Child Care Links
Cheryl Cook‐Kalio Pleasanton City Council Member
Dr. Marshall Kamena Livermore Mayor (former)
James Nguyen Public Health Alameda County Public Health
Jan Cornish‐Barcuis Transportation WHEELS
Joni Pattillo Dublin City Manager
Kelly Dulka Tri‐Valley YMCA
Leticia Cooper Welfare/Food Stamps County Office at Multi‐Service Center
Linda Barton Livermore City Manager
Marjorie Rocha Housing Executive Director, Echo
Marlene Petersen Seniors Senior Support of Tri‐Valley
Marsha McInnis Behavioral Health NAMI
Michael Galvan Transitional Age Youth Abode Services‐Project Independence
Michael Pelfini Children with Special Needs Easter Seal
Nelson Fialho Pleasanton City Manager
Susan Gonzalez Sensory Disabilities Deaf Counseling, Advocacy & Referral Agency
Tami Ratto Disability East Bay Innovations
Vivian Valentine Homelessness Shepard's Gate‐Livermore
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 19
Contact City/Subject Position/Organization
Yvette Carrillo Immigrant/Language Axis Community Health
Table 1: List of Key Informants
Focus Groups
Between May 7, 2011 and June 30, 2011, researchers facilitated 14 focus groups with targeted groups of
social service recipients. Participants were identified and recruited by community based organizations
and human service providers working in the Tri‐Valley with guidance from RDA and city staff. Groups
averaged eight participants, with the largest groups consisting of 20 individuals.
Each focus group opened with an overview of the project, a discussion of ground rules, and a group
exercise where participants ranked their most critical service needs. Sessions lasted between one and a
half and two hours, with participants addressing five questions in an open‐discussion format. Focus
group participants included:
Focused Discussion Group Host Organization
Adults with Disabilities Community Resources for Independent Living
Day Laborers ‐ Spanish Hayward Day Labor Center
Family Members of those with Mental Illness National Association on Mental Illness (NAMI) Tri‐Valley
Homeless Families Tri‐Valley Haven
Homeless Individuals Livermore Homeless Refuge
Parents of Disabled Children E‐Soccer
Parents of Older Children ‐ English Horizons Family Counseling
Parents of Older Children ‐ Spanish Horizons Family Counseling
Parents of Young Children ‐ English Community Association for Preschool Education (CAPE)
Parents of Young Children ‐ Spanish Community Association for Preschool Education (CAPE)
Residents Facing Foreclosure Tri‐Valley Housing Opportunity Center
Seniors Pleasanton Senior Center
Survivors of Domestic Violence Tri‐Valley Haven
Interfaith Community Members Trinity Lutheran Church
Table 2: Focused Discussion Groups
Following the data collection activities described above, preliminary findings were publically presented
at community meetings held in each of the three cities. Participants at these meetings were provided
the opportunity to ask questions; these questions were incorporated into the final draft of the report.
The list of organizations that attended the community meetings is located in Appendix J of this report.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 20
Demographic Findings
The following section describes the demographic changes in Eastern Alameda County using U.S. Census
and American Community Survey data from 1990, 2000, and 2010.
Population Growth
The cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton have experienced significant population growth since
1990. As of 2010, Livermore is home to 80,968 residents, Pleasanton to 70,285 residents, and Dublin to
46,036 residents. The ‘population pyramid’ in Figure 1 demonstrates several demographic trends. At the
top of the pyramid are the oldest residents, over the age of 85, and the bottom represents the youngest
residents, who are under the age of four. The darkest colors (blue is male; red is female) represent the
population in 1990, the lighter colors represent the population in 2000, and the lightest colors represent
the population in 2010. The top of the pyramid shows that the number of women over age 85 has
quadrupled between 1990 and 2010.
The population of residents aged 50 to 64 has doubled between 1990 and 2010. However, there are
proportionately fewer residents between the ages of 20 and 24, a notable lack of population growth
among residents aged 20 to 34, and a decrease in population among males aged 30‐34. In summary, the
population is aging and the proportion of young adults is decreasing in the Tri‐Valley.
Figure 1: Eastern Alameda Population Pyramid (Darkest grade: 1990; Mid grade: growth to 2000;
Lightest grade: growth to 2010) Source: US Census/American Community Survey
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 21
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Pleasanton
Livermore
Dublin
Eastern Alameda Population Growth by City
1990
2000
2010
Figure 2 illustrates population trends in each of the three cities of the Tri‐Valley between 1990 and
2010. The total population count in Dublin has more than doubled in the last 20 years. The cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore are still growing, although, at a slower pace.
Language
There are several distinct changes in the demographic makeup of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton in
the last 20 years (as illustrated in Figures 3 – 5). In Dublin, there is a notable increase in the number of
Asian/Pacific Islander (API) population – a group that includes many distinct cultural and linguistic
categories, including Afghan and Indian populations. This population is growing in Livermore and
Pleasanton as well, albeit more slowly.
In each city, the rate of growth
among the Hispanic/Latino population has remained relatively steady over the course of the last twenty
years, but has shown steady increases over the last decade and a slightly smaller rate of growth in
Dublin. Although White/Caucasians are the ethnic majority in the Tri‐Valley, this population has
demonstrated a negative growth rate between 2000 and 2010. Therefore, the populations of the three
Figure 2: Eastern Alameda Population Growth by City
0 20,000 40,000 60,000
White
Hispanic or Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan …
African American
Dublin Population by Ethnicity
1990
2000
2010
Figure 3: Dublin Population by Ethnicity
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 22
0 20,000 40,000 60,000
White
Hispanic or Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan …
African American
Livermore Population by Ethnicity
1990
2000
2010
cities are becoming less White/Caucasian, steadily more Hispanic/Latino, and significantly more
Asian/Pacific Islander.
The Asian/Pacific Islander community is experiencing a rapid increase in population, combined with the
highest levels of household linguistic isolation of any other ethnic group in the Tri‐Valley, as seen in
Figure 6.
0 20,000 40,000 60,000
White
Hispanic or Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan …
African American
Pleasanton Population by Ethnicity
1990
2000
2010
Figure 4: Livermore Population by Ethnicity
Figure 5: Pleasanton Population by Ethnicity
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 23
A detailed depiction of the population count, per city, of all primary languages spoken at home, is
illustrated in Table 3 (spanning Pages 20 and 21).
Language Tri‐Valley
Total
Dublin Livermore Pleasanton
English (only) 130,971 27,682 58,339 44,950
Spanish or Spanish Creole 15,109 2,762 8,481 3,866
Chinese 5,634 1,651 765 3,218
Tagalog 3,396 1,169 1,379 848
Korean 2,826 787 239 1,800
Other Asian languages 2,588 517 281 1,790
Persian 2,327 1,102 371 854
Hindi 1,412 372 255 785
Vietnamese 1,214 479 377 358
Other Indic languages 1,006 213 366 427
French (incl. Patois, Cajun) 965 128 610 227
Japanese 825 314 147 364
Portuguese or Portuguese Creole 751 206 344 201
German 737 169 273 295
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Spanish Asian or Pacific
Island Language
Other Indo‐
European
Language
Other Language
Linguistic Isolation in Eastern Alameda County
1990, 2000,2010
1990 2000 2010
Figure 6: Linguistic Isolation in Eastern Alameda County
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 24
Other Pacific Island languages 626 397 106 123
Language Tri‐Valley
Total
Dublin Livermore Pleasanton
Russian 606 108 162 336
Urdu 545 254 59 232
Gujarati 389 74 4 311
Other Indo‐European languages 357 142 96 119
Italian 279 31 130 118
Arabic 240 72 111 57
Serbo‐Croatian 213 71 0 142
Scandinavian languages 211 108 88 15
Greek 159 85 65 9
African languages 119 56 63 0
Armenian 118 10 90 18
Other West Germanic languages 108 63 0 45
Thai 105 14 31 60
Polish 89 25 0 64
Hungarian 76 0 35 41
Hebrew 73 37 14 22
Other Native North American 66 59 0 7
Other and unspecified languages 49 0 0 49
French Creole 43 11 32 0
Mon‐Khmer, Cambodian 40 11 29 0
Other Slavic languages 32 19 13 0
Laotian 15 0 15 0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Linguistic isolation is defined as a household in which all individuals over the age of 14 speak a language
other than English, and none speak English “very well.” The rate of linguistic isolation in Asian/Pacific
Islander households, relative to all households in the Tri‐Valley, has more than tripled since 1990,
reaching an overall household level of just over six percent in 2010. Notably, linguistic isolation in
Hispanic/Latino households has decreased between 2000 and 2010, despite demonstrating a slight
increase between 1990 and 2000. Linguistic isolation has also demonstrated an overall decrease in other
Indo‐European language households.
Income Levels
Overall poverty in Eastern Alameda County increased between 2000 and 2010. The Census Bureau
defines the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) using a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and
composition. A family is considered impoverished if the total family income is less than a specific income
Table 3: Population Count by Household Language by City
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 25
0.00% 0.02% 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.10%
Pleasanton
Livermore
Dublin
Percent of Population
Receiving General Assistance
2003
2011
Figure 8: % of Population Receiving General Assistance
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
1990 2000 2010
Percent of the Eastern Alameda
Population in Poverty
Percent in
Poverty
amount that is updated based on the Consumer Price Index. In 2011, The FPL for a family of four is
$22,350. Overall, 4.5% of the population in the three cities lives below the FPL (Figure 7).
The increase in federally defined household poverty is dwarfed by the increase in the proportion of East
County residents receiving General Assistance, Food Stamps, Medi‐Cal and CalWorks. Analyzing Figures
8 and 9, it is clear that the overall proportaion of the population receiving General Assistance and Food
Stamps is relatively small; however, it is the increase in recipients of these services, coupled with the
growing number of residents receiving CalWorks and Medi‐Cal benefits that demonstrate the poverty
growth in the Tri‐Valley. (Figures 10 and 11)
In Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, the proportion of the population receiving Medi‐Cal and CalWorks
increased notably in the last eight years. In the three cities combined, the proportion of the population
Figure 7: Percent of Tri‐Valley Population in Poverty
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 26
receiving Medi‐Cal benefits has increased from just under two percent to over five percent of the overall
population. The proportion receiving CalWorks has increased from less than one quarter of one percent
to just under one percent.
0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
Pleasanton
Livermore
Dublin
Percent of Population
Receiving Food Stamps
2003
2011
Figure 9: % of Population Receiving Food Stamps
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
Pleasanton
Livermore
Dublin
Percent of Population
Receiving CalWorks
2003
2011
Figure 10: % of Population Receiving CalWorks
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
Pleasanton
Livermore
Dublin
Percent of Population
Receiving MediCal
2003
2011
Figure 11: % of Population Receiving Medi‐Cal
In conclusion, the increase in population, the changing ethnic/racial demographics, growing poverty,
and the corresponding increase in the proportion of the community receiving General Assistance, Food
Stamps, CalWORKS and Medi‐Cal, all point to an increasing demand for human services in the Tri‐Valley.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 27
Provider Survey Findings
To identify service delivery gaps, researchers surveyed Alameda County and community‐based providers
who serve Eastern Alameda County residents. In total, 74 unique individuals representing 38 Tri‐Valley
organizations responded to the survey. The following section addresses individual responses.
Figure 12 depicts responses to the question, “Which populations receive adequate services?”
Respondents were asked to rate adequacy of service for 17 different sub‐populations. The graph –
depicting the cumulative weighted average of response between 1 (not at all) and 5 (all the time) –
illustrates that providers believe that the poor, working poor, homeless, mentally ill and non‐English
speakers are less likely to receive adequate services whereas women, families, school‐age children,
adults and seniors are most likely to receive adequate services.
3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Children (6 ‐14)WomenFamiliesAdults (26 ‐59)Seniors (60 +)Young Children (0 ‐5)MenEthnic minoritiesPhysically disabledTransitional Age Youth (15 ‐25)Developmentally disabledDrug/alcohol dependentNon‐English speakersLower‐Income/Working PoorHomeless/At‐Risk of HomelessnessMentally illNo‐Income/Below PovertyAverage score between (1) (not at all) and (5) (all the time) ‐Question:
The following populations receive adequate services (n=56)
Figure 12: Average Score That Populations Receive Adequate Services
Figure 13 depicts responses to the question, “What barriers do service recipients face?” Survey
respondents were asked to rate a list of barriers on a scale of 1 (least significant) to 5 (most significant).
The graph depicts the cumulative weighted average of responses, illustrating that providers believe that
the most significant barriers faced by potential clients are lack of knowledge of service availability,
transportation costs and duration, and long waiting lists.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 28
1.5%
21.5%
72.3%
4.6%
My organization and others like it are able
and for
services (n=65):
to meet Tri ‐Valley residents' dem
None of the time
Some of the time
Most of the time
Always
3.4 3.3 3.2
2.9 2.8
2.5
2.2 2.0 1.9
1.5 1.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Lack of knowledge of available servicesTransportation (cost)Transportation (time)Long waiting lists for servicesCost of servicesLanguage barriersLack of cultural representationImmigration statusDisability barriersAge barriersGender barrierswhich of the following are barriers faced by residents seeking services?
(n=62)
Average score between (1) (least significant) and (5) (most significant) ‐
Despite identifying those sub‐populations who providers believe face barriers to receiving effective
services – including the poor, working poor, homeless and mentally ill – a wide majority of providers
surveyed believe that most of the time they and their colleagues provide sufficient services to meet
demand. Figure 14 illustrates that less than two percent of service providers indicated that they can
never meet the demand for services. Whereas, over 72% of respondents indicate that they can meet the
needs of the community “Most of the time”.
Figure 14: Meeting Demand for Services
Figure 13: Barriers are Faced by Residents Seeking Services
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 29
22% 22%
18%17% 17%
13%12%12%12% 12%10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%Mental Health CareTransportationSubstance Abuse ServicesHomeless ServicesAffordable Housing/Housing AdvocacyChild Care/Early Childhood DevelopmentDental CareRecreationSenior ServicesLegal Services/AdvocacyInformation and ReferralsWhat services would you like to provide that you currently are NOT able
to? (n=60)
Figure 15: What Services Would You Like to Provide?
When asked to consider what services they would like to provide, but are currently unable to (see Figure
15), most providers identified mental health care, transportation and homeless services. Key informants
and focus group participants alike reported shortages of these services, as well as difficulty accessing
them. As illustrated in Figure 15, when asked what factors would enable providers to expand service
offerings, 95% of providers identified a need for more funding. Beyond money, providers indicated that
service coordination, community outreach, and better transportation would be necessary to expand
their offerings.
95%
49%
36%
30%28%26%21%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%moneyother and to supportal/Bi‐ and y Given your answer(s) to the previous question, what
would it take to make this happen? (n=61)Funding/more Coordination with providersCommunity educationoutreachBetter transportationservicesLegal/Government Additional Bilingucultural staffWorkforce educationtrainingCultural competenctrainingFigure 16: What Would it Take to Make This Happen?
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 30
11%
37%
43%
9%
What city do you live in (n=298)
Dublin
Pleasanton
Livermore
Other
Figure 17: What is your Ethnicity?
5%
41%
2%
37%
10%
5%
(Including multiple
sponses) (n=300)
What is your ethnicity
re
Black/African
American
White/Caucasian
Native American/
Alaskan Native
Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Hard to Reach Population Survey
Findings
Surveying the Hard to Reach Population
helped researchers corroborate findings
from service providers, as well as those
from focus group participants, who, by
their willingness to participate, are often
the most easily accessible service
recipients. Those that are least likely to
seek services provide an essential
perspective on critical needs and gaps in
the human service delivery system. The
survey of the Hard to Reach Population
included over 300 unique respondents
from the Tri‐Valley.
Figure 17 illustrates the demographic
breakdown of respondents. The vast
majority of hard to reach populations
are either Hispanic/Latino or White and
just over 10% are Asian/Pacific Islander.
Five percent identify as Black/African
American and another five percent
identify with the “other” category.
Among respondents, 69% were female
and 58% identified as having children
under the age of 18.
Of the 300 respondents, 11% identified
as living in Dublin, 37% in Pleasanton,
and 43% in Livermore. Although 9% of
respondents selected “other”, this group
receives services in the Tri‐Valley (Figure
18). Figure 18: What City Do You Live In?
Respondents were first asked to identify which services they and their family members have the hardest
time accessing (which is illustrated in Figure 21). According to the recipients, dental care is the most
critical need. Described in greater detail later in this report, this gap may be caused by the elimination of
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 31
most dental care services from Medi‐Cal coverage benefits. Other notable gaps include primary health,
transportation, job training and placement, food and nutrition, and affordable housing.
To identify barriers faced by Hard to Reach populations, survey respondents were also asked to check
boxes that complete the statement: “Sometimes I do not get the services I need because…”
Respondents to this question were most likely to identify the cost of services to be the greatest barrier,
as illustrated in Figure 19. The cost of transportation is also a significant barrier, and aligns with the
findings from the Provider Survey. Not qualifying for services and not knowing where to go for services
were also noteworthy barriers identified by the Hard to Reach population. Additionally, six percent of
the population surveyed offered that their disability presents a challenge to receiving services.
52%
48%
40%38%35%
10%9%8%6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%… I can't afford the services.… it costs too much to get to where I need to go. … I don't qualify for the services.… I don't know where to get help.… it takes too long to get to where I need to go.… I don't trust the service provider.… there is no one that speaks my language.… the service provider does not understand my culture.… I can't access them because of disability.Sometimes I do not get the services I need
because...(n=244)
Figure 19: Sometimes I Do Not Get The Services I Need Because...
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 32
57%
37%33%29%28%26%23%17%15%14%14%12%9%7%5% 5%5%3%2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Dental CarePrimary Health CareFood and nutrition / food stamps wic welfare and TANFAffordable Housing/Housing AssistanceJob Training/Job PlacementTransportationChild CareSpecialty Health CareClothing or Other Donated ItemsAdult Education/LiteracyMental Health CareLegal Services/AdvocacySenior ServicesDisability/Special NeedsSubstance Abuse ServicesChild Welfare/Child Protective ServicesRecreationHomeless ShelterDomestic Violence ServicesWhat services do you and your family need but have a hard time
accessing? (n=214)
77.3%
9.1%
13.6%
5.6%
77.8%
5.6%
11.1%
0.0%20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
White/Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Other
Sometimes I do not get the services I need because…(n=22)
the service provider does not understand my culture.
there is no one that speaks my language.
Over 90% of respondents indicated that neither a language barrier nor lack of cultural understanding
were barriers, as illustrated in Figure 20. However, among the 10% who identified that culture and
language were significant barriers, over 77% were Hispanic/Latino.
Figure 20: Sometimes I don’t get the services I need because…
Figure 21: What Services Do You and Your Family Need But Have a Hard Time Accessing
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 33
Findings by Area of Concern
During the initial planning phase for this Needs Assessment, the Eastern Alameda County Human
Services Steering Committee identified 14 human service areas of concern. Key informants then ranked
these concerns according to perceived level of importance. The areas of concern, in order of ranked
importance are:
• Behavioral health (mental health and substance abuse)
• Affordable housing
• Health care
• Workforce development
• Homelessness
• Transportation services and access
• Domestic violence and child abuse
• Disabilities
• Food and nutrition
• Senior services
• Youth services
• Child care, early childhood development and education
• Changing demographics and growing diversity
• Financial assistance
The following sections of the report address each human service area of concern in terms of:
• Community Issues illustrate the needs in the community.
• Service Delivery Environment addresses available services. This section is not a complete
description of services and supports available in the Tri‐Valley, but rather, a description of those
service delivery systems emphasized by key informants and participants in focus groups. This
section draws no conclusions as to the performance or the effectiveness of programs
mentioned.
• Current Gaps in Services or Barriers to Improving Service identifies gaps in services and barriers
to improving services as addressed by informants in discussion groups, interviews, and surveys.
This section is a summary of the experience of recipients of services, providers of services,
community advocates, and subject‐area experts in Eastern Alameda County.
• Suggestions for Improvement distills the suggestions made by community members and service
providers, and includes additional research on best practice approaches for implementation.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 34
Behavioral Health
“I don’t know anyone who hasn’t been hit economically; we’ve been in a depression.
Now there are a greater number of people who are suffering. This kind of stress can
trigger mental illness. I don’t know anyone providing services out here for whom mental
health is not a factor.” –Key Informant
Key Findings
• Behavioral health services are insufficient in the Tri‐Valley. Population growth and increasing
stress related to economic conditions has strained the existing behavioral health service delivery
system.
• Services for teens and young adults dealing with substance and behavioral health issues are
insufficient to meet growing needs.
• There is no local Psychiatric Health Facility or in‐patient drug rehabilitation facility, nor is there a
sufficient number of board and care facilities in the Tri‐Valley.
• The lack of coordination among behavioral health providers makes access to treatment and
services difficult.
• Tri‐Valley residents have to travel to Oakland or beyond to receive in‐patient mental health,
alcohol or other drug (AOD) treatment services.
• Social stigma, community misunderstanding of mental health and cultural or language barriers
prevent those with behavioral health needs from seeking treatment and support.
Community Issues
Provider and consumer stakeholders throughout the Tri‐Valley report that behavioral health (mental
health and substance abuse) is one of the greatest social concerns in Eastern Alameda County. There is a
great deal of stigma associated with seeking care in the Tri‐Valley. In Livermore, for example, one
mental health advocate states, “There is an image here that we don’t have [behavioral health related]
problems. But this is certainly not the case.” A general unwillingness to recognize human service needs
and a lack of understanding of mental health needs, in particular, was a common theme among
stakeholders. The stigma associated with drug abuse and mental illness impedes people from seeking
services early on, resulting in more deeply rooted mental health concerns. Multiple stakeholders
suggested that there is a need for a community‐wide educational campaign and open dialogue
acknowledging the presence of mental health needs in the Tri‐Valley.
Youth and transitional age youth, in particular, are at risk due to the stigma and unwillingness to address
the issue directly. Suicidal thinking and behavior and underage drinking and drug use are a serious
concern to many of the parent stakeholders. One person speaking of a series of teen suicides in
Pleasanton called it an “epidemic.” Others spoke of the many environmental and cultural stressors
commonly attributed to wealthier communities, such as academic and family pressures to succeed.
Other stressors identified include cultural identity and isolation, and gender‐related discrimination.
Several interviewees emphasized the under‐recognized prevalence of prescription drug abuse among
youth – particularly the unauthorized use of OxyContin, a prescription, narcotic pain medication. In a
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 35
parent focus group, alcohol abuse among teens in the schools was emphasized. One parent has noticed
that many youth are bringing alcohol to school in water bottles.
Also, older adults in the Tri‐Valley are vulnerable to substance abuse and mental health disorders.
According to a participant in a senior focus group:
“It’s common for older people to drink more, abuse prescription drugs, and [suffer from]
depression. These issues are not being addressed, they are happening but not much is being
done about it, and I’m not aware of any programs that address these issues. There are many
seniors that are caught up in these issues without getting any help.”
Another common theme articulated by service providers is that current economic conditions are
affecting the psychological wellbeing of residents, particularly those who have been directly affected by
layoffs, foreclosures and service cuts. One service provider noted, “We have seen an increase in clients
with mental health issues. Their illnesses are more pronounced as well, because they can’t afford to
purchase their medications.”
Service Delivery Environment
Stakeholders recognize the availability of some services that can help address the behavioral health
needs of at‐risk youth. Two mental health service coordinators described a joint partnership between
one of Eastern Alameda County’s continuation high schools and Alameda County Behavioral Health Care
Services that provides mental health consultation to teachers and staff. The program empowers
teachers and staff to be effective mental health liaisons in the schools. Similarly, Horizons Family
Counseling, under contract with Alameda County Probation Department, provides family counseling,
case management, and parent training to first‐offender juveniles with minor offenses. They employ two
on‐site licensed mental health professionals for students who need mental health counseling at Del
Valle High School in Livermore. Offering consultation, treatment and/or prevention services in the
community settings and schools, particularly continuation schools, are an effective and efficient strategy
to reach traditionally underserved and at‐risk youth. Additionally, Tri‐Valley Community Foundation is
partnering with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care to provide early intervention to Tri‐Valley
Latino families from their office at the Livermore Multi‐Service Center.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) facilitates support groups for family members of people
with mental illness residing in the Tri‐Valley. One service provider explained, “The support groups are
huge because there is so much need. We don’t advertise because we don’t have the means or money to
accept all the potential participants, but if we did we would get more people involved.” One participant
in a family support group said, “20 years ago when my daughter was diagnosed there was nothing to go
to during the ‘what’s next’ phase. Now at least we have NAMI for families that are in crisis.”
Gaps and Barriers
Several significant barriers impact Eastern Alameda County residents’ capacity to seek and maintain
behavioral health prevention and treatment services. In addition to the common theme of growing
demand for services and stagnating or declining public funding, several individuals expressed a belief
that Eastern Alameda County does not get a “fair share” of County resources. One focus group
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 36
participant reported, “The support system has been taken away; the only programs that had psycho‐
social services are now gone; my question is, ‘what happened?’” The shortage of resources is
compounded by the geographic isolation of Eastern Alameda County from many County services,
primarily those located in Oakland. Lower income residents are more dispersed throughout Eastern
Alameda County, posing a barrier to centrally locating services in areas of greatest need. The following
statements from stakeholders and mental health advocates demonstrate the challenges associated with
geographic remoteness:
“If you are in crisis…and have to take the whole family on the bus, you can’t get to Fremont like
that.”
“I am the mother of a mentally ill son. The reason why my son doesn’t live closer to me is
because there are no psycho‐social services that match his needs.”
“There aren’t sufficient providers in Eastern Alameda County. If you have a mental health
emergency and you’re on Medi‐Cal, the closest clinic is in Oakland.”
Some behavioral health services, such as psychiatric medication management, are available in Eastern
Alameda County for low income and indigent residents, but they are insufficient to meet demand. One
service provider expressed frustration about long waiting lists, stating:
“I don’t have many avenues; I usually go through Axis Community Health, but it takes about one
month to get an appointment to get a patient to intake, another one month or two to actually
see the doctor, or they have to go to San Leandro to see a doctor who will give them a
prescription for only 10 days and then the process starts all over again! Mental and physical
evaluations need to be completed in a timely manner in order for people to get stable. Until they
get stable I can’t help them address the other issues they have.”
Another provider expressed a similar issue, “I refer patients to psychologists that accept Medi‐Care, but
often they are over their quotas. I had to stop accepting Medi‐Cal or Medi‐Care patients myself because
the reimbursement rate is so low.”
Some stakeholders reported that gaps and barriers in behavioral health service provision in the Tri‐
Valley have to do with a lack of coordination. For example, knowing how to access services can be
challenging, “We have a system where there is no single portal of entry, and you need to know where to
enter and where you need to go next.” For those with language barriers, the problem is compounded by
a shortage of bilingual mental health providers, particularly psychiatrists and licensed clinicians.
In addition to what is described above, stakeholders reported the following local gaps in service:
• Universal prevention strategies;
• Case management and crisis stabilization programs for youth and transitional age youth at risk
of serious mental illness;
• Inpatient AOD treatment, particularly for youth;
• Psychiatric Health Facilities for youth and adults;
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 37
• Supportive housing and board and care;
• Mental health providers specializing in older adults; and
• Services for persons with co‐occurring mental health and substance use disorders.
Suggestions for Improvement
The issue of stigma emerged repeatedly within discussion groups and in interviews. Several factors
contribute to stigma as a local issue.
• The myth that families with higher incomes and in nicer homes don’t suffer from mental illness
and substance use disorders;
• Stress and alienation associated with job loss and housing instability;
• A growing population that does not yet know about available support networks; and
• Shortages of cultural brokers that can help immigrants navigate service delivery systems.
Alameda County and the three Eastern Alameda County cities should jointly focus attention on reducing
stigma associated with seeking behavioral health services. In addition, the cities could employ cultural
brokers or Promotores 2 to inform newcomers about behavioral health as well as other critical services
available. Based off the very successful model in Contra Costa County, and funded by Kaiser
Permanente, Livermore is in the process of training up to 15 residents to become Promotra’s to provide
information and assistance to families on a variety of health and wellness issues.
One of the major challenges faced by behavioral health advocates in the Tri‐Valley is demonstrating the
extent of local need. By helping traditionally underserved people access services, advocates will be able
to more accurately demonstrate demand. Additionally, by employing cultural brokers to expand local
knowledge and reduce stigma, service providers can intervene earlier and prevent behavioral health
conditions from worsening, which will ultimately reduce the long‐term costs of treatment.3
Several stakeholders expressed interest in increasing their advocacy role in the Tri‐Valley. One NAMI
member said,
“We are extremely motivated to be involved at the County‐level, to interact with colleagues at
county mental health, Kaiser, etc., and to gain support for our community. We are looking at
how we can help to make this happen. We can do this, but we see a big job ahead of us.”
Affordable Housing
The following findings are based on an analysis of the General Plan Housing Elements for each of the
three cities. An analysis for each city follows.
2 Promotores de Salud are paid community health workers who have a close understanding of an
underserved community, and who share the same language, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status of their
target population. While initially implemented in Spanish‐speaking communities, this evidence‐based
practice can be adapted successfully to other cultural contexts.
3 http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas06/vistas06.16.pdf
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 38
• As the numbers of economically distressed families and foreclosed homeowners increase, so
does the demand for affordable rental housing.
• The increased demand for rental housing has resulted in higher rents.
• While efforts are being made by Tri‐Valley cities to address the affordable housing shortage,
existing resources to prevent foreclosure and eviction and to provide subsidies for low income
renters are insufficient to meet growing demands.
Key Findings from Pleasanton Housing Element (20072011)
• The shortage of affordable housing particularly affects lower‐income renters and first time
homebuyers, including those who have grown up in Pleasanton and would like to establish
permanent residency here.
• Overall, the greatest needs in Pleasanton are housing for low income residents, large families,
the elderly, and single‐parent households.
• The city has promoted housing affordability through support of nonprofit providers, creation of
housing programs, and participation in and approval of subsidized rental developments.
• A total of 4,008 new construction units are needed to meet household and employment
projections, including 981 low income and 1,554 very low income units.
Key Findings from Dublin Housing Element (20092014)
• Dublin has 1,091 assisted rental housing units.
• Of the 321 extremely low income households (0 ‐ 30% Median Family Income [MFI]), 71% spent
more than 50% of their income on housing. Of the 588 very low income households (31 ‐ 50%
MFI), 53% spent more than 50% of their income on housing. Projected housing gaps include a
need for additional Housing Choice Vouchers and rehabilitated rental housing.
• Approximately 23% of the senior‐headed homeowner households overpaid for housing and 75%
of senior‐headed renter households overpaid.
Key Findings from Livermore Housing Element (20092014)
• Forty eight percent of senior‐headed households spent more than 30% of their income on
housing; thirty two percent of renter households spent more than 50% of their income on
housing.
• There are 38 licensed community care facilities in Livermore for persons with special needs. Two
housing developments, totaling 18 below market units, are specifically reserved for
developmentally disabled adults.
• The median Livermore home price in June/July 2008 was $510,000 compared to $623,500 for
the Tri‐Valley.
• Livermore rentals are relatively affordable compared to the County overall. One bedrooms
averaged $1,118 per month as opposed to $1,278 countywide.
• There is a higher incidence of over‐crowding among renter‐occupied households in Livermore
than in Alameda County as a whole.
• Renters in Livermore are more cost burdened than owners, with 47% of renters versus 35% of
owners paying more than 30% of their income on housing.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 39
Figure 22: Renters and Home Owners Paying more than
35% of Income on Housing Expenses
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Tri Valley Renters Tri Valley Owners
Renters and Home Owners Paying
more than 35% of Income on Housing
Expenses
1990
2000
2010
Community Issues
Stakeholders as well as Tri‐Valley planners recognize that affordable housing is one of Eastern Alameda
County’s most critical human service needs. Local governments are expected to do their part to meet
this need. Each city’s regional housing need allocation 4 (RHNA) is based on a projection of population
growth and income during a 5 year period. Higher than expected unemployment, lower than expected
incomes and higher than expected housing costs ‐ with over one third of both renters and home owners
paying more than 35% of their income on housing expenses (as illustrated in Figure 22) – mean that the
Tri‐Valley needs even more affordable units to meet demand than originally projected. In Pleasanton,
for example, the city estimated in 2007 that it would need over 4,000 additional affordable housing
units. At the same time, Pleasanton is experiencing a decrease in the availability of vacant land.5
However, there will likely be significant improvement that should occur upon approval of the city’s
Housing Element in late 2011 where 70 new acres of high density will be designated for rezoning and
will significantly enhance the prospects for future affordable housing development. These trends
exacerbate the burden on cities to support the adequate provision of affordable housing. Several
stakeholders suggested that one of the consequences of the current economic environment has been a
reduction in the demand for single‐family home ownership. As a consequence, the demand for rental
units has increased, driving up market rents.
One service provider described the human
impact of the affordable housing crunch, “I
am dealing with people who are at risk of
losing their home due to the loss of a job, or a
chronic health problem, and they don’t know
where to get information on foreclosure
prevention, or the information is not
accessible.” The interviewee went on to say
that as a social service provider, it is
sometimes difficult to know the extent of a
client’s housing need. “When serving
individuals with complex issues, you need to
pay attention to what they are asking
because they may not be asking the right
questions.” A failure to address an
individual’s housing issues as soon as they
arise can result in disastrous consequences,
including foreclosure or eviction. For some
residents, especially older adults with
4 RHNA is a target set by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in cooperation with the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for each city to develop to address the regional need
for affordable housing.
5 http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/community/housing/
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 40
dementia, cognitive disabilities, mental health issues or substance use disorders, intervention can mean
the difference between a secure living situation or becoming homeless.
Another issue that was brought up by stakeholders is that few landlords accept Section 8 Vouchers
because they are insufficient to cover market rents or because Section 8 tenants are perceived to be
irresponsible. As a result, those low income individuals who are fortunate to have received a voucher
may still face barriers in finding a safe and affordable place to live.
Commenting on the affordable housing situation in Pleasanton, one service provider noted that “the
trend I see is that there has been no subsidized housing [expansion] in the last 5 years. Federal and state
funding is just not there to do it. Livermore has its own Housing Authority and can meet community
members needs better than Pleasanton. They are lumped with Alameda Housing Authority – for a
Pleasanton community member to get a subsidy to live in their own apartment is almost impossible.”
Yet even where there are effective Section 8 programs, “There’s a two year waiting list; it was only open
for a week for the lottery. And currently it is closed.”
Service Delivery Environment
The following organizations provide housing services in Eastern Alameda County:
• ECHO Fair Housing in Livermore provides fair housing education, tenant/landlord mediation and
rental assistance.
• Tri‐Valley Housing Opportunity Center, also in Livermore, provides information on private
sector lending programs, down payment assistance, homebuyer education, and foreclosure
counseling.
• The Tri‐Valley Housing Resource Center, located in the Livermore Multi‐Service Center, provides
assistance through the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing program (HPRP), which
provides stabilization services to individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of
becoming homeless.
• The Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton provide housing information, including listings of
affordable housing, such as the Tri‐Valley Area Affordable Rental Housing Directory, on all city
websites.
• Eden I&R 211 provides information and referral regarding affordable housing and shelter
services.
• Tri‐Valley Housing Scholarship Program, administered through Abode Services, provides
temporary rental support to low income individuals and families who are enrolled in
educational and job training programs to Livermore and Pleasanton residents.
• In partnership with Abode Services, Livermore also provides rental subsidy and supportive
services to youth emancipating out of foster care through Project Independence.
• The Deparment of Veterans Affairs provides a VA Home Loan Guarantee program to help
veterans refinance their homes and avoid foreclosure.
The following initiatives are being coordinated by the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton:
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 41
• According to its Housing Element, the city of Dublin has made significant strides towards
reaching the goals established in their Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Since 2009, 311
new units have been constructed specifically for the Very Low Income population, 238 for the
Low Income population, and 380 for the Moderate Income population. Specifically, the Camellia
Place, Wicklow Square, and new Arroyo Vista projects “include a range of affordable units,
including units for extremely low income households.”6 Further, as of March 2007, the city
offers a density bonus to developers, and works with these developers to ensure incentives for
expanding affordable and senior housing. The city of Dublin contracts through the office of
Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department with ECHO Housing to look
into fair housing complaints and ensure provision of fair housing counseling and mediation
services.
• In Pleasanton, the 2000 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) requires that any new single‐family
residential development of 15 or more units must include a 20% allocation at below‐market
sales. As of September 2008, the city had approved the 350‐unit Stoneridge Station multi‐unit
development, which will include 70 apartments for very low income households at 50% or less
of the Area Median Income (AMI). In accordance with the 2007‐2014 Housing Element,
Pleasanton has also been evaluating community outreach efforts to identify sites for higher
density, multi‐family housing. The city has also committed to accommodating 3,277 total rental
units, including 1,076 very‐low income units, 728 low income units, 720 moderate‐income units,
and 753 above‐moderate income units prior to or concurrent with adoption of 2007‐2014
Housing Element Update.7
• The city of Livermore in conjunction with Abode Services and ECHO Housing has provided
assistance to 465 clients in 173 families throughout the first two years of the Homeless
Prevention and Rapid Re‐housing program. Livermore was also selected as one of 5 cities in
Alameda County to participate in the development and implementation of the new Housing
Bonus Program. This program is based off of Berkeley’s very successful Square One program
and will provide housing vouchers with supportive services to homeless in the downtown.
Additionally, at least 200 homeless and 200 domestic violence survivors will receive assistance
through one of the city’s three local shelters. Livermore also has several housing complexes
providing below market rate units: Arroyo Commons, Bluebell, Chestnut Street, Carmen Avenue,
Diablo Vista, Hillcrest Gardens, Las Posadas, Leahy Square, The Outrigger, Owl’s Landing, and
Stoney Creek. Arbor Vista, Vandenburg Villa, and Vineyard Village provide affordable senior
housing. Heritage Estates senior housing complex provides affordable and market rate
independent senior rental apartments. An additional 40 units of affordable rental units for
seniors, disabled and families are planned to be built within the next three years.
6 http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=156
7 http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/pdf/DraftHousingElementBackground‐082011.pdf
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 42
Gaps and Barriers
There is a widely recognized shortage of financing options throughout the State for the development of
affordable housing for extremely low, low and moderate income families. In the Tri‐Valley, housing
shortages are most notable for seniors, disabled adults, large families and single parents. Stakeholders
cited other service gaps including insufficient Housing Choice (Section 8) vouchers, and revenue losses
for community‐based, non‐profit housing providers and housing assistance. According to one service
provider in this area, “There have been serious cutbacks to funding, so we’re not providing enough
services, but the number of people who need services hasn’t diminished.”
One interviewee noted, “Pleasanton has lots of jobs and is very affluent. It has a high level of premium
housing stock. That’s good. But it has also put us at direct odds with State requirements that we
accommodate our fair share of affordable housing. We’ve been doing catch up.” Another community
member noted that in Livermore, there is a desire to increase the stock of affordable housing, but also
acknowledged budgetary tightening, saying “In terms of affordable housing, no one can afford to build it
right now. We are at a standstill.” In Pleasanton, one interviewee noted “We are missing the affordable
starter homes for our children coming home to live or for service sector workers. We have an inclusionary
housing ordinance but there are not enough Section 8 units.”
Community opposition to rezoning to permit higher‐density development was noted as a significant
barrier to developing affordable housing in the Tri‐Valley. Some residents equate high‐density housing
with “slums”. One informant summed up this perspective: “No one wants high density next to them!”
One member of the faith‐based community stated that “Housing is a hard issue to address. There was
talk of building high density housing, but people were concerned about the value of their homes
dropping, and people were concerned about noise; noise is code for not wanting low income folks in
neighborhoods.” Despite this opposition, all three cities are planning for higher density housing. Dublin
offers density bonuses to developers, and Pleasanton is seeking locations for higher density housing.
Livermore has been providing density bonus for developers over the last decade and has updated its
zoning codes to address State laws governing bonuses. This update won the 2011 award from the Form‐
Based Code Institute.
Suggestions for Improvement
Stakeholder suggestions for increasing affordable housing came down, primarily, to spending more
money. “We need to spend more money on subsidized housing and support those programs that are
already working.” Other recommendations to the Cities included:
• Strengthening inclusionary housing ordinances;
• Increasing transit oriented development;
• Rezoning to permit multi‐unit higher density housing;
• Permitting additional prefabricated homes and mobile homes on vacant or underutilized land;
• Applying for additional federal and state grants;
• Allowing or providing incentives for homeowners to build second units on their properties;
• Regulating condominium conversions to ensure a sufficient supply of rental units; and
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 43
• Giving priority to people who live and/or work in the Tri‐Valley for placement on affordable
housing waiting lists.
Stakeholders consistently recommended prioritizing the affordable housing needs of persons with
physical and developmental disabilities and the elderly, because these populations often live on fixed
incomes, incur higher health care costs, face multiple challenges accessing services, and require
particular in‐home design features. Recommendations included: 1) providing support to landlords and
developers to increase ADA compliance and improve access; 2) supporting agencies that enforce fair
housing regulations 8 ; and 3) co‐locating social services in neighborhoods/housing developments that
have the highest density of seniors, people with disabilities and low income families.
Finally, to address the needs of the growing homeless population, several stakeholders referenced a
Housing First strategy. Housing First begins with local jurisdictions providing housing in conjunction with
supportive services tailored to the specific needs of the household.9 This approach emphasizes that
housing insecurity and homelessness are at the root of many other issues facing vulnerable populations.
Housing stability is shown to increase responsiveness to other human services such as mental health and
substance abuse treatment; employment preparation; and child welfare, and to decrease reliance on
emergency services. For example, in Los Angeles, CA, the Housing First Program for Homeless Families
has incorporated the Housing First strategy to mitigate homelessness, particularly among single mothers
with children, across Los Angeles County. Between 1989 and 2008, the program helped over 4,500
homeless families and over 12,000 adults and children to find sustainable, permanent housing.10
Health Care
“Primary care here is not bad. Finding specialists, though, is a major issue.” – Focus
Group Participant
Key Findings
• Specialized medical care is often only available outside the Tri‐Valley, especially from providers
who accept Medicare and Medi‐Cal.
• Subsidized dental care for low income residents, particularly the elderly, is very scarce.
• Reimbursement rates for subsidized health care are insufficient to cover costs, creating a
disincentive for providers to serve low income populations.
• Culturally competent services are required to accommodate shifts in demographic composition
in the Tri‐Valley.
Community Issues
This assessment focused primarily on health care needs for the low income and indigent populations of
Eastern Alameda County. Among these populations, the most critical issues have to do with insufficient
8 http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2821
9 http://www.nowrongdoor.ca/downloads/Housing%20First%20Strategy.pdf
10 http://www.beyondshelter.org/aaa_programs/housing_first.shtml
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 44
health insurance, particularly for those with moderately low incomes; and access to dental care and
specialty healthcare services. Insecurity around health care access has taken a toll on many marginally
low income residents. Residents reported fear of losing their jobs because of preexisting conditions. The
working poor are particularly vulnerable, because they may not receive health coverage through their
work, but their income is above the threshold that allows them to qualify for subsidies. One focus group
participant stated “There is no recourse for people like us who are not qualified for Medi‐Cal and who
can’t afford private insurance.” These challenges are also faced by veterans, who are a sizable portion of
the Tri‐Valley community. Veterans are older and face significant unmet medical needs, including a need
for in‐home supportive services and hospice care.
Additionally, some respondents expressed concern that due to changing Medi‐Care coverage, many
medications that have been subsidized may become prohibitively costly. Those with Medi‐Cal and
Medicare coverage reported difficulty finding local medical providers who will accept subsidies. Medi‐
Cal recipients also report challenges with dental coverage. One recipient stated, “People do not
understand the gravity of not having dental needs met. The only thing Medi‐Cal provides right now is
extraction.”
Service Delivery Environment
Tri‐Valley providers and healthcare consumers report the following services for low income and indigent
residents:
• Axis Community Health Medical Clinic is a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) that
provides comprehensive family primary care for free or based on a sliding‐scale fee in Livermore
and Pleasanton.
• The HOPE Project provides medical services to the homeless population in Livermore through a
mobile clinic.
• The Tri‐City Health Center provides HIV Services and programming at the Livermore Multi‐
Service Center.
• The VA currently operates a hospital and Long Term Care facility for veterans in Livermore,
although this facility is slated to close in 2018.
According to Needs Assessment participants, the Tri‐Valley Adolescent Health Initiative is successful in
raising awareness of adolescent health needs in the Tri‐Valley. The organization runs a youth group,
coordinates meetings, and has identified service delivery gaps. It has been responsible for improving the
coordination of mental health services at the school site level. The program, administered through
Alameda Health Care Services Agency continues to expand mental health in Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton high schools.
Current Gaps in Services or Barriers to Improving Services
Gaps in health care service for low income and indigent residents of the Tri‐Valley include a shortage of
local providers of specialty care services and providers who accept subsidized patients. One senior focus
group participant stated, “If you need help with vision and hearing impairments you have to go outside
of the Tri‐Valley to get services. We have no choice but to go out of the cities to get the help we need.”
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 45
One stakeholder with Medi‐Cal offered, “You usually have to go to Oakland to get dental care and
especially if the procedure requires anesthetics or teeth pulling.”
In addition to transportation costs and trip duration, a variety of other barriers affect low income
residents’ ability to access critical health care services. People with disabilities have an especially hard
time accessing specialty medical care. One disabled focus group participant explained, “It is hard for me
to get around. I wish that there were specialists here. Valley Care does a wonderful job, but when I have
to go outside, it is confusing and hard to get there.” In Spanish focus groups, uninsured participants
reported having to go to Highland Hospital in Oakland for emergency services. One participant shared
that she waited from 6pm to 10am to receive care at Highland Hospital, all the while enduring heart
pain. According to these participants, a trip to Oakland in an ambulance can cost $2,000.
Other interviewees reported that while primary care was available in the Tri‐Valley for people with
subsidized insurance, facilities such as Axis are crowded and wait times can be very long. One focus
group participant, currently dealing with foreclosure proceedings and in need of low cost health
services, stated, “Axis is in high demand and over capacity. Not everyone is guaranteed access…and only
some services are free.” Although Axis provides services to anyone seeking health services in the
community, not everyone qualifies for free care, which is based on income and family size. Sliding scale
and reduced charge services are available for those that do not qualify for free care.
Addressing the growing population of non‐English‐speakers in health care environments in the Tri‐Valley
can be challenging. Patients and family members may be experiencing stress and providers are
frequently in a hurry. One informant spoke of the challenges associated with diversity and a shortage of
providers who are proficient in working with the many different ethnic groups in Eastern Alameda
County:
“Clinicians who are addressing the needs of people don’t always understand the people they
serve. I would say this is due to 1) a lack of training and education, and 2) staff being overworked
and carrying heavy workloads. It seems that a lack of training about specific populations is the
more pressing issue. People have good intentions but they don’t always know what’s
appropriate or best.”
Suggestions for Improvement
One informant offered the following suggestion for improving healthcare services: “As leaders, we need
to mandate that physicians need to take Medi‐Cal and Medicare. These folks are practicing in the
community and choosing to eliminate people based on their being impoverished. I believe that
community leaders have to mandate that they do this, especially dentists and doctors.” Alternatively, the
city could provide incentives and awards to those medical providers who serve subsidized patients.
More doctors taking Medi‐Cal and Medicare recipients would reduce burdens on providers that
currently do take these patients.
Another suggestion was for the Tri‐Valley cities or community organizations to sponsor a health or
dental fair, where low income residents could receive free services, perhaps on an annual basis. In April,
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 46
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Eastern Alameda County Unemployment Rate Over Time
Dublin
Livermore
Pleasanton
2011, Remote Area Medical, an international nonprofit volunteer health program, sponsored a free
event at the Oakland Coliseum, where over 3,000 doctors, dentists, and medical assistants provided
dental cleanings, fillings, extractions, x‐rays, medical treatment and eye care to thousands of needy
residents. The event was successful at drawing attention to the demand for services; thousands of
patients were seen over the course of three days. Eastern Alameda County could start small, with a
similar type of event, focusing on medical and/or dental care, and drawing volunteer medical providers
from throughout the Tri‐Valley.
Workforce Development
“People keep telling us that they need support in times of transition, job loss, death of a
family member, divorce, etc. These are issues for the marginalized middle class and
these services are not really available here.” –Key Informant
Key Findings
• Increased unemployment in the Tri‐Valley has led to a greater demand for adult education and
vocational skills development at all skill levels, but particularly for those with low educational
attainment levels.
• Most job placement and training is located outside the area, particularly in Oakland.
• There is a shortage of workforce development opportunities for the disabled and
developmentally disabled, youth, and immigrants.
• There is insufficient child care to support low income families. This disproportionately impacts
low income workers and job seekers.
Community Issues
Much like many parts of the country, unemployment rates in the Tri‐Valley have spiked in recent years
(see Figure 23), suggesting an increase in need and demand for workforce development services.
As reported in various other sections of this report, employment loss in Eastern Alameda County is
intrinsically linked to a variety of human service needs, including housing and homeless assistance,
Figure 23: Eastern Alameda Unemployment Over Time
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 47
family stress, food and nutrition, subsidized medical care, etc. According to one interviewee, “Job
security is a big priority on a lot of people’s minds. You can’t get into housing without a stable
income…you need a consistent income to support housing.” Another service provider noted a change in
who is affected by the economic downturn, stating, “The recession has impacted the higher end workers
too. Even residents who are accustomed to working in Silicon Valley have experienced foreclosures.” Key
informants reported that there are fewer part‐time jobs in Eastern Alameda County, which has had an
impact that does not show up in the unemployment statistics. Fewer part‐time jobs affect parents of
young children seeking supplementary income, youth and transitional age youth looking for summer
and after school jobs, and people with disabilities who cannot work full‐time.
High unemployment rates and local job scarcity have other downstream impacts. Commute times pose
a challenge already for workers in the Tri‐Valley, many of whom must travel over the hill daily. Residents
are facing difficult choices and longer commutes as their employment options decrease. This in turn
affects children, who are left unsupervised for longer periods of the day. Job scarcity also affects youth
looking for entry‐level positions, suggesting that the lack of population growth in the Tri‐Valley among
transitional age youth may not improve anytime soon. One concerned parent explained, “Where is the
next generation going to find jobs if we don’t have a plan for job creation? Are we creating new
generations of working poor?”
High unemployment rates are coupled with a widely recognized shift in demand for more skilled
“knowledge economy” workers, specifically those with higher degrees. Many residents report being left
behind:
• “I am doing a lot of job searching; they ask for training and experience. If you have no experience
and no training, they will not hire you. I did computer classes, but they ask for office experience,
which I do not have.”
• “After 10 years in the family business my skills are obsolete. I need to go online to make a
resume, which is so hard.”
Service Delivery Environment
The Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton have Economic Development Departments that work
towards attracting and retaining businesses through demonstrating the competitiveness of Eastern
Alameda County’s local economy and employment base. Livermore recently won several international
awards in recognition of, "successful strategies to promote new paradigms in economic development in
this period of global recovery" and “showing that they are at the forefront of the economic development
profession and are using innovative and effective practices that can be replicated in other communities."
Economic development strategies are broad‐based and affect the economic climate of the Tri‐Valley.
Community residents and providers recognized the following local workforce development programs for
low income and unemployed individuals:
• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and CalWORKS programs through Las Positas
College and Alameda County’s Social Service Agency are located in Livermore.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 48
• The Tri‐Valley One‐Stop Career Center, a program of California State Employment Development
Department (EDD), is located in Pleasanton and provides job search assistance.
• Libraries: Livermore, for example, has a volunteer job coach that periodically offer coaching and
resume assistance through a volunteer program.
• Livermore Adult Education, Amador Valley Adult and Community Education, in Pleasanton, and
Dublin Community Education Center offer adult education classes, ESL, GED, and vocational
training.
• Tri‐Valley Regional Occupation Program, in Livermore, provides vocational, technical and
occupational education for high school and adult students.
• Most individualized workforce development programs used by residents are located outside the
Tri‐Valley. One unemployed resident stated, “I go to One Stop Career Center, but it would be
nice to have something locally. It is hard to be commuting and hard to have enough time there to
get what I need.” The One Stop Center this interviewee is referring to, run by the Private
Industry Council, is located in downtown Oakland.
• Tri‐Valley Community Foundation offers youth employment services sponsored by Alameda
County Workforce Investment Board at Horizon High, Village High School and Las Positas College
to assist youth in attaining their educational and vocational goals.
Some of the most vulnerable workers receive employment support from the Hayward Day Labor Center.
Although located in Hayward, this organization has a draw of clients from Dublin, Livermore and
Pleasanton due to its unique service offerings. According to one client at the Center, “They teach you to
do all kinds of work. Many people come here without education and don’t know how to do other types
of skills. The Center teaches us how to work with electric tools, as many members come here not
knowing how to safely use tools like a saw.” This organization also helps with placement, and offers a
legal backbone to allow clients to defend themselves against predatory employers.
Gaps and Barriers
There are two notable gaps in available workforce development opportunities. Firstly, as indicated
above, several workforce development programs are located outside the Tri‐Valley; using these services
requires a car or transit fare. Secondly, stakeholders consistently reported that there are few local job
development opportunities for youth and youth with disabilities transitioning to adulthood.
Parents of disabled children, speaking to what they anticipate will be needed for their children in the
future, suggested that there are few local opportunities for the disabled and developmentally
challenged. For instance, one parent of an emotionally challenged adult said, “I feel like my son is
wasting away. He could benefit from some vocational training. He would like to live on his own but he
has no income or experience, and I can’t provide that for him. The support for those who have fallen
through the cracks does not exist here.”
Suggestions for Improvement
Multiple stakeholders reported an interest in increasing the availability of job training for young people.
Programs that help high school students, particularly seniors, find a part‐time job and gain access to on‐
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 49
the‐job training were recommended. Others recommended increasing adult education programming at
the adult schools. Other suggestions included local employment requirements for city contracts.
Homelessness
“We don’t have many shelters for men in the Tri‐Valley area. [Most of] the shelters that
we have only accept women or women with children; they deal with a lot of domestic
violence. So for families, men would have to be separated from their families. Therefore,
we have some families choosing to live in their cars, which is problematic.” –Key
Informant
Key Findings
• Human service providers report an increase in Tri‐Valley individuals and families seeking
homeless and homeless prevention services.
• There are no year‐round facilities that serve single men in Eastern Alameda County.
• Homeless families are disrupted due to a shortage of homeless family shelters that accept
fathers and teenage sons.
• Recently homeless families and individuals have experienced stigma and lack of knowledge
about available services and supports.
• The homeless and other indigent residents face long waiting lists for healthcare services and
disproportionately use emergency medical services.
Community Issues
Homelessness and risk of homelessness is a growing concern in Eastern Alameda County. According to
one provider, “We have noticed a greater number of homeless people…We are getting complaints from
our citizens about the increased number of homeless people that ask for money.” One Livermore service
provider noted that the increase in homelessness is due to changing economic and social conditions,
stating, “The homeless person today has a different face. It is families who were foreclosed on or laid off,
and it’s happening more than people know. We need to make accommodations for them.” According to
one homeless focus group participant, “There are people who don’t even know what’s going on because
they are new to being homeless. It’s an epidemic, and cities are turning their heads.”
Housing security is impacted by a variety of factors, including market rents and access to living wages.
Stakeholders emphasized the links between Tri‐Valley homelessness and unemployment, particularly
unemployment among those with lower educational attainment levels. They also emphasized the
connection between homelessness and the shortage of affordable housing. Elaborating on the
connection between these issues, one informant noted that, “When you’re under‐ or unemployed,
housing is very difficult to maintain, and when you’re homeless, it’s difficult to find a job.”
Homelessness in the Tri‐Valley, like many other areas, is highly stigmatized. One homeless resident
described his experience with law enforcement: “I got harassed by a cop, and was stereotyped for being
a drug addict or mentally ill. That was such a terrible experience.” The focus group with homeless adults
revealed the precarious position and lack of support for those who are most vulnerable. “There was a
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 50
homeless encampment [in Livermore] that got removed, but where are people going to go? Cops are
giving tickets for sleeping in cars; if you’re homeless how are you supposed to pay for it? You have no
job. You get harassed, you get ticketed, you get a warrant, and you get thrown in jail.”
Providers recognize not only the growing number of homeless individuals, often referred to as the
“visible homeless”, but also the growing number of homeless families. These families are described by
informants as “invisible,” doubling up in apartments, sleeping in vehicles or in family shelters. Many are
recently homeless due to job loss, eviction or foreclosure; many are single women with children.
One recently homeless resident described her experience:
“I am married with three children. We are temporarily displaced, and homeless, and we’ve been
doing everything to provide for our children, staying in hotels, making the most of the
situation...We find ourselves choosing between food and hotel rooms. We can’t rely on friends
and family, I try to remain optimistic even though it’s tough times. We now live out of our car.”
Homeless families described their fear of being forcibly separated. One family member noted, “There
are a lot of homeless families and they won’t come out because they are afraid of having their children
taken away from them.” Others fear separation due to the shortage of shelter beds for male family
members. According to service providers, some transitional age youth in the Tri‐Valley, including foster
children, are at‐risk of homelessness due to the lack of transitional support services. Others, according
to one provider, are homeless because “they get kicked out of their homes because they’re too old, don’t
get along with families, etc.” Such observations are supported by demographic data that show a relative
scarcity of transitional age youth in Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, which suggests that the Tri‐Valley
is not affordable to young people in transition.
Service Delivery Environment
There are several year‐round homeless shelters in Eastern Alameda County. Shepard’s Gate provides
emergency shelter to women and their children. Tri‐Valley Haven offers shelter to victims of domestic
violence and other shelter services to families, including men and teenage boys, albeit to a limited
degree. There are no year‐round shelters for single men, although, Livermore Homeless Refuge, an
organization consisting of volunteers from community and faith‐based organizations provide emergency
shelter when temperatures drop, as well as other critical services such as laundry and hot showers. Hot
meals are also available, and described in greater detail in the section on Food Security and Nutrition.
The HOPE van is a mobile clinic‐based medical service program that serves the homeless in Eastern
Alameda County. According to one homeless resident, “The HOPE Van is very strict about giving services
to those that are only homeless. If you mention you stayed at someone’s house they won’t serve you.
They provide dental care sometimes.”
Gaps and Barriers
The most widely recognized gap in homeless services has to do with the shortage of services for single
men and men with families. One single homeless resident of the Tri‐Valley stated, “Many of us are law
abiding citizens. We have nowhere to go in this area.” A service provider stated, “Our major concern is
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 51
shelters, because many will not take males over the age of five. We don’t agree with this practice. We
need more shelters that accept families.”
Another recognized gap in homeless service provision is timely healthcare access. According to one
provider, “It can take up to two months for them to get an appointment at Axis Community Health to see
a doctor. Homeless people tend to go to urgent care or emergency rooms, which is not very cost effective
for the health system. This is the same for dental care.” Other basic needs service gaps include:
• Safe locations to sleep in vehicles: “A lot of people used to park at Wal‐Mart at night, but it’s not
allowed anymore”;
• Drinking fountains, which one homeless resident reports are turned off at night; and
• Cooking facilities, laundry facilities, restrooms, and showers.
Repeatedly, Stakeholders brought up the issue of service coordination, community outreach and
provider education, particularly in regards to the changing demographics of homelessness. One
stakeholder suggested, in reference to the growing need for family shelters, that “they are going to have
to adjust some of the regulations or make shelters specific to these people that are not served or are
underserved.” Another interviewee admitted that 211 is not sufficient to meet the needs of “new middle
class families who have never had to deal with social services.” Some social service providers, according
to colleagues and the homeless, lack knowledge about homelessness and are influenced by the same
social stigma as the community at large. One resident described her experience, saying, “My experience
with social workers was not positive; they asked me very personal and insensitive questions. My
experience the first time I was in a shelter alone with my teenage girls, I was a bit scared. We were put in
a room with a lot of unstable people.” The social stigma associated with homelessness creates a unique
barrier to service provision. Several interviewees explained the community belief that homeless services
attract more homeless people to the Tri‐Valley. Such hypotheses, whether validated or not, challenge
the willingness of public servants, policymakers and advocates to support increased services for this
vulnerable population.
Suggestions for Improvement
Stakeholders recommended a variety of strategies for improving homeless services,11 including:
• Increase the variety of housing options and services for homeless in the area;
• Supporting advocacy and legal aid for the homeless;
• Allowing fathers and teenage sons into homeless family shelters; and
• Increasing access to kitchens and showers.
During a Dublin community meeting, participants discussed providing a sanctioned space for the
homeless to camp or park automobiles and RVs. Focus group participants stated that Dublin, Livermore
and Pleasanton had sufficient vacant land for such purposes, and many homeless people would be
willing to help with maintenance and coordination. One model is in Washington State. In 2010, the
Washington Legislature passed a law authorizing religious organizations to host temporary homeless
11 Preventing homelessness and housing security is addressed in the section on Affordable Housing.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 52
encampments, specifically on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. Local
jurisdictions may only intervene in ensuring public health.12 One such tent city in Kings County provides
space for up to 100 homeless residents. The space has a code of conduct and managers for the space.13
A similar program – Pinellas Hope, a program of Catholic Charities Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida –
set up a tent encampment on church land in 2007. The space has since expanded and now includes a
community center, kitchen, meeting rooms, a covered dining area and 80 apartments for transitional
housing.14
Other Tri‐Valley residents suggested that to address the root causes and long‐term implications of
homelessness, civic leaders, law enforcement, community and faith‐based organizations, business
leaders and service providers need to collaborate to address stigma. “[The community] needs to
understand that we do have homelessness in the Tri‐Valley area and be open to working with other
collaborators and building partnerships to help improve this issue.” Several models for this type of multi‐
organizational partnership exist. Using a public health model, the city of Concord, California, formed the
Monument Corridor Partnership to address the needs of residents in one low income neighborhood.
Police, neighbors, advocates, housing providers, healthcare providers and city officials met together on
an ongoing basis to strategically address community needs. Such partnerships would need to include
representation from homeless individuals and families, according to one homeless resident, “so we can
have representation in policy, votes, etc.”
In Los Angeles, The Skid Row Families Demonstration Project executed by the non‐profit agency Beyond
Shelter was facilitated through a partnership with the County Departments of Children and Family
Services (DCFS), Public Social Services (DPSS), Mental Health (DMH), Health Services (DHS), and Public
Health (DPH), and the Housing Authorities, city of Los Angeles (HACLA) and County of Los Angeles
(HACoLA).Using a rapid re‐housing model, the project succeeded in placing 82% of residents in
permanent housing.15
In Miami‐Dade County, The Miami‐Dade County Community Homeless Plan has been identified as a
national model. The Community Partnership for Homeless is a private‐public partnership that is funded
largely by the one percent sales tax on food and beverages. The partnership operates two homeless
shelters, and has been successfully transitioning people out of homelessness for over ten years.16
One focus group participant suggested that raising awareness and working to reduce stigma could result
in a citizens’ initiative: “Between the three cities, there should be a tax, like a $1 per household that goes
toward a homeless fund. But my reservation is that if a government manages this it will go to waste.”
There are examples of tax‐based strategies; in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the County Legislature is currently
reviewing a proposed property tax increase that is expected to generate $2.7 million annually over six
years for a “Local Housing Assistance Fund.” In the proposed bill, $1.49 million per year would be
12 http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Housing/tentcity/tentcity.aspx#Leg
13 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003566787_homeless11m0.html
14 http://home.catholicweb.com/pinellashope/
15 http://www.beyondshelter.org/aaa_programs/demonstration_projects.shtml
16 http://www.cphi.org/about_history.asp
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 53
allocated to providing rent subsidies for 222 residents at risk of homelessness. Other funds would be
used for homeless prevention, renovation of homes to be converted into affordable units, and to help
those with temporary, emergency housing payments.17
Transportation Services and Access
“If someone in Livermore has mental illness and they want to get involved, all of our
meetings, even consumer meetings, are in Oakland. Everything is in Oakland.” –Key
Informant
Key Findings
• Frequent, affordable, and reliable transit networks connecting commercial, government and
residential centers are fundamental to effective service delivery in the Tri‐Valley.
• Reductions in public transportation, including elimination of subsidies for low income and
vulnerable populations, impede access to most other human services available to those in the
Tri‐Valley.
• Seniors and the disabled rely heavily on downtown bus services and subsidized taxi services.
• Transportation networks between Eastern Alameda County and other population centers is not
well‐coordinated, which results in extended trips for critical human services that are not
available locally.
Community Issues
Survey, key informant and focus group data all reveal that transportation issues, including cost and trip
duration, are major impediments to effective human service delivery in the Tri‐Valley. One public
official summarized the impact of transportation issues on low income residents:
“It is difficult for people to get to where the services are. Many of them don’t have a car, they
count on public transportation, which can be a long trip and expensive. It is expensive to go on
BART to Oakland. So people who are already facing challenges are further challenged by this
barrier. Anything that makes getting services more difficult is one less chance that someone will
[get the help they need].”
A variety of geographic factors contribute to the problem. Eastern Alameda County is a fairly large area;
the population is less dense than other parts of the County; there are smaller pockets of low income
residents spread out over greater distance; and many crucial services are located outside the Tri‐Valley,
and require not only transfers along multiple routes, but also across multiple agencies. Stakeholders
reported that the following critical services used by Tri‐Valley residents are located outside of Dublin,
Livermore and Pleasanton: specialty medical care and affordable dentistry; emergency medical care;
behavioral health in‐patient services and medication management; homeless and family court; day
laborer services; adult day care; and supportive housing. Transit access has perhaps the greatest impact
on seniors and the disabled. According to one senior focus group participant, “Transportation is
17 http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011/06/group_wants_voters_to_approve.html
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 54
especially hard for seniors when they need specialty services. It is not easy for seniors to get out and do
things.”
Service Delivery Environment
According to stakeholders engaged in the Needs Assessment, the following public transit options are
available in the Tri‐Valley:
• Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)’s WHEELS, provides bus services throughout
Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and the surrounding unincorporated areas of Alameda County.
Services include Rapid bus service, which runs every 10 minutes during commute hours, as well
as Dial‐A‐Ride paratransit services (described below).
• Dial‐A‐Ride paratransit, run by WHEELS, provides door‐to‐door service to the disabled in Dublin,
Livermore and Pleasanton.
• The ACE train, with stops in Pleasanton, Livermore and Vasco Road, travels with few stops
between San Jose and Stockton.
• BART provides access to locations throughout the Bay Area, but this commuter rail provider is
considered costly for low income residents.
• Pleasanton Paratransit Services provides two programs: door‐to‐door shared rides for people
over the age of 60 and qualified disabled adults, and the Downtown Route, which is a fixed‐
route shuttle service.
• One focus group participant referenced the city of Pleasanton’s same day fixed route transit
service – Downtown Route – saying, “Downtown Bus service is really great! It picks people up at
senior housing services, takes people to the mall, grocery stores, etc., and costs $1.50.”
Gaps and Barriers
Due to budgetary restraints, transit providers in the Tri‐Valley, as well as many throughout the State,
have had to make difficult decisions – either cut services or increase fares. In Eastern Alameda County,
budget restrictions have led to public transportation service cuts. At the same time, social service
agencies have had to cut back on transportation vouchers and other forms of subsidy. One
transportation official described the current service environment: “In the past, with State funding, all
agencies, for example schools, had either grants or state money to supply transportation for families and
individuals in need. Those programs no longer exist.”
The following are additional gaps in transportation services cited by key informants and focus group
participants:
• “Paratransit is only available for a limited window of time, and it takes some acumen to
maneuver through the system. It’s hard to jump through the steps to qualify for people who are
at risk.”
• “Our paratransit services do not go outside of the Tri‐Valley. Oftentimes, if you have to go
outside of the Tri‐Valley, you must transfer from paratransit to public transportation (BART,
buses, etc.). It can be a difficult commute.”
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 55
• “There is only one bus that starts at 5 a.m.; others don’t start running until 7 a.m. If I have an
appointment at 9 a.m., I have to get up early but sometimes the busses are not on time. Then
you miss your appointment.”
Suggestions for Improvement
Many informants made suggestions for improving public transit, including increasing the frequency of
buses, increasing inter‐city transit options and increasing the number of bus routes. However, there
were no tangible suggestions about how to make this change, short of increasing service, and thereby,
increasing budget allocations for transit services. One transportation official noted that there may be a
scholarship program in the future to provide fares to communities in need that could be funded directly
through city and county staff members, thereby avoiding conflict with federal regulations that prohibit
fare reductions based on economic need. Additionally, Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton should
advocate for an effective inter‐county transportation agreement to improve accessibility for residents to
cross between Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties. This is outlined in the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission Transit Coordination Implementation Plan, which emphasizes the need for
“Developing subregional coordination agreements between connecting agencies” in the Greater Bay
Area.18
Domestic Violence/Child Abuse
“We are starting to see an increase in domestic violence. Kids and parents are being
impacted.” –Service Provider
Key Findings
• Current economic conditions have made it more difficult for survivors of domestic violence to
leave their abusers; more permanent, affordable housing options are needed for those
transitioning from shelters.
• Additional outreach and service coordination is needed to raise awareness about available
supports for victims of domestic violence.
Community Issues
Key informants and focus group participants and domestic violence service providers report that current
economic conditions have placed greater stress on families. Victims of abuse are reluctant to leave their
abusers due to financial constraints. Displacement resulting from leaving an abusive situation disrupts
child care and school enrollment, housing stability, social networks and employment. For this reason, in
the Tri‐Valley, domestic violence remains underreported and often “invisible”. One survivor of domestic
violence explained, “Domestic violence is very common, and should be much better known. Most people
don’t report it when they are in that situation. It was too late by the time I started talking about it.”
18 http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/connectivity/Final_Connectivity_Study/finalsummary.pdf
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 56
Service Delivery Environment
Tri‐Valley Haven's Shiloh Domestic Violence Shelter helps women and children that are victims of
domestic violence. Services include a crisis hotline, temporary shelter in a confidential location,
emergency food and clothing, individual counseling, and case management to meet housing, legal,
vocational and financial needs. According to one focus group participant, “They are life savers; starting
eighteen years ago I utilized their legal services to get protection for my family. I still go to therapy there
today.”
Another Tri‐Valley resource is Shepherd’s Gate, a Christian ministry, which provides shelter and
resources for women and children displaced by abuse, financial hardships, and addictions. Services
include counseling, case management, medical services, parenting and life skills classes and bible
studies. Both Shepherd’s Gate and Shiloh Shelter serve women with children in Livermore, Pleasanton
and Dublin.
Information about, and referrals to, domestic violence services are made via referrals from Alameda
County Social Services Agency. One focused discussion group participant mentioned that she received a
referral from a social worker at the Multi‐Service Center in Livermore.
Gaps and Barriers
According to both service providers and survivors, one of the most critical gaps in domestic violence
services in Tri‐Valley is the lack of permanent housing options for people leaving unsafe homes and
shelters. One provider explained, “There are very few subsidized housing options for low income families
and single women. We are running out of options for permanent placement for the women in our
program. They are going into other shelters, which is becoming a vicious cycle of homelessness.”
A second reported barrier to accessing services has to do with the lack of community knowledge about
domestic violence programs in the area. Because of the sensitivity and safety issues surrounding
domestic violence issues, one client indicated it is hard for victims to locate services.
Suggestions for Improvement
The only suggestion for improving domestic violence services offered by interview contacts, focus group
participants and service providers centered on improving permanent affordable housing options for
survivors of domestic violence upon the end of their stay in Tri‐Valley shelters. Given the high
correlation between homeless mothers and domestic violence, this is unsurprising, and demonstrates a
need for an interconnected approach to affordable housing and domestic violence. The Housing First
Model, addressed in the Affordable Housing section of this report, would also be appropriate to ensure
stable housing options for women leaving domestic violence or homeless shelters. 19
19 http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4249
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 57
Disabilities
“I’ve had good days and bad days. When I am sick it is even harder. When I am applying
for services, they put this stack of papers in front of you. It’s intimidating and then it’s
very frustrating.” – Focus Group Participant
Key Findings
• Transportation cost and complexity, such as coordinating transfers between transit agencies and
across county lines, is one of the biggest challenges for adults with disabilities.
• Paratransit, though subsidized, can be cost prohibitive to people on a fixed income.
• Job scarcity impacts youth and adults with disabilities; workforce development options are
limited.
• Shortages of resources for children with disabilities and adults with profound disabilities create
significant hardships for family caregivers.
• For issues concerning developmental disabilities in young children, see Child Care, Early
Childhood Development and Education Section beginning on page 66.
Community Issues
Stakeholders in a focus group for parents of children with disabilities reported the following concerns
regarding youth with disabilities in the Tri‐Valley: insufficient training for special education teachers;
difficulty obtaining an Individualized Education Program (IEP); a shortage of appropriate after school and
summer care; and difficulty obtaining information on available services. Participants agreed that they
typically relied on word of mouth to find out about available services for their children. The scarcity of
support for children with disabilities and their families means that some Eastern Alameda County
residents must make difficult decisions. One mother reported having to decide between the following
options: not working and staying home to care for her child; prohibitively expensive day care; and even
more expensive in‐home support. Another parent, whose child attends public schools, offered, “I’ve
fought his whole school life to get everyone to understand what is going on with him. They are not
providing effective services with children that fall between the cracks.”
Focus group participants reported the following concerns for disabled adults in Dublin, Livermore and
Pleasanton: difficulty accessing services due to transportation challenges; too few independent and
supportive living facilities; a shortage of workforce training and job opportunities; stigma; and
complications in meeting eligibility criteria with “invisible” disabilities. One service provider drew
attention to another issue specific to those with developmental disabilities. This participant offered that:
“Social integration is so desperately needed – what ends up happening, especially in Livermore,
is that we can help a lot of our clients meet their necessity goals, medical needs, etc., but finding
social activities that allow people to meet one another and do fun things in a healthy
environment is not available.”
Service Delivery Environment
Focus group participants referred to a variety of programs that provide support to youth and adults with
either physical or developmental disabilities. The following programs are offered within the Tri‐Valley:
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 58
• The city of Pleasanton offers Recreational Activities for the Developmentally Disabled (RADD) for
youth and adults ages 15 and above.
• East Bay Innovations, through their office in Livermore, provides independent living, supported
living, and employment services to adults with disabilities who are clients of the Regional Center
(services provided in Oakland).
• Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL), with an office in Livermore, provides
advocacy, case management and referrals for adults with disabilities.
• Bay Area Community Services (BACS) provides services and employment to adults with
psychiatric disabilities.
• Pleasanton Paratransit and WHEELS Dial‐a‐Ride offer subsidized transportation (see
Transportation section of this report).
• Arc of Alameda County offers independent living skills, case management and advocacy for
adults and children with developmental disabilities in its office in Livermore.
• Easter Seals Kaleidoscope offers an after school program for developmentally disabled children
in Dublin.
• Keystone Adult Learning Center in Pleasanton provides support to family caregivers and living
skills to adults with developmental disabilities.
• The National Federation of the Blind has a Tri‐Valley Chapter located in Pleasanton, and
provides advocacy, information and referrals.
• Resources Education Activities Community Housing (REACH) provides resources, education,
activities, community participation and housing opportunities that enable adults with
developmental challenges to approximate the pattern of everyday living available to people
without disabilities.
Current Gaps in Services or Barriers to Improving Services
Parents reported that in general, there are not enough services available in Eastern Alameda County to
meet the needs of disabled children. Several focus group participants expressed concern about the gap
in services for transitional age developmentally disabled youth. They cited a shortage of workforce
development opportunities, the small number of group homes in the Tri‐Valley, and the lack of socially
appropriate and engaging daytime activities. As an example, some East Bay Innovations programs are
not available to new clients, who must ask to be placed on a waiting list. Parents described other
programs with long waiting lists as well, many of which do not conduct outreach for fear of growing the
waitlist. One parent elaborated, “If you don’t know what to look for then you don’t find out about it.”
The lack of centralized information, or a “help desk”, in the Tri‐Valley is a challenge for those with
special needs and disabilities and their families.
Budget cuts have eliminated other programs for the disabled. For example, Livermore Area Recreation
and Park District’s RADD and TADD (Teen Activities for the Developmentally Disabled) programs were
eliminated due to district wide budget cuts.
Several focus group parents who decided that public schools were not an appropriate option for their
severely disabled children found that they had to send their children to private schools outside of the
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 59
Tri‐Valley because there were no appropriate private schools in Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. For
many families of limited means, this would not be an option.
Disabled adults reported that one of the most critical gaps in Eastern Alameda County is affordable
housing devoted to people with disabilities. One participant summed up the challenges associated with
finding an affordable home, “Disability and housing, they go hand in hand.”
Participants also described transportation gaps for adults with disabilities. Some volunteer‐based
services are not equipped to transport disabled people and their equipment (such as a wheelchair). One
disabled Tri‐Valley resident noted that paratransit services do not wait for people while they transfer to
other public transit services, especially those outside the Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, “This can be
problematic because people get confused or lost, or can have a lapse into another [disorienting]
condition.” Transportation for the disabled can be prohibitively expensive for the disabled, many of
whom are living on a fixed income. Such expenses may result in social isolation and inability to access
critical services.
Several disabled advocates described a lack of knowledge and cultural sensitivity among the general
public and some social service providers in the Tri‐Valley. People with less obvious disabilities face
discrimination, disbelief and invasive questioning even by well‐meaning providers who are not
knowledgeable about discrimination policies and the law. People with sensory disabilities (auditory and
visual) face unique challenges that are exacerbated by a lack of familiarity among providers. For
example, for the deaf community, according to one service provider to those with sensory disabilities:
"If an agency only has drop in hours, the deaf and hard of hearing clients cannot just drop in. There
would be no one to help with communication." Similarly, a lack of knowledge and cultural sensitivity
towards persons with disabilities places a difficult burden on people with disabilities, who must
sometimes defend their rights in order to access services. One advocate explained, “Even though the
laws are still there, agencies will discontinue interpretation services to save money. It’s come down to
the bottom line, and the bottom line is that the agencies are more concerned with funding than
compliance with the law."
Suggestions for Improvement
Focus group participants suggested that public school teachers in the Tri‐Valley, including special
education teachers, need additional training in integrating disabled children into the classroom.
“Teachers need to understand the wide range of disabilities, including Downs Syndrome, Autism, etc.”
One parent recommended that programs “focus on the potential of the child, the positive, not just the
negative. For example, sometimes their bad behavior is emphasized more than their special gifts and
talents.” Other suggestions included increasing the availability of summer programs, after school
programs, independent living programs, and job training programs specific to youth with disabilities.
One specific suggestion was to offer special needs students in the 12th grade the option of taking more
“hands‐on” job training classes, to improve their potential for finding employment after graduating.
Adults with disabilities also emphasized the need for job training. One focus group participant stated, “I
need job training. We need more jobs for people with learning disabilities.”
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 60
Food and Nutrition
“We have services for those most marginalized, but there is not much for those
in between.” –Key Informant
Key Findings
• The need for food and nutrition assistance in the Tri‐Valley area is growing, particularly among
the newly or marginally food‐insecure families.
• Food assistance provided by faith‐based and nonprofit organizations augment limited County
resources.
• Many individuals who use food pantries may qualify for public assistance such as WIC or
CalFresh: however, do not apply or face multiple barriers to applying for assistance.
• Many migrant employees and families experience food insecurity.
• Homeless residents of the Tri‐Valley are almost exclusively reliant on food and nutrition services
due to a lack of kitchen facilities.
• Access to hot meal service and food pantries is limited by geographic dispersion of the target
population and a shortage of transportation options.
Community Issues
Key informants and focus group participants described a growing need among the recently unemployed
for food and nutrition services. However, this population may not be familiar with public resources and
may in fact avoid services due to the stigma associated with asking for help. Such individuals may qualify
for a variety of services such as WIC, CalFresh (food stamps), or TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy
Families); food pantries, for example, can serve as a portal for information regarding emergency
assistance. Other individuals who need additional assistance may not qualify or face barriers such as
language and literacy‐related issues, immigration status or reluctance to hand over sensitive personal
information.
Many immigrants, particularly those with uncertain legal status, are vulnerable to food insecurity. Often
immigrants live in overcrowded households. One interviewee with expertise in food insecurity
explained:
“Some people live with many others in a single apartment, and some food services put
restrictions based on household size. Many don’t have documents for everyone in the house, so
they get food for just one person. They need proof of residency to show where they live but they
can’t get that because proof of residence such as a utility bill is not in their name. These are not
intact families so they cannot get services.”
Some of the most vulnerable residents of Eastern Alameda County, such as the elderly or the homeless,
rely on hot meal services because they cannot prepare meals or do not have the facilities to cook. One
homeless resident of Livermore said, “We’re limited in what we can eat because we have no facilities. It
would be helpful to have a place to cook, so we can eat healthier.”
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 61
Service Delivery Environment
There are a number of providers of hot meal services and food pantry services in the Tri‐Valley.
Stakeholders cited the following resources:
• Open Heart Kitchen offers healthy and hot meals at various locations on a rotational basis.
• Tri‐Valley Haven Food Pantry provides free groceries to low income residents.
• Spectrum Community Services offers a Meals on Wheels program, delivering hot meals to
homebound seniors who are unable to cook in Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and Sunol.
• Axis Community Health WIC Program provides supplemental food, nutrition and counseling to
pregnant women, infants and children.
• Children’s Emergency Council distributes emergency food boxes and food vouchers
intermittently to residents of Dublin and Pleasanton.
• Faith based communities provide food pantries in Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton that
supplement larger food service delivery programs.
Gaps and Barriers
Access to food and nutrition services in Eastern Alameda County is limited by a number of factors.
Stakeholders cited the following gaps and barriers:
• Some programs limit the number of times an individual may seek assistance. “Many of the sites
only offer services one or two times a month for the same person. So they can only go every two
weeks to get food.”
• Open Heart Kitchen, while providing a vital service throughout the Tri‐Valley, changes locations
on a daily basis. This can be confusing and can pose significant challenges to those who rely on
public transportation.
• Food pantry services used to be open five days per week, but are now open only four days.
• Many food and nutrition programs rely on local faith‐based organizations, whereas in the past
the County supported the nutritional needs of low income families. This means that local
organizations have to make difficult choices between feeding the hungry and offering other vital
services.
• Some families who could benefit from nutrition services do not apply due to social stigma or
because they are not eligible because of immigration status.
Suggestions for Improvement
Along with the widespread call for more funding, several stakeholders spoke of successful efforts to
better coordinate services. For example, one interviewee described the following:
“A number of food banks were able to get a single freezer. The cost of the freezer was
prohibitive, but the three can now all use it and a have better use of electricity. Now in holiday
times, when grocery stores have a lot of overstock, they can store the food. This was just one
person’s idea, and they made it happen.”
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 62
Another stakeholder suggested that agencies and organizations in the area provide resources to ensure
that linguistically and culturally competent outreach workers identify and assist qualifying families with
enrollment in nutritional assistance and other programs, such as WIC and CalFresh.
Senior Services
“Transportation is especially hard for seniors who live in isolation. It is not always easy
for seniors to get out and do things.” –Key Informant
Key Findings
• Outreach is needed to help identify homebound seniors.
• Social isolation exacerbates mental and physical health issues and prevents access to services.
• Many lower‐income seniors do not meet income thresholds which would qualify them for
critical services such as supportive housing.
• The cost and complexity of using public transportation prohibits many older adults from
accessing critical services.
• There are no licensed Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) programs in the Tri‐Valley to serve low
income seniors with health‐related issues, and State budget cuts are eliminating such programs
in neighboring communities.
• Currently, the Tri‐Valley YMCA is in the process of renovating a facility to be used for
implementing an adult day care social program; the date for the opening of the facility is yet to
be determined.
Community Issues
Many older adults in Eastern Alameda County live on a fixed income; while the cost of living is
increasing, their income is not. Many services that would greatly improve the lives of older residents are
restricted to the most indigent. According to one interviewee, “many seniors fall into the category of
poverty but they don’t qualify for many services, for example food stamps, or Medi‐Cal if they are above
a certain income. But, they are still poor.” Another focus group participant with disabilities corroborated
this, saying that for her mother, it is difficult to afford food and transportation, and because of her
income, she is not eligible for food stamps.
Current economic conditions are placing unique intergenerational burdens on families. As the
population of adults over the age of 85 burgeons, more and more middle‐aged children are shouldering
the burden. One senior services provider reported that attendance in caregiver support groups has
outpaced her agency’s capacity to staff them. At the same time, an increasing number of adults are
moving in with or otherwise relying financially on their aging parents due to unemployment or
underemployment. Speaking to this issue, one informant noted that, “It’s difficult to afford taking care
of [family members], transportation, rent, home maintenance, and basic needs, such as heat. There is a
lot of financial stress.”
Another issue facing older adults in the Tri‐Valley is isolation. According to one senior in the community,
“There are many seniors that are homebound without any help. There are in‐home supports but these
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 63
are limited. I just think this hides issues and explains why they are not being addressed.” One key
informant senior service provider said, “I basically see it as less access to services and more isolation; We
have fewer services available, more difficulty getting to services. Basically, the quality of life for seniors is
on a trajectory that is going down, not up.” The lack of services, difficulty in accessing services,
limitations because of geographic isolation, and reduced federal incentives, including SSI, were
mentioned in concert – indicating that there are inextricable connections between these issues.
Service Delivery Environment
The most widely recognized and accessible services for seniors in the Tri‐Valley are the multi‐service
senior centers located in Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton.
• The Senior Support Program of the Tri‐Valley is a nonprofit organization jointly funded by the
Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, and County Department of Behavioral Health. The
program supports volunteer home visitors through its Friendly Visiting Program. It offers case
management for individuals able to maintain independent lifestyles; alcohol and drug
treatment; family caregiver support; rides to medical appointments when paratransit is not
appropriate; nutrition and fitness programming; and a registry for in‐home supportive services.
• Dublin Senior Center, run by the city, offers low‐cost lunch programs, enrichment programs,
health screenings, trips and special events.
• Livermore Area Recreation and Park District operates a Senior Services program that provides
recreation, a lunch program, enrichment programs and social services, including case
management.
• The Pleasanton Senior Center provides enrichment activities, informational materials on
housing, transportation and safety, legal counseling and access to Medicare. Support groups are
offered for caregivers, and people with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Lunch is offered to
qualifying seniors on a donation basis.
• Tri‐Valley YMCA is planning on opening a social model adult day care facility in Dublin for seniors
through a partnership between the Livermore Area Recreation and Park Department (LARPD),
Dublin Unified School District, and the three cities.
Subsidized transportation is also available in the Tri‐Valley (see Transportation section of this report).
According to one older adult focus group participant, in addition to Paratransit’s Dial A Ride, the Dial A
Taxi program is very helpful. “It is the only program that has same day cab service. About $200 per
month [in subsidy] is allowed for each person, and they also allow one additional person to go with you
free of charge to serve as your helper.”
Gaps and Barriers
A major gap in service is a shortage of housing options for low income seniors. According to one senior
seeking these services, “Affordable housing providers do not provide enough affordable housing for
disabled adults and disabled seniors. There are a lot of seniors who are disabled.” Interviewees also
indicated that two adult day care programs, one in Pleasanton run by Easter Seals and another in
Livermore, have closed. To date, there are no adult day health care programs in the Tri‐Valley, however
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 64
the Tri‐Valley YMCA is in the process of opening a licensed adult day facility in Dublin that will serve all
of Eastern Alameda County.
As articulated in the Behavioral Health section of this report, mental health and substance abuse
services are insufficient to meet the needs of the growing senior population. Other necessary services
reported to be lacking include free and subsidized legal help.
One of the major barriers to older adults receiving services is cost. One senior resident said, “You have
to think about cost. For example, coming to the Senior Center for lunch adds up over time; paratransit
costs $3 each way. It can total $10 per day. Not everyone can afford it. I’ve seen the lunch program
decrease in participation because people are just not able to afford it regularly.”
Another critical barrier to providing culturally competent services to older adults is a lack of knowledge
about what is needed to accommodate seniors. According to one contact in Pleasanton, “People are too
embarrassed to tell you or ask for help…The elderly, especially those who are affected by chronic illness,
are less likely to ask for help because they don’t have the energy to do it.” Senior centers have worked to
increase outreach. For example, one senior service provider reported that her center mails out menus
and activity schedules, but only to those on the mailing list. She believes that there are many seniors
who do not know to sign up or are reluctant to pursue services.
Suggestions for Improvement
Budget cuts have eliminated and reduced a number of senior programs in the area. One senior focus
group participant suggested that, “Programs might be able to stay open if there were volunteers. The
Senior Center[s] should put out a request to coordinate volunteers to help out. For instance, maybe they
could reach out to teenagers. They can volunteer, fulfilling the needs of teens and seniors.” Additionally,
working through churches and medical offices to distribute information about resources would ensure
that available programs are adequately utilizied.
Another focus group participant suggested that a program that encourages neighbors to check‐in on
homebound seniors would be helpful: “We need to look out for our neighbors, because ultimately, this is
something senior centers can’t provide.” For this respondent, such outreach could be as simple as saying
hello to neighbors, and about a neighbor’s whereabouts and status. This respondent went on to say that
“We should be available to help our neighbors, we need to extend ourselves, and we need community
building. We need to talk to people daily to make sure they get some contact or help if they need it.”
One participant suggested that Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton could fund respite care for caregivers
of elderly and the disabled, which would help alleviate the stress of both older adults and their
caregivers, especially for those caring for people with serious medical conditions or dementia. A
number of communities, such as Amador County, have used MHSA prevention and early intervention
funds for respite care.20
20 http://www.co.amador.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=7575
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 65
Youth Services
“There is very high drug and alcohol use and suicidality among our youth. These issues
are affecting our schools and the places that teens hang out every day.” –Key Informant
Key Findings
• Many residents and organizations are unaware of the stressors faced by youth in the Tri‐Valley.
• Substance use and other risky behaviors among youth are increasing.
• There are a shortage of low‐cost after‐school and summer enrichment activities for Eastern
Alameda County youth.
• Public schools can serve as community hubs and as a venue for stigma‐free services for families
in need.
• Non‐English‐speaking parents face challenges in advocating for their children and
communicating with teachers and school administrators.
Community Issues
The most common concerns expressed by community stakeholders regarding youth and transitional age
youth relate to academic stress and pressure to succeed; growing rates of substance use and other risky
behaviors; lack of engaging and supervised extracurricular activities; and parental absenteeism due to
long commutes. Informants reported that risky behaviors are now being observed in younger children.
One stakeholder offered that, “Youth get together and smoke and use drugs, and our younger kids are
watching and susceptible to the same patterns of bad behaviors. This happens when parents are working
and kids are left alone.” RDA heard many reports of gang activity, teen pregnancy, abortion, and
vandalism as well. Stakeholders, including mental health providers, also reported that Tri‐Valley teens
are pressured by their parents and the schools to succeed, but don’t receive sufficient emotional or peer
support. At the same time, those stakeholders working with low income, minority and English as a
second language students report differential treatment. One interviewee explained, “I asked a school
counselor about the kids who are struggling with English. The schools don’t want them to have a
negative effect on test scores, so they end up at a continuation high school.” Others reported that non‐
English‐speaking parents reported difficulty communicating with teachers and school administrators,
and could not adequately advocate for their children. One parent said that, ““Many Hispanic parents do
not have the resources at school to access all they need to help their children. They do not have the basic
English skills to advocate for their children and fluently communicate with teachers.” Such issues,
according to one interviewee, speak to a huge need for cultural competence work in the schools.
The following data is from the California Health Kids Survey 2009‐2010, a statewide survey of resiliency,
protective factors, and risk behaviors of youth. This survey illustrates risk factors related to alcohol and
drug use. All responses in the following table represent the portion of students that “Agree” or “Strongly
Agree” with the listed statement.
Alcohol/Drug Use Tri‐Valley Dublin Livermore Pleasanton
Percentage of 11th grade students who
reported consuming 4 or more alcoholic
drinks in their lifetime.
39% 43% 44% 35%
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 66
Table 4: California Healthy Kids Survey Reporting on Alcohol and Drug Use
Alcohol/Drug Use Tri‐Valley Dublin Livermore Pleasanton
Percentage of 9th grade students who
reported it is easy to obtain alcohol. 66% 53% 68% 68%
Percentage of 11th grade students who
reported it is easy to obtain alcohol. 78% 78% 77% 78%
Percentage of 11th grade students who
reported using marijuana 4 or more times in
their lifetime.
32% 38% 38% 27%
Percentage of 9th grade students who
reported it is easy to obtain marijuana. 54% 49% 61% 50%
Percentage of 11th grade students who
reported it is easy to obtain marijuana. 71% 74% 73% 68%
Percentage of 9th grade students who
reported use of an illegal drug, pill, or alcohol
in the past 30 days.
24% 22% 32% 17%
Percentage of 11th grade students who
reported use of an illegal drug, pill, or alcohol
in the past 30 days.
35% 40% 37% 33%
Even though peer disapproval of cigarette use was high among all students (92% of Pleasanton youth
disapprove of smoking, as do 87% in Livermore, 86% in Dublin, and 89% in the Tri‐Valley), when asked to
estimate the prevalence of peer smoking, many believed that their peers smoked cigarettes at least
once a month. This is illustrated in Table 5, below.
Location 7th grade 9th grade 11th grade
Dublin 42%76%91%
Livermore 70%94%94%
Pleasanton 40%84%91%
Tri‐Valley 51%84%92%
Violence and Safety Tri‐Valley Dublin Livermore Pleasanton
The percentage of 9th grade students reporting at least
one incident of verbal harassment on school property
within the past 12 months where, “sexual
jokes/comments/ gestures are made to you”
50% 51% 50% 50%
Table 5: California Healthy Kids Survey Reporting Disapproval of Cigarette Use
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 67
Table 6: California Health Kids Survey Reporting On Violence and Safety
Service Delivery Environment
Stakeholders reported on several school‐based programs that support children and youth:
• Horizon High School Age Mothers and Young Fathers Program in Pleasanton offers high school
courses to teen parents in the Tri‐Valley, provides transportation and childcare for students.
• Horizons Family Counseling provides school‐based counseling at Del Valle High School and
family counseling and parenting classes in English and Spanish.
• Tri‐Valley Regional Occupation Program in Livermore provides vocational education for high
school students.
• Abode Services Project Independence transitional housing and job training for emancipated
foster youth and juvenile probationers.
• Pathways to Picasso summer art program in Livermore via Community Development Block
Grants.
• Aprendiendo a Triumfar at Las Positas Community College teaches youth the importance of
staying in school and continuing their education.
• Tri‐Valley YMCA provides one‐on‐one youth mentoring free of cost to at‐risk 8 ‐ 16 year olds
• The Tri‐Valley Adolescent Health Initiative (TVAHI) advocated for school‐based mental health
services in all of the continuation high schools in the Tri‐Valley. Additional mental health support
began in 2009 and in January 2011, program received an additional $250,000 from the County
Board of Supervisors to expand services.
• Axis Community Health offers an outpatient Drug and Alcohol Recovery Program for Tri‐Valley
teens; Axis also provides school‐based mental health and substance abuse education services in
all three school districts in Livermore, Dublin and Pleasanton.
• Tri‐Valley Community Foundation offers Summer Youth Employment opportunities. Thus far,
the Summer Youth Employment Program has employed more than 250 youth in the Tri‐Valley
area.
Violence and Safety Tri‐Valley Dublin Livermore Pleasanton
Percentage of 9th grade students who reported at least
one incident of cyber bullying
26% 24% 26% 27%
Percentage of 7th grade students who reported at least
one incident of harassment of any kind on school
property within the past 12 months
42% 41% 45% 40%
Percentage of 7th grade students who reported at least
one incident of hate‐crime reason (relating to race,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability ) for
harassment on school property within the past 12 months
32% 32% 34% 31%
Percentage of 7th grade students who reported their
perceived safety of the school as “safe” or “very safe”
72% 70% 61% 81%
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 68
• Tri‐Valley Community Foundation offers a gang intervention and prevention program based at
Livermore High School. The program provides young people with after school activities including
tutoring, mentoring, healthy living classes and recreation.
• In conjunction with Las Positas College, St. Michaels and local Latino Community Leaders, Tri‐
Valley Community Foundation provides an annual conference for youth and families to provide
education about community college retention, financial aid education, ESL workshops and a
better understanding of the community college setting.
Gaps and Barriers
A shortage of free or low‐cost recreational, enriching extracurricular activities were the most commonly
cited gaps in services for youth. Stakeholders reported that this gap has contributed to an increase in
risky behaviors and illegal activities such as vandalism and gang affiliation. Several resources are
available for the most at‐risk youth, for example, summer school in Livermore is offered only for
students who need academic intervention and Pleasanton no longer offers fee‐based enrichment
activities in its summer school program. Other programs, such as YMCA mentoring and Horizons Family
Counseling are only available to at‐risk or juvenile justice involved youth and their families.
Parents reported that there is a lack of information about low‐cost programs for youth. One parent in a
focus group said that her child was involved in an after school program that had scholarships, but they
were not advertised because there was already a substantial waiting list. For parents who do not speak
English, finding out about programs for youth is even more challenging. Other barriers include a lack of
transportation to those programs that are available. Other gaps cited by providers and parents include a
lack of job opportunities and job training for youth. This phenomenon has been exacerbated by current
economic conditions, whereby in the past, there were abundant summer and part‐time entry‐level jobs;
today, many of these jobs are being taken by underemployed adults. One parent said that she has been
looking for employment for her son for over one year. “There is nothing in the 14 to 16 age range. There
are some extra‐curricular activities, but a job is different because it increases self‐esteem.”
One mental health advocate articulated concern around the cutting of funding for AB3632 – legislation
that ensures that children with disabilities are entitled to a free and equal education, which is
manifested in an Individualized Education Program (IEP). With funding cut to AB3632, this advocate
offered, “I am concerned about what will happen to these kids, especially those in a low economic
bracket, as well as their families. If [AB3632] dies on the vine, it will knock more parents into bankruptcy
and cause economic hardship beyond your and my imagination.”
Changing demographics, particularly related to the increase in linguistic isolation among many
newcomers presents a significant barrier for some parents in Eastern Alameda County. One parent of a
child in a Tri‐Valley public school stated, “Hispanic parents do not have the resources at school to access
all they need to help their children. They need to know basic English to advocate for their children.” (The
demographic findings in this report suggest that Asian/Pacific Islander parents also face these barriers.)
Other communities throughout California with large influxes of immigrants have addressed the issue by
offering English as a Second Language classes with a focus on student education and have provided
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 69
ongoing cultural competency training to their staff. One stakeholder suggested, “We need some kind of
group at the school working on helping parents to communicate effectively with teachers. I would like to
see well trained staff so parents get what they need. Not all teachers need to be bilingual, but there
should be a team that knows the languages and can work with teachers.”
Another barrier cited by stakeholders has to do with a lack of service coordination within and between
school districts in Eastern Alameda County. Educational budget cuts have increased the need for school‐
based supportive services, but as a result of these cuts, one parent and focus group participant
explained, “fewer staff on school sites mean there are fewer adults for youth to build relationships with.”
This is of particular concern for youth transitioning out of foster care services in the Tri‐Valley. Each
school district works independently to address human service issues, and reportedly, do so without
significant communications with city and county agencies. One official reported:
“There are disparate responses in the three communities. One district is saying, ‘we are working
to sort this out.’ In [another district], it is, ‘not our kids, there is no problem here.’ Still another
school district says it is addressing the issue. But there is not a comprehensive, overarching
approach for services for kids and teens.”
Finally, service coordination for youth in Eastern Alameda County is reportedly obstructed by a
prevalent expression of denial. According to one interviewee, “There is a level of denial that our kids
need help.” This denial leads to resistance in dealing with issues facing young people. According to one
community advocate, “I hear all the time – ‘we keep quiet about drugs and alcohol, we don’t want to
acknowledge these issues as a community – it might bring down home values, etc. This leads to
divergent community responses.”
Suggestions for Improvement
Stakeholders in community meetings and focus groups consistently expressed an interest in increasing
human service provision in public schools. Providing services on school grounds can help reduce the
stigma associated with asking for help, since most parents already visit the schools. Most commonly,
stakeholders recommended increasing Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) services, mental health prevention
and early intervention, outreach and mentoring on school sites. One provider specifically referenced the
need to retain those programs that are currently available and working, “We need to get a longer‐term
MHSA funding stream, now that the programs are initiated.” The provision of medical and dental care in
the schools was also suggested to close the gap in health services for low income youth. One parent
suggested that, “There are cities where dentists come into the schools, give an exam and offer effective
prevention services.” Another suggestion was to have a youth medical clinic in the Tri‐Valley, with one
stakeholder offering that there are similar programs functioning in Oakland that could serve as partners
in the process.
Dublin civic leaders have expressed interest in a cutting‐edge strategy for revenue sharing between
schools and the city. Recognizing that the local economy depends on high quality education and quality
local public education depends upon a healthy community, Dublin City staff and council members,
together with local school districts, have explored ways to work more effectively together. In a 2011
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 70
National Civic League Report,21 Dublin was recognized for city/school collaboration planning and shared
revenue measures; shared facilities; and joint community outreach and engagement. One civic leader
expressed optimistically, “We are looking for a shared revenue strategy for schools and city, which is
practically unheard of. Santa Monica and Emeryville are models. The National Civic League was amazed
that we were having this discussion.” Dublin should share findings and identify opportunities to work
with the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton to further its goals.
The creation of a safe space for low cost or free recreation activities for teens – a joint use facility – was
emphasized in focus groups as one important step towards addressing the problems indicated above.
One parent hoped that “If we provide youth a space to be creative and involved in something
extracurricular, little by little we can expand these programs. For example, if they are interested in art or
ceramics, we could have an art exhibition and sell some of their works to fundraise for more programs.”
Parents in the Spanish‐speaking focus group were eager to get involved in such a project, saying, “There
are lots of parents willing to volunteer their time.”
Child Care, Early Childhood Development and Education
“My biggest concern about the future is child care. If my kids aren’t taken care of then I
can’t get out and have a job.” ‐Focus Group Participant
Key Findings
• There are long waiting lists for subsidized childcare in Eastern Alameda County.
• Few providers offer extended hours child care, especially at night or on weekends.
• Social, emotional and developmental screenings are not universal in the Tri‐Valley.
• There is a growing demand for services for children with autism spectrum disorder and other
developmental delays.
• Providers of services to young children lack knowledge and education about child development,
particularly for those with developmental disabilities.
Community Issues
High quality child care is important for improving the lives of families and children, especially those
facing economic hardships. According to several informants, the inability to access consistent, low cost
childcare is one of the greatest barriers to financial and social stability among families in the Tri‐Valley.
Low income and single parents require subsidized childcare, but also extended hour care, on weekends
and evenings. Waiting lists for subsidized child care are long, especially for parents of infants or those
with developmental challenges. One community member reported, “I am a nursing assistant and I work
in the evening. It is hard to get someone to watch my kids. The night shift pays well, which will help us in
the future, but I need child care.”
21 http://www.allamericacityaward.com/2011/02/14/dublin‐california‐holds‐joint‐city‐schools‐forum/
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 71
Increased awareness, improved screening and diagnostic tools, early screening and possible increased
incidence rates have resulted in higher detection rates of autism spectrum and other developmental
disorders. Correspondingly, the demand for specialty child care has increased but the supply of services
has not kept pace. Many providers are not sufficiently educated or trained in child development.
According to one provider, “There is a systemic issue of awareness and a lack of capacity for some
organizations. So the issue continues to be that service providers are underserving the needs of children
and families with disabilities.”
Service Delivery Environment
Stakeholders involved in the Needs Assessment referenced the following available programs:
• Child Care Links provides child care referrals and subsidies to low income residents and has
recently extended services to older children. Services include support groups, therapy support
services, and arts education programs for low income children. The organization is also
continuing to seek out and build collaborations and community‐based partnerships.
• The Community Association for Preschool Education (CAPE) is the Head Start and Early Head
Start provider for Eastern Alameda County. The agency provides high‐quality child care,
extended care and preschool programs to low income families and children with developmental
disabilities. One parent of a young child noted that, “CAPE takes good care of my kids. The
teachers refer us to medical services and make sure my kids are growing up well. The teachers
have good relationships with the families. My kids have received language and speech therapy. I
really like how they take care of my children.”
• Kidango provides subsidized care to children 0 ‐ 5 in Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton.
• Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) offers developmentally appropriate classes
for preschoolers and their parents, including “Baby and Me”. In a joint agreement with
Livermore schools, LARPD offers extended student services and kids zone for ten elementary
schools.
• School of Imagination – Opened in Dublin in October 2011 ‐ is an education center devoted to
children with developmental disabilities.
• Pleasanton’s Gingerbread Preschool offers children ages 2‐5 a part‐time, recreational program
in which children learn through play and the process of participating in activities. Qualified
participants can receive financial assistance to help offset the cost of the program.
Specialty services are also available for survivors of domestic violence and families involved with Child
Protective Services. One focus group participant stated, “My children needed more speech help, and
worked through the school district to get an extra half hour of services per week. CPS moved my case
more quickly with custody, placement and supporting my children.”
Gaps and Barriers
Stakeholders are concerned with the recent loss of programs and the shortage of providers in general.
One provider stated, “There used to be a drop in child care center, but it went under. And we have no
crisis drop‐in center for families; the closest one is in Concord.” The Tri‐Valley is affected by state funding
cuts as well. One informant described a shift in how services for children with disabilities and their
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 72
families are paid for, “Traditionally it’s been that the State Department of Developmental Services paid
for treatments and services. That system has become just about bankrupt.” In addition, she described
cuts to CalWORKs, which resulted in a decrease of funding for child care services formerly offered
through Child Care Links.
Suggestions for Improvement
Several stakeholders, including parents of developmentally disabled and special needs children,
suggested that the Tri‐Valley should increase developmental screenings for children before they enter
kindergarten. However, they acknowledged that early and more frequent screenings result in higher
rates of diagnosis. Higher diagnostic rates impact K‐12 schools because they are required to provide
services to these children. Nonetheless, early detection has been linked directly to improved outcomes
for children with developmental disorders, and an increase in demand for services resulting from
appropriate diagnosis should not deter early intervention. A local assessment that includes annual
projections based on higher rates of diagnosis would help schools and early care providers plan for
increased demand, which will help address service bottlenecks in the future. In addition, increases in
diagnosis and the awareness that early intervention can improve long‐term outcomes and ultimately
save public resources suggests that an investment in provider education about early childhood
development would be prudent.
Changing Demographics and Growing Diversity
“Demographics are changing rapidly and I don’t see human services keeping pace. We,
as providers of services, need to continue to build in supports for families, especially
newly emigrating families.” –Key Informant
Key Findings
• Eastern Alameda County is becoming increasingly diverse; more people are moving to the area,
thereby broadening expectations and cultural norms. Many are immigrants and non‐English‐
speakers.
• There is a need to improve community outreach and coordination of services to ensure that
underserved, geographically and linguistically‐isolated communities have access to services.
• There are insufficient multilingual providers and providers with experience and expertise in
working with the broad array of newly arrived cultures and communities, especially in
healthcare and educational institutions.
• Community‐building efforts are needed to increase the diversity of representation in local
decisions and on City Boards and Commissions.
• Volunteers from underserved communities could be supported to act as liaisons to improve the
coordination of services, access to services and increase representation in planning and decision
making.
Community Issues
There are increasing numbers of Asian/Pacific Islander residents in Eastern Alameda County. In
Pleasanton, there is a growing Mandarin‐speaking population. In Livermore, there are increasing
numbers of Spanish‐speaking residents. Many recent African American residents, according to one
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 73
interviewee, are coming from communities where they represent 30 or 40 percent of the population. In
Eastern Alameda County, they only now represent three to four percent of the community. This creates
challenges for those moving into the area and for providers that must rapidly adapt services to meet the
needs of new communities.
Recent newcomers, particularly immigrants and people from underserved communities, experience
three unique challenges in accessing critical services: First, they report not knowing about available
services and complications in understanding how the service delivery system works. Those with limited
English skills face language barriers that further complicate their understanding. Second, newcomers
report a shortage of bilingual/bicultural providers who understand and respect their culture and their
language. Third, in a few instances, stakeholders reported animosity or discrimination by other
community members as well as, in a few instances, by service providers. One provider who works with
immigrants spoke to the challenge, “I think the Tri‐Valley is barely getting into the groove of addressing
the needs of people who don’t speak English.” Another provider described her experience with the lack
of cultural competency among certain providers in Eastern Alameda County: “Racial profiling really
crosses all areas of service delivery. Many kids here are second generation U.S. residents… they are still
likely to be viewed as the outsider.”
In spite of these barriers, service providers are reporting increasing diversity of service recipients:
“We see the population we are serving changing dramatically – so much so that in the past, our
parenting readiness class would be 90% White; now 17 out of 18 are primarily non‐English
speakers. We had to change our services – we added a coaching dimension to our parenting
workshop to help people navigate the school district. How do they know how to sign up for
school when the forms are only in English, not in Hindi, Urdu, and Mandarin? I worry that we are
missing health issues when kids are signing up for school.”
Service Delivery Environment
The city of Livermore’s Multi Service Center was repeatedly cited as providing a wide array of culturally
and linguistically competent services all under one roof. This type of centralized service center increases
visibility of services, and may improve access for people that are unaware of the range of available
human services. For instance, the organizations listed in the following table all collaborate to provide
services at the Livermore Multi Service Center, and would be visible to those receiving any service at the
facility.
• Abode Services
• Alameda County Associated Community
Action Program (ACAP)
• Alameda Co. Behavioral Health
• Alameda Co. Social Services
• Axis Community Health Center
• CRIL (Community Resources for
Independent Living)
• East Bay Innovations
• ECHO (Eden Hope Council for Hope &
Opportunity) Housing
• Law Center for Families
• Medi‐Cal Services
• Department of Rehabilitation
• Tri‐City Health Center AIDS Project
• Tri‐Valley Interfaith Poverty
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 74
• Tri‐City Homeless Coalition
Another program mentioned specifically is Aprendiendo a Triumfar at Las Positas Community College,
which teaches youth the importance of staying in school and continuing their education. The program is
tied to school districts, the faith‐based community, and immigration programs. Beyond this,
interviewees mentioned that there are community groups and faith‐based organizations representative
of emerging demographics. Nearly all social delivery programs cited that they provide interpretation
service via bilingual staff or, when necessary, a phone interpretation line.
Additionally, the city of Pleasanton and the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce partner on the
Leadership Pleasanton Program – this program promotes community volunteerism and
educates participants about the city and school district. The city of Dublin offers Inside Dublin,
which is sponsored by the city of Dublin and open to applicants interested in learning about the
issues facing the community, and to encourage community involvement at all levels. The
program includes presentations on topics such as public safety, local government, and
community services. In Livermore, the Livermore Chamber of Commerce in partnership with the
City of Livermore offers Leadership Livermore, a nine month program that builds relationships
between community members and civic leaders. These programs serve as a means to engage
community members in the civic process, building representativeness in political decision
making.
Gaps and Barriers
Human service providers from many different organizations reported on the challenges they face in
providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services. Most commonly, staff reported a need to
“play catch‐up” in terms of employing staff that speak the same language as their clients. Organizations
are working to meet current demand, and are not necessarily projecting future needs based on
demographic trends. One provider explained, “We serve a large Hispanic population, but we don’t have
enough staff to accommodate this. We have to do a lot of face‐to‐face interviews but we only have two
bilingual Spanish staff. We sometimes have to use tele‐interpreters.” Other staff report on the shortage
of multilingual candidates applying for jobs in the Tri‐Valley:
“In our organization we have a good number of people who are bilingual, the doctors speak
multiple languages, and 80% of staff in the medical clinics are bilingual. However, there has
been a 20% drop in bilingual staff within the behavioral health department. We are making this
our priority because we serve this specific community.”
Another challenge, which was identified by stakeholders in Eastern Alameda County, has to do with the
shortage of diverse civic leadership and its impact on creating culturally competent policy. One
interviewee noted,
“In the Tri‐Valley, 60% moving in are now foreign born or non‐Caucasian…What they provide
may not be embraced by community leaders. The most pressing issue now is about diversifying
the city leadership. When I go to a community meeting, all 20 leaders are often White. They are
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 75
not representative of the community they serve. So issues are not brought up first hand, they are
coming filtered.”
Suggestions for Improvement
Stakeholders recommended a variety of strategies for improving services for underserved communities
in the Tri‐Valley. One strategy is aimed at increasing knowledge and improving relationships between
the many different cultures that make up the community.
“We should sponsor annual festivals, for example, making sure that everyone has an
opportunity to be celebrated, and educate each other about each other’s cultures in order to
create understanding and tolerance within our community. This is a huge opportunity for
learning and providing exposure to our kids. If change is viewed as negative, this is hugely
problematic… if these differences are not embraced and managed well, these issues will continue
to be problematic.”
Another interviewee noted that many in the Latino community, for example, “feel intimidated by the
bureaucracy of the institutions; and this is coupled with the fear of deportation.” Therefore,
“These communities need a home base, a cultural center, to feel more empowered. Still another
stakeholder suggested that communities need to identify leadership to participate in planning and civic
decision‐making in order to “help build trust.” Another suggestion was related to improving the
synchronization and coordination of information. One informant offered that “It would be helpful if we
had a bilingual newspaper. The Livermore paper is only in English. We learn about community events
from reading flyers posted around town, near and in stores, like Mexican markets, Wal‐Mart, Lucky’s and
Safeway.”
Other stakeholders suggested that the cities or community based organizations coordinate volunteers
from within these communities that can act as liaisons to improve access to services. Alternatively, the
city could hire “Promotores from the community, who can work in different areas of focus and conduct
outreach and education, lead support groups, etc.”
Suggestions also addressed the school system. One parent and community advocate offered that “Many
Hispanic parents do not have the resources at school to access all they need to help their children. They
need to know Basic English to advocate for their children. We need some kind of group at the school
working on helping parents to communicate effectively with teachers.” For this parent, this comes down
to emphasizing training for teachers and administration members, in order to reduce the difficulty of
working through the school system for mono‐lingual parents.
Financial Assistance
“The County provides General Assistance, but doesn’t have enough money. So last year
we enacted time limits. Now people can only get assistance for about three months. In
my opinion this is not enough assistance.” –Key Informant
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 76
Key Findings
• Cash aid to indigent adults (General Assistance) is insufficient to meet existing needs.
• Better service coordination and culturally competent support is needed to help eligible
individuals apply for assistance and navigate bureaucratic structures.
• Social stigma prevents would‐be first time recipients from asking for financial assistance.
Community Issues
Ballooning mortgages, catastrophic health care costs, and job loss have all contributed to a new and
growing demographic of individuals and families needing financial assistance. As shown in the
Demographic Findings section of this report, the proportion of Tri‐Valley residents receiving General
Assistance has more than doubled in the last eight years; food stamp recipients have increased more
than five‐fold and CalWORKS recipients have about tripled. Stakeholders participating in the Needs
Assessment stated that Eastern Alameda County residents have not historically asked for financial
assistance, compounding social stigma associated with asking for help.
Service Delivery Environment
Alameda County offers two cash assistance programs: CalWORKs (for individuals with families) and the
General Assistance program (for single individuals without minor children). Additionally, the County
participates in CalFresh, formally known as Food Stamps. Other financial assistance programs provided
by the state and federal government include disability (SSI, SSDI, SDI) and Unemployment Insurance. For
veterans, Social Services provide a Veterans Service Office to assist veterans and their families seeking to
apply for benefits and services.
Gaps and Barriers
The biggest service delivery gaps cited by Tri‐Valley stakeholders had to do with the quantity and
duration of assistance provided. For example, a single person in need of assistance receives $336 per
month for three months within a one year period in General Assistance and up to $200 per month
CalFresh. No recipient may own property worth more than $1,000; home owners do not qualify.
Families with children can receive cash assistance through CalWORKS for up to four years (48 months).
Prior to July 1, 2011, the time limit was five years (60 months). According to participants, the barriers to
receiving financial assistance have to do with the challenges with meeting eligibility requirements
(especially for immigrants), stigma around receiving services, and the complexity, repetitiveness, and
difficulty of filling out technical documents required for applications.
Suggestions for Improvement
Respondents offered a common suggestion for improving services around financial assistance –
increasing coordination of service providers to reduce redundancy in filling out paperwork and
employing volunteers to help people navigate benefits programs. One participant in the faith‐based
community focus group noted that, “Many of the people that use our services qualify for welfare/food
stamps, but it’s very hard for them to fill out an application…it’s stressful on top of their already stressful
lives.” Additionally, stakeholders recommended that financial assistance programs should be advertised
so that they are more visible. According to the parent of a child enrolled in a Head Start program, “The
community should be more aware of welfare, WIC, and also, the food pantries.”
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 77
Conclusions
This report has addressed key concerns related to human services provision in the Tri‐Valley.
Stakeholders informing our assessment most commonly identified needs, gaps and barriers
related to transportation and access to services; mental health; homelessness; affordable
housing; and culturally competent services and outreach to underserved communities. Several
common themes emerged from focus groups, informant interviews, and surveys:
• The demand for human services is increasing at the same time that resources to
provide services are diminishing. Providers are being expected to do more with less.
Budget reductions, cutbacks in services, and a growing population and increasing
poverty rates have created a significant challenge to human service providers. Providers
need additional financial support to continue to provide services, expand capacity, and
offer ongoing training to staff to improve linguistic and cultural competency.
• Public transportation limitations present a significant barrier to residents seeking human
services. Transportation costs and trip duration are significant barriers to seniors, people with
mobility challenges, and families with young children. Many critical services are located outside
the Tri‐Valley in Western Alameda County and Contra Costa County. Transportation agencies
have had to make difficult choices between reducing less popular routes and increasing fares.
• An increase in ethnic diversity and linguistic isolation creates a barrier to accessing services,
and organizations are struggling to adjust. Newcomers experience cultural misunderstanding,
communication challenges and even hostility. Some service providers in the Tri‐Valley do not yet
have the capacity to meet the cultural and linguistic needs of the growing Asian/Pacific Islander,
Latino and other immigrant communities.
• There is not enough affordable housing to meet the growing demand. The cities of Dublin,
Livermore, and Pleasanton have recently completed their housing elements, demonstrating how
they plan to meet their fair share of affordable housing needs in the future. However, the
current demand for housing means many low and very low income households face housing
insecurity.
• Increased homelessness has amplified the demand for a variety of housing options and
services. This need is pronounced particularly among homeless men, who have limited options
for shelter in the Tri‐Valley. Some shelters accommodating men are only open during inclement
weather.
• There are not enough Mental Health and Alcohol and Other Drug Services located in the Tri‐
Valley. The lack of a Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF), in‐patient drug rehabilitation providers,
and a limited number of psychiatrists and clinicians offering subsidized and non‐English services
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 78
means that residents may have to leave the area for services. Social stigma associated with
mental illness is widely reported in Eastern Alameda County.
• There is insufficient affordable extended care, after school, and summer programming in the
Tri‐Valley to support the social development of children and youth. This is a particular concern
in Eastern Alameda County because many parents are commuting long distances and children
are left unsupervised and unengaged. The shortage of recreational, enrichment, and vocational
services is pronounced for transitional age youth, teens and adults with developmental
disabilities. This can make it difficult for family caregivers to secure and maintain employment.
• There are insufficient workforce development opportunities in the Tri‐Valley, particularly for
women, seniors, youth, and the disabled. Growing unemployment in the Tri‐Valley has
increased the demand for vocational training and employment counseling. Due to current
economic conditions, there are fewer after school and summer jobs and part time jobs for the
growing older adult population. Child care costs are a work barrier to many single and low
income parents.
Recommendations
Recommendations to address human service needs in Eastern Alameda County emerged during
interviews, focus groups and community meetings. Some of these strategies are specific to one of the 14
areas of concern, and are included in the appropriate section. The following are more general
recommendations, some of which address multiple areas of concern. These recommendations may be
embraced by one or all of the cities in the Tri‐Valley, by Alameda County or by local community and
faith‐based organizations. Many require collaboration by multiple agencies and organizations. The
following recommendations aim to stimulate further collaboration in order to address community
needs.
Develop a strategic plan based on findings from the 2011 Eastern Alameda County Human
Services Needs Assessment
The first and most labor intensive step in any community‐based strategic planning process is to collect
and analyze data pertaining to local needs. The needs assessment serves several important functions.
First, it provides consensus around a vision and the critical issues affecting the community. Secondly, it
generates a sense of urgency among stakeholders to address the needs. Therefore, the Cities of Dublin,
Livermore, and Pleasanton should work collaboratively to prioritize the issues they would like to address
in the next five years, identify resources, and develop goals, measurable objectives and strategies for
meeting those objectives.
Increase collaboration to improve outcomes for individuals and communities
This Needs Assessment demonstrated that vulnerable individuals and families need multiple
interventions to address interrelated challenges. Repeatedly we heard residents say, “I need a job so
that I can afford housing, but I need stable housing before I can realistically find a job.” Similarly, “I need
child care so that I can go out and get a job, but I can’t afford child care until I have a job.” Collaboration
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 79
can happen at two levels‐‐the program level, to benefit individual clients, and the system level, to
address a critical community issue.
• Program‐level collaboration: Human service programs within each city can work together to
identify the most at‐risk individuals in their community and, working with those individuals,
develop a multi‐disciplinary poverty‐alleviation and treatment plan. One model of program‐level
collaboration is the multidisciplinary team. Depending on the needs of the individual, mental
health or substance abuse professionals, adult or child protective services, probation
departments, clergy, health and social service providers can serve on the team. City staff or a
nonprofit provider funded by a city can serve as conveners and coordinators for these types of
collaborative meetings.
• System‐level collaboration: The three cities can establish a partnership to address a specific
human service related issue such as growing homelessness; youth violence; healthcare access;
or increasing diversity. Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton can arrange joint meetings between
key stakeholders such as public safety and public health officers, school administrators,
affordable housing providers, local residents, business leaders, and elected officials. One
example of such a partnership is the Monument Corridor Partnership (MCP), funded by The
California Endowment. The MCP works collaboratively to address affordable housing concerns,
greater access to health services, and to promote economic development in a low income
neighborhood in Concord, California. As a result, the partnership was able to establish a mobile
health clinic and a job training center and distribute welcome packets in English and Spanish to
new residents, and hosted an annual health fair. In an evaluation of the project, one MCP
stakeholder said, “There was a huge study by the transportation and land use commission and
they found that Monument folks could not get on public transportation to get to health
providers…we all got together and…we were able to get a new bus route for us that got us to
health services.”22 MCP used a community organizing strategy to ensure ongoing resident
participation in planning meetings.
Focus on outreach
Several key themes emerged related to service demand in Eastern Alameda County. First, policymakers
and funders outside the Tri‐Valley are not aware of the increasing need and growing demand for
services. As a result, they are unlikely to prioritize resources for Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton.
Secondly, many service recipients and providers report long waiting lists or wait times for services,
including housing subsidies, child care and health care. Thirdly, providers are afraid to reach out beyond
their typical client base because of fear of being unable to meet a greater demand. And finally, because
many newcomers to the Tri‐Valley and people experiencing need for the first time do not know about
services. To break this cycle, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton need to demonstrate the
22 http://www.partnershipph.org/sites/default/files/PPH%20Final%20report%20Legacy%20Of%20Partnership_02‐
09‐09%20FINAL%20FOR%20DISTR%20%281%29.pdf
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 80
true demand for services. To do so, they need to prioritize reaching out to those people who are
unaware of what resources are available and make asking for help a safe and stigma‐free experience.
Outreach strategies should target the following communities: non‐English speakers; new residents;
people at risk of foreclosure or eviction; the recently unemployed; seniors; people with mobility and
sensory disabilities; and family caregivers. The following programmatic suggestions would be effective at
outreaching to underserved communities and could be supported by Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, a
community based organization or a combination thereof.
• Expand the Community Health Workers/Promotores de Salud to the entire Tri‐Valley
region: Promotores de Salud are paid community members who have a close
understanding of an underserved community, and who share the same language,
ethnicity, or socioeconomic status of the target population. Trusting relationships help
Promotores serve as a link or an intermediary between the community and the health
or social service delivery system, and may improve social and health outcomes for target
communities.
• Implement Programs Supporting Volunteer Cultural Brokers: Cultural Brokers mediate
between people of different backgrounds and bridge the gap between foreign‐born
consumers and service providers, helping them navigate the system and mitigate
misunderstandings.
• Expand Street Outreach: This includes mobile outreach to the homeless, youth, and
runaways, in order to connect them to immediate food, clothing, shelter and medical
care.
• Expand Home Visitors: Home visitors are professionals who visit the homebound
disabled or elderly or pregnant and perinatal women to educate them about social
services and self‐care and assist them in getting to medical and social service
appointments. This type of direct outreach will improve penetration rates of service
delivery to target communities.
• Encourage Social or Earned Media Campaigns: ideas may include newspaper editorials,
mailings, and brochures in multiple languages.
• Host Health Fairs or Social Service Fairs and Community Back‐to‐School Events: Fairs
and Back‐to‐School events bring together a variety of providers and service recipients in
a non‐stigmatizing environment; offer a variety of critical services on site such as
medical care or school supply giveaways, as well as education about available services
and supports.
• Create a Newcomer Community Leadership Program: The New Westminster
Community Immigrant Mentorship Program in Vancouver, Canada provides training to
a cohort of newcomers and immigrants to help them develop community leadership
skills. The program provides one‐on‐one mentorship as well as extensive leadership
training to more effectively participate in civic life and community decision‐making.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 81
Another strategy that Tri‐Valley cities and community‐based organizations could collectively embrace is
supporting the development of a multi‐cultural community center with the specific intent of promoting
cross‐cultural understanding as well as offering safe spaces for specific newcomer populations to
congregate and build community. The center could be co‐located in an existing facility that provides
services – such as the Multi‐Service Center in Livermore, the Pleasanton Senior Center, or the Shannon
Community Center in Dublin – thereby increasing visibility and access to services while taking advantage
of existing spaces. Multicultural Centers are located in many universities throughout the United States
and in cities such as Shreveport, Louisiana (dedicated to understanding and appreciating the history of
diverse cultures of the region), Tuskegee, Alabama (dedicated to promoting human and civil rights), and
Sioux Falls, South Dakota (offering orientation services to newcomers, English language proficiency and
life skills education and social services).
Support the Next Generation of Young Adults
Demographic data suggests there are fewer residents between the ages of 20 and 24, and a lack of
population growth among residents aged 20 to 34 (previously discussed in the Demographic Findings
section). One can conclude that the Tri‐Valley’s population is aging and young adults are moving away
from the Tri‐Valley. By offering more services that address the needs of youth and young adults, the
cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton can prevent future decreases in the young adult population.
Some of the immediate needs and challenges faced by this population include:
• Need for more college, career, and vocational preparation and training;
• Need for stable and secure entry‐level jobs (i.e. after school jobs and post‐graduation
employment); and
• Need for more opportunities to voice concerns and issues that specifically affect youth and
young adults.
• Need more affordable and effective public transit options to promote mobility for young adults
seeking services and employment opportunities outside of the Tri‐Valley.
Two approaches may be used to improve support systems and expand opportunities for engagement
among transitional age youth and young adults in the Tri Valley. The cities, collectively or independently,
can support a commission that allows young adults to actively participate in the development of
programs, initiatives, and policies that address their concerns and needs 23 . Such a commission can
partner with local city government so that participants can work directly with civic leaders and policy
makers to improve services for youth and young adults. Model programs include the San Francisco
Youth Commission, which gives participants ages 12‐23 the opportunity to advise the Board of
Supervisors and the Mayor on "the effects of legislative policies, needs, assessments, priorities,
programs, and budgets concerning the children and youth of San Francisco."24 Although Dublin,
23 This aligns with a finding from the 2010 Pleasanton Youth Master Plan, in which it is stated that the
community should, “Involve children and youth in decision‐making including the need for, and planning
of, youth‐oriented programs and spaces.”
24 http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=5585
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 82
Livermore and Pleasanton currently facilitate youth engagement through Youth Commissions and Youth
Advisory Committees, the cities may consider building upon existing programs, utilizing the model of the
San Francisco Youth Commission.
A second approach would include engaging youth in the planning and development of a teen center, or
designated gathering space providing afterschool and summer programs for young adults in the Tri‐
Valley. Such a space would offer young adults that are not involved with sports programs the chance for
regular participation in extra‐curricular activities. Focus group participants, cited in the 2010 Pleasanton
Youth Master Plan, noted that the YMCA in East Oakland as an example of a model facility that could be
replicated to serve young adults in the Tri‐Valley 25 . Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton should build upon
existing resources, such as the Shannon Community Center in Dublin, and the Elbow Room – located in
the Robert Livermore Community Center (RLCC) – to ensure that youth across the Tri‐Valley have a voice
in creating, and access to, safe spaces for recreational activities.
This Needs Assessment was developed through public engagement, dialogue, and collaboration.
The authors hope that it remains a living document; part of an ongoing participatory process of
improving the lives of Eastern Alameda County residents. We hope and anticipate that other
ideas for improving human services are generated through review of these findings and ongoing
discussion and research.
“The welfare of each is bound up in the welfare of all.” ‐‐ Helen Keller
25 2010 Pleasanton Youth Master Plan, page A‐14.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 83
APPENDIX A: KI Interview Questions
1. Please tell me a little bit about your work in Eastern Alameda County and what community
issues are most important to you.
2. In terms of [interviewee’s area of interest], how have conditions changed for residents of
Eastern Alameda County in the last 5 – 10 years?
3. What are the most critical human service issues facing residents of Eastern Alameda?
4. How effectively do current services address these needs?
5. What are other major gaps in services?
6. What are the biggest barriers to addressing the human service needs of residents (please be
specific)?
7. Are you aware of any unique challenges faced by specific populations (e.g., elderly, children,
persons with disabilities, non‐English speakers) that we have not considered?
8. Are there specific geographic regions or neighborhoods within Eastern Alameda that we should
be concerned with? If so, what issues are prevalent there?
9. Do you anticipate in any future service‐related needs? If so, what are they?
10. Now I’m going to ask you to do something really hard! I’d like your help in prioritizing human
service needs for Eastern Alameda County residents. Please prioritize the following specialty
areas with 1 being the most critical local community need to 20 being the least critical. (We
recognize that they are all critical needs!)
Implementing Change
1. In the areas of greatest priority, please help us understand what our cities can do to address
community needs:
Resources and Data
2. Do you have any resources or information that we could review, such as reports, datasets, etc.?
Closing Comments
3. Do you have any other comments or questions or Is there anything you would like to tell me
about this interview process?
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 84
APPENDIX B: KI Data Results
The table below outlines the results of an exercise offered to interviewees. It was requested that
interviewees rank the 19 key areas of concern identified by city stakeholders. The most important
categories reflect the perceived area of greatest need, or, where the greatest gaps in services are
represented in the network of human services in Eastern Alameda County. The table below contains the
overall ranked order of importance, based on the responses of 15 out of the 19 interviewees (with 4
informants abstaining from the exercise) interviewed.
Ranking Area of Concern
1 Mental health
2 Housing/affordable housing
3 Physical health
4 Homelessness
5 Domestic violence/child abuse
6 Disability
6 Food/nutrition
6 Legal services/legal aid/juvenile justice/re‐
entry
9 Senior services
10 K – 12 education
11 Early childhood education and development
12 Public safety
13 Cultural competency
14 Financial services and financial literacy
15 HIV/AIDS
16 Recreation
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 85
APPENDIX C: Focus Group List and
Participant Count
Focused Discussion Group Host Organization Participants
Adults with Disabilities Community Resources for
Independent Living
5
Day Laborers ‐ Spanish Hayward Day Labor Center 11
Family Members of those with
Mental Illness
National Association on Mental
Illness (NAMI) Tri‐Valley
6
Homeless Families Tri‐Valley Haven 5
Homeless Individuals Livermore Homeless Refuge 19
Parents of Disabled Children E‐Soccer 13
Parents of Older Children Horizons Family Counseling 5
Parents of Older Children ‐
Spanish
Horizons Family Counseling 11
Parents of Young Children Community Association for
Preschool Education (CAPE)
6
Parents of Young Children ‐
Spanish
Community Association for
Preschool Education (CAPE)
5
Residents Facing Foreclosure Tri‐Valley Housing Opportunity
Center
5
Seniors Pleasanton Senior Center 11
Survivors of Domestic Violence Tri‐Valley Haven 1
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 86
APPENDIX D: Focus Group Questions
Tri‐Valley Human Services Needs Assessment 2011
Community Focus Group Protocol
DRAFT
EXERCISE: 3 most critical areas – for your family
Look at this list of needs (See following page). What would you say are you and
your family’s biggest needs? Please place an orange dot by your biggest need, a
green dot by your second biggest need, and a yellow dot by your third biggest
need.
Which of your needs are being met by the social service agencies in the Tri-
Valley?
Which of your needs are being met by social service agencies outside of the Tri-
Valley?
Which of your needs are being met elsewhere?
Which of your needs are not being met?
What challenges do you and your family face when trying to get services? What
are the most difficult challenges? What are the most common challenges?
Do you think that you and your family’s needs will change in the near future?
How?
What recommendations would you make to the cities to improve services?
APPENDIX E: Focus Group Poster
Human Services Needs Assessment of the Tri‐Valley Area
Focus Group on Mental Health
The cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton are currently conducting a Human Services Needs
Assessment of the Tri‐Valley Area. As partners in this process, Resource Development Associates (RDA)
is organizing focus groups around key issue areas identified by stakeholders. Comments from focus
groups, responses from interviews, and data analysis will be used to determine:
∙ What social services needs are in the Tri‐Valley Area
∙ What needs are currently met/how effectively these needs are met
∙ Where there are gaps in service
∙ How can we most effectively close the gaps in service
As one major area of concern is the availability of Drug and Alcohol services, as well as services for
teens, we are hoping that individuals receiving services at Axis Community Health would be open to
participating in a brief focus group to express their opinions, experiences and
concerns around the issue of mental health services.
Focus groups are scheduled for two hours and will have 8 – 12 participants. All responses are
anonymous and no comments made in a focus group session will be attributed to any individual or
organization. This is part of an ongoing information gathering process, the end of which will be the
presentation of findings and recommendations to the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton.
We are hoping to schedule a session in the coming weeks on a Monday or Thursday night, for two hours,
between 5 and 8 pm.
If you are interested, please notify the front desk and give them your name, phone number or email and
the night that is best for you. Please feel free to contact me at the phone number or email address
below with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Peter Neely
Resource Development Associates
230 4th Street
Oakland, CA
(510) 488 – 4345 x113
pneely@resourcedevelopment.net
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 88
APPENDIX F: Provider Survey
Respondent Organizations
Providers Responding to Survey
Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services ‐ Valley Children's Services
Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services, Valley Children's Mental Health
Alameda County Community Food Bank
Alameda County Public Health Dept. Chronic Disease Program
Alameda County Social Services
Axis Community Health
Axis Community Health ‐ Behavioral Health Department
Bay Area Community Services
CAPE Inc.
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT & TRI VALLEY YOUTH COURT
City of Pleasanton Senior Center
Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL)
Deaf Counseling Advocacy and Referral Agency
Easter Seals Bay Area
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity
Eden I & R/ 2‐1‐1 Alameda County
Hope Hospice, Inc.
Immunization Assistance Project/ Alameda County Public Health
LARPD
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority‐"Wheels"
Livermore Senior Services
Open Heart Kitchen
Ridge View Commons
Senior Support Program of the Tri Valley
Shepherd's Gate
Spectrum Community Services‐Senior Nutrition & Activities Project
The Alameda County Urban Male Health Initiative
The Arc of Alameda County
The Senior Support Program of the Tri‐Valley
Tri Valley Haven for women
Tri Valley Youth Court
Tri‐City Health Center
Tri Valley Haven
Tri‐Valley Housing Opportunity Center
Tri‐Valley YMCA
Valley Children's Services
ValleyCare Health System
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 89
APPENDIX G: Provider Survey
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 96
APPENDIX H: Hard to Reach Population Survey
Tri-Valley Human Services Needs Assessment 2011
Hard to Reach Population Survey
1. What services do you and your
family NEED but have a hard time accessing? (check all that apply)
Primary Health Care Child Welfare/Child Protective Services
Specialty Health Care Domestic Violence Services
Mental Health Care Homeless Shelter
Dental Care Food and Nutrition
Child Care Disability/Special Needs
Drug and Alcohol Services Senior Services
Adult Education/Literacy Legal Services/Advocacy
Transportation Welfare/ Food Stamps/WIC /TANF
Job Training/Job Placement Affordable Housing/Housing Assistance
Clothing or Other Donated Items Other:
2. Please circle TRUE or FALSE for each of the following statements.
SOMETIMES I DON'T GET THE SERVICES I NEED BECAUSE....
… it takes too long to get to where I need to go. TRUE FALSE
… it costs too much to get to where I need to go. TRUE FALSE
… I don't know where to get help. TRUE FALSE
… there is no one that speaks my language. TRUE FALSE
… I don't trust the service provider. TRUE FALSE
… the service provider does not understand my culture. TRUE FALSE
… I can't access them because of disability. TRUE FALSE
… I can't afford the services. TRUE FALSE
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 97
… I don't qualify for the services. TRUE FALSE
3. What problems have you had trying to get the services you need?
4. What city do you live in?
Dublin
Pleasanton
Livermore
Other:
5. Are you employed?
Yes
No
6. Are you in school?
Yes
No
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 98
7. If you are employed, what city do you work in?
Dublin
Pleasanton
Livermore
Other:
8. How many children do you have under the age of 18?
0
1
2
3
4+
9. How old are you?
10. What is your gender?
Male
Female
Other
11. What is your ethnicity?
Black/African American
White/Caucasian
Native American/Alaskan Native
Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other:
12. What language(s) do you speak at home?
THANK YOU! This is the END of the survey.
We appreciate your participation.
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 99
APPENDIX I: Hard to Reach Population
Survey Respondents
What services do you and your family NEED but have a hard
time accessing?
Count n %
Primary Health Care 80 214 37.4%
Specialty Health Care 37 214 17.3%
Mental Health Care 29 214 13.6%
Dental Care 121 214 56.5%
Child Care 49 214 22.9%
Substance Abuse Services 10 214 4.7%
Adult Education/Literacy 31 214 14.5%
Transportation 56 214 26.2%
Job Training/Job Placement 60 214 28.0%
Clothing or Other Donated Items 32 214 15.0%
Child Welfare/Child Protective Services 10 214 4.7%
Domestic Violence Services 4 214 1.9%
Homeless Shelter 6 214 2.8%
Disability/Special Needs 14 214 6.5%
Senior Services 20 214 9.3%
Legal Services/Advocacy 25 214 11.7%
Affordable Housing/Housing Assistance 62 214 29.0%
Other 6 214 2.8%
Food/Nutrition/Food Stamps/WIC/Welfare/TANF 71 214 33.2%
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 100
Recreation 1 22 4.5%
Sometimes I don’t get the services I need because… TRUE FALSE Count
… it takes too long to get to where I need to go. 35.0% 65.0% 257
… it costs too much to get to where I need to go. 47.8% 52.2% 253
… I don't know where to get help. 37.8% 62.2% 254
… there is no one that speaks my language. 9.3% 90.7% 246
… I don't trust the service provider. 10.5% 89.5% 239
… the service provider does not understand my culture. 7.9% 92.1% 239
… I can't access them because of disability. 5.7% 94.3% 244
… I can't afford the services. 52.2% 47.8% 249
… I don't qualify for the services. 40.5% 59.5% 242
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 101
APPENDIX J: Organizations that Attended
Community Meetings
Community Meeting: Livermore 9/27/2011
Participating Organizations
Alameda County Food Bank
Axis Community Health
City of Livermore
Deaf Counseling, Advocacy and Referral Agency (DCARA)
Eden I &R
Human Services Commission, City of Livermore
Interfaith Sharing Inc.
Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District (LARPD)
Livermore Homeless Refuge
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
The Afghan Woman’s Health Program
Tri Valley Haven
UNCLE Credit Union
Community Meeting: Dublin 9/28/2011
Participating Organizations
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency
City of Dublin
Dublin Partners in Education
Dublin Sister City Association
Impact Ministries
Office of Assemblymember Joan Buchanan
Pleasanton Human Services Commission
Senior Support Programs of the Tri Valley
The Afghan Woman’s Health Program
Valley Christian Center
Well Outreach Center
Women's Council of Realtors
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 102
Community Meeting: Pleasanton 9/29/2011
Participating Organizations
Alameda County Public Health Commission
City of Pleasanton
Office of County Supervisor Nate Miley
Dublin Senior Center Adv. Board
Hope Hospice
Pleasanton Human Services Commission
Livermore Beautification Committee
Livermore Homeless Refuge
Spectrum
SSPTV
Sutter Health
The Afghan Woman’s Health Program
Tri‐Valley YMCA
Twin Valley Learning Center
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 103
APPENDIX K: Organizations that
Received the Provider Survey
Organization Sent Provider Survey Location
Abode Services‐Project Independence 40849 Fremont Boulevard
Fremont, CA 94538
Alameda County Food Bank‐ Tri‐Valley P.O. Box 2599
Oakland, CA 94614
Alameda County Public Health/Alameda County School
Health Services Coalition
1000 San Leandro Blvd., Suite 325
San Leandro, CA 94577‐1675
ARC of Alameda County‐ Tri‐Valley 2700A Merced Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Axis Community Health‐ Tri‐Valley 4361 Railroad Ave, Pleasanton, CA 94566
Bay Area Community Services/ Valley Creative Living
Center‐ Tri‐Valley
1814 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA 94612
Community Association for Preschool Education (Cape) 3095 Independence Drive, Bldg B, Suite A, Livermore,
CA 94551
Center for Community Dispute Settlement (CCDS) 291 McLeod Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Child Care Links‐ Tri‐Valley 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL)‐
Tri‐Valley
439 A Street, Hayward, CA 94541
County Office at Multi‐Service Center 3311 Pacific Ave
Livermore CA 94550
Deaf Counseling, Advocacy, and Referral Agency 14895 East 14th Street, Suite 200
San Leandro, CA 94578‐2926
Easter Seals 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
ECHO Housing 770 A Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Eden I & R 570 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Grid Alternatives 1171 Ocean Avenue, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94608
Hope Hospice‐ Tri‐Valley 6377 Clark Avenue, Suite 100
Dublin, CA 94568‐3024
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 104
Horizons Family Counseling 1110 S. Livermore Ave. Livermore, CA
Kidango 44000 Warm Spring Road
Fremont, CA 94538
Livermore Area Recreation & Parks District (LARPD)4444 East Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
Legal Assistance for Seniors 464 7th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Livermore USD 685 East Jack London Boulevard
Livermore, CA 94551
National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI)‐Tri‐Valley P.O. Box 5563
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Neighborhood Solutions P.O. Box 3512
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Pantry Open Heart Kitchen‐ Tri‐Valley 1141 Catalina Way
Mailbox # 137 Livermore, CA 94550
Pleasanton Senior Center 5353 Sunol Boulevard
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PUSD‐Pleasanton 4665 Bernal Avenue Pleasanton, CA 94566‐7498
Ridgeview Commons 5200 Case Ave., Pleasanton, CA, 94566
Senior Support Program of the Tri‐Valley 5343 Sunol Blvd., Pleasanton, CA 94566
Shepherd's Gate 1660 Portola Avenue • Livermore, CA 94551
Spectrum Community Services‐ Tri‐Valley 2621 Barrington Ct
Hayward, CA 94545
Tri Valley Haven 3663 Pacific Ave, Livermore, CA 94550
Tri Valley Youth Court P.O. Box 1135
Livermore, CA 94550
Tri‐City Health Center‐ Tri‐Valley 39500 Liberty Street Fremont, California 94538
Tri‐Valley Housing Opportunity Center 141 N Livermore Ave # A
Livermore, CA 94550‐3118
Valley Care 1111 ‐1133 E Stanley Blvd
Livermore, CA 94550
Valley Community Church 4455 Del Valle Parkway
Pleasanton, CA 94566‐6118
Wheels Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority‐“Wheels”
1362 Rutan Court‐Suite #100
Livermore, CA 94551
Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment
JUNE 6, 2012 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES | 105
YMCA 6693 Sierra Lane
Suite F
Dublin, CA 94568
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO: 8.2
AGENDA STATEMENT
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
DATE: November 4, 2013
TO: Human Services Commission
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2014-2015 City of Dublin Community Grants Program
Prepared by Amy Cunningham, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff will provide an overview of the City’s Community Grants Program and the
Commission’s role in recommending grant funding allocations to the City Council.
Discussion shall include a review of potential conflicts of interest related to each
Commissioner’s community group / organization affiliations.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report.
DESCRIPTION:
Staff will provide Commissioners with information about the City’s Community Grants Program including a review of the
program guidelines, rating criteria, and schedule for the upcoming funding cycle. Commissioners will also be provided
with an overview of the online grant process, their role in reviewing grant applications and the process for making
funding recommendations to the City Council. Clarification will also be provided about potential conflicts of interest
related to Commissioners’ community group / organization affiliations.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS / PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO: 8.3
AGENDA STATEMENT
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
DATE: November 4, 2013
TO: Human Services Commission
SUBJECT: Establish Future Human Services Commission Quarterly Regular Meeting Schedule and
Election of Officers
Prepared by Amy Cunningham, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Commissioners shall provide input on a preferred regular quarterly meeting date for future
Human Services Commission meetings. These meetings shall take place annually in
January, April, July and October. Additionally, the Commission shall annually appoint a
Chairperson and Vice Chairperson per the Bylaws and Rules of Procedure for the Human
Services Commission.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Commissioners provide input on the date for regularly scheduled
Human Services Commission meetings and conduct appointment of a Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson for one-year terms.
DESCRIPTION:
The Human Services Commission is required to establish a regular quarterly meeting schedule. Quarterly meetings shall
take place annually in January, April, July and October. Staff is requesting that Commissioners provide input about a
preferred meeting day to establish a regular meeting schedule. There is the potential for one-two additional meetings
each year jointly with the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton Human Services Commissions. Any joint meetings would
be scheduled independent of this regular quarterly meeting schedule and would be considered “special” meetings.
Additionally, each year the bylaws provide for appointment of a Commission Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for a
one-year term (first term ending in January 2015). The Chairperson’s duties include presiding at Commission meetings,
appointing committees and chairpersons of committees as necessary, signing correspondence on behalf of the
Commission, and representing the Commission before the City Council. The Vice Chairperson assumes these duties in
the absence of the Chairperson.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS / PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.