EAST BAY COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT:
AN OVERVIEW OF ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
IN
ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES
APRIL 2005
PREPARED FOR:
EAST BAY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
OAKLAND, CA
PREPARED BY:
NINA BOHLEN AND DAVID PONTECORVO
PROJECT ASSOCIATES:
CURTIS BOHLEN
TOM ROBERTS
ANNE SCHONFIELD
RESEARCH ASSISTANTS:
NOMMI ALOUF
CHRIS CONNER
SARA DREXLER
ROBERT WILLIAMS
© 2005 East Bay Community Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
PURPOSE & SCOPE
The purpose of “East Bay Community Assessment: An Overview of Issues and Opportunities in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties” is to provide The East Bay Community Foundation and
interested parties with information on community needs within six focus areas:






arts and culture;
community health;
education and youth development;
the environment;
neighborhood and community building; and
strengthening families.
The Assessment was never intended, planned, researched or written to represent itself as either a
study of all problems, issues and opportunities in The East Bay or as a study of any problems,
issues or opportunities outside of those six focus areas.
While the Assessment thus has specific limits, the Foundation nevertheless believes that the
Assessment identifies many – though by no means all -- of The East Bay’s most important
problems.
###
Contents
Introduction
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Part I: Major Themes
Demographic changes ............................................................................................................................ 4
Economic Equity .................................................................................................................................... 5
Lack of Affordable Housing ................................................................................................................... 5
Under-Funding of Public Education....................................................................................................... 6
Health Disparities and Access To Health Care ...................................................................................... 6
State Budget Crisis and Federal Funding Cuts ....................................................................................... 6
Part II: County Snapshots
Alameda County Snapshot ..................................................................................................................... 9
Contra Costa County Snapshot ............................................................................................................. 13
Part III: Neighborhood Case Studies
City of Pittsburg…………………………………………………………………………………........19
Monument Corridor, Concord .............................................................................................................. 21
Nystrom Neighborhood, Richmond ..................................................................................................... 23
Lower San Antonio Neighborhood, Oakland ....................................................................................... 26
City of Fremont .................................................................................................................................... 28
Part IV: Issues and Opportunities
Strengthening Families
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 31
Opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 39
Education
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 48
Opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 58
Youth Development
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 60
Opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 65
Community Health
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 69
Opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 73
Environment
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 77
Opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 88
Arts and Culture
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 97
Opportunities ............................................................................................................................... 101
Nonprofits and Philanthropy
Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 103
Opportunities ............................................................................................................................... 109
Part V: Appendices
Appendix 1: East Bay Nonprofit Organizations by Activity (501c3 organizations) .......................... 112
Appendix 2: Number of East Bay nonprofits by type, 1999 and 2002............................................... 114
Appendix 3: Key Informants .............................................................................................................. 115
Endnotes.......................................................................................................................................117
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
In order to successfully carry out the East Bay Community Foundation’s mission, Foundation
staff and board members must maintain a high level of knowledge and understanding about the
needs and the resources of East Bay communities. The growth of donor-advised grantmaking
makes it especially important that the Foundation understand community needs and the
opportunities for philanthropic investment. This knowledge base helps maximize the impact of
donor investments in East Bay communities, and represents the principle “value added” the
Foundation provides its donor advisors.
In May 2002, EBCF commissioned a report that provided an overview of community needs and
strengths in the East Bay. That report, titled Assessing Community Needs and Assets in the East
Bay—An Overview of Recent Needs Assessments and Indicators Reports, identified existing
reports and studies and summarized their findings about community needs, information gaps and
funding opportunities. That document helped the Foundation reshape its grantmaking guidelines
and identify grantmaking priorities in six areas: Arts and Culture; Community Health; Education
and Youth Development; Environment; Neighborhood and Community Building; and
Strengthening Families.
The purpose of this report is to update and deepen the Foundation’s understanding of community
needs, resources and grantmaking opportunities in the East Bay. The report is intended as a tool
to:

Inform EBCF grantmaking, donor services and convening activities throughout the East Bay.

Assist Foundation Trustees and staff in further focusing EBCF grantmaking priorities.

Support the staff’s ability to respond to donor interests and guide donor-advised
grantmaking.

Enhance EBCF’s role as an information resource for other grantmakers, nonprofit
organizations and community leaders.
A second component of this project is the creation of an electronic library of documents and web
links to community data and information, which will serve as a resource for staff, Trustees and
donors, and possibly community groups. Documents* and websites used in preparing this report
are being catalogued by topic and geographic scope, and loaded into a searchable database in a
password-protected area of EBCF’s intranet. This easy-to-use storage system will enable staff to
more efficiently track and access reports and data sources.
*
Most, but not all, of the documents, charts and maps used in preparing this report are available in electronic format.
EBCF staff will receive hard copies of documents not available electronically.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 1
Part I of this report examines the major trends affecting the East Bay, with an emphasis on those
factors that have the greatest impact on the region’s most vulnerable residents.
Part II presents snapshots of Alameda and Contra Costa counties highlighting key demographic,
health and education indicators.
Part III contains case studies of five East Bay communities. Each case study examines a specific
issue discussed in this report and paints a picture of how that issue affects low-income families in
that community or neighborhood. The communities profiled in this section are:

The City of Pittsburg in East Contra Costa County

The Monument Corridor neighborhood in Concord

The Nystrom neighborhood in Richmond

The Lower San Antonio neighborhood in Oakland

The City of Fremont in Southern Alameda County
Part IV examines issues, needs, and grantmaking opportunities in the following EBCF areas of
interest:

Strengthening Families

Education

Youth Development

Environment

Community Health

Arts and Culture

Nonprofits and Philanthropy
Methods
This report draws upon interviews with more than 40 key informants—public agency staff,
nonprofit leaders, researchers and funders—as well as a multifaceted literature review of more
than 100 studies, needs assessments, indicators reports and other documents.
While much of the information for this report was gathered from secondary sources, the report
also takes advantage of primary data that is increasingly available from searchable on-line data
bases maintained by the US government, state and county agencies, universities and nonprofit
policy and advocacy groups.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 2
PART I: MAJOR THEMES
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 3
MAJOR THEMES
In an increasingly complex and diverse region such as the East Bay, with its abundance of
natural, economic and human resources but also its myriad social, environmental and fiscal
problems, an overarching challenge is to promote equity among the diverse groups in the East
Bay and inclusion of all groups in the civic life of the region. Indeed this challenge—promoting
equity and inclusion in an environment of limited financial resources and historic patterns of
inequality and discrimination—emerged as the central theme of this report. This issue, explicitly
or implicitly, underlies virtually all of the studies, data reports, program evaluations, and
strategic plans examined for this report. It was also a central theme of the key informant
interviews conducted.
Several specific themes emerged from the review of data, assessments and interviews as the
major structural issues affecting the current and future quality of life in the East Bay:
Demographic changes
Two major demographic shifts will continue to profoundly influence the East Bay:
Immigration
The rapid growth of immigrant populations—particularly Latinos and Asians, but also Pacific
Islander, South Asian, Middle Eastern, African, Eastern European and others—poses a range of
challenges and opportunities both for immigrants and for the East Bay communities where they
reside. For immigrant families, the challenge is to become active participants in the economic,
educational, civic and cultural life of their new communities. For East Bay communities, the
challenge is to facilitate the integration of newcomers by providing equal treatment and respect,
support systems, and opportunities for civic participation. Health care, human services, and
community based organizations are being challenged to provide language access and culturally
competent services; early childhood educators are challenged to respond to the language and
cultural realities of immigrant families in preparing children to succeed in school; K-12 public
schools are challenged to engage immigrant families in their children’s education and ensure the
academic success of all groups; and arts and cultural organizations are challenged to reach out to
increasingly diverse constituencies, and to nurture opportunities for artistic expression by artists
and groups of all backgrounds.
Seniors
The second demographic shift that is having a profound impact on the region is the current and
projected increase in the number of residents over 65 years old. The Baby Boomers—those
people born between 1946 and 1964—are hitting retirement, even as modern medicine and
health education help people live longer. In the East Bay, close to half of the population is from
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 4
the Baby Boom generation or older. This wave of aging will create significant demands for
services in every sector—demands beyond our current capabilities unless we begin to prepare
now. Unfortunately, many public agencies have been slow to focus on this issue. These aging
boomers also represent a considerable benefit because they possess skills and experience that can
be used in an array of community endeavors. The challenge of preparing to meet needs of the
Baby Boom seniors is all the more urgent because the region is not meeting the needs of the its
current vulnerable population of low-income and very low-income seniors.
Economic Equity
After experiencing one of the worst regional downturns in US history between 2001 and 2003,
the East Bay moved back onto a growth path in 2004, albeit at a slow pace.1 In 2004, the region
began posting job growth, and the unemployment rate dropped to 5.0% as of January 2005.2 The
East Bay also continued to have a high median income, well above the national average.
However, the growth in jobs and income has not been equitably distributed. While the
unemployment rate has improved in the last year, the number of CalWorks recipients in both
counties has increased for the first time since welfare restructuring in 1996. In addition, many
former CalWORKS clients do not earn enough to support themselves and their families.
Over the last decade, the East Bay economy has continued to transition to a service-based
economy. This transition has created an hour-glass shaped economy, where new service jobs are
divided between high wage jobs and low wage jobs. In the East Bay, the rich are getting richer;
the poor, poorer, and the middle class is disappearing. The high cost of living in the East Bay is
an added burden to low and middle-income families. Almost one quarter of all residents in the
East Bay are unable to earn enough to meet their basic needs. The loss of social support
programs due to cuts in state and federal programs and the decrease in donations to nonprofits is
placing an added burden on the East Bay’s social safety net.3 And yet, the demand for basic
support services is increasing.
Lack of Affordable Housing
The East Bay is one of the least affordable regions in the country for home ownership. Despite
the high median incomes in the region, less than 25% can afford to purchase a home. While
residential housing construction has remained robust, particularly in Contra Costa County,
production has not kept pace with population growth, creating a deficit of 78,000 units in the
East Bay and driving up housing prices. In the East Bay, median housing prices have increased
more than in any other region in the Bay Area. In the East Bay, housing costs are a major factor
contributing to the high cost of living and place a significant payment burden on low and middleincome families. In the region, more than 40% of homeowners with mortgages and 48% of
renters spend 30% or more of household income on housing. And yet, families who pay more
than 30% of their income for housing often struggle to afford necessities such as food, clothing,
transportation and medical care. The rise in housing prices has driven low-income families to
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 5
search for more affordable housing in the eastern part of the East Bay, creating a structural
imbalance between the location of jobs and housing. This in turn is forcing many workers to
spend hours commuting to their jobs, preventing them from spending more time with their
families and communities.
Under-Funding of Public Education
Proposition 13, the 1979 ballot initiative that limited the state's ability to fund schools through
property taxes, fundamentally altered the educational system in California. Resources for
education have not kept up with the costs of meeting the many new challenges faced by East Bay
schools: an increasingly multi-cultural and multi-lingual student population; stringent and
complex accountability standards for academic performance; the inclusion of children with
special needs in the classroom; and declining enrollment in some schools and districts. The
current state budget crisis is putting new strains on the already fragile finances of school districts
throughout the East Bay. East Bay public schools have worked hard to improve academic
performance and test scores and graduation rates have risen overall in both Alameda and Contra
Costa counties. However, large disparities in educational achievement still exist between and
within school districts. Schools and districts in lower income communities, with large
populations of English learners and ethnic/racial minorities, continue to have student
achievement and graduation rates well below the average for the region.
Health Disparities and Access To Health Care
The East Bay continues to experience persistent and often worsening disparities in health status,
with low-income residents, people of color and immigrants bearing a greater burden of poor
health across a wide range of health indicators. While health disparities clearly result from
barriers to access and inequities within the health care system, they are also rooted in complex
underlying social, economic and environmental justice issues. A primary barrier to health care
access is the high cost of health care and health insurance, and tens of thousands of East Bay
adults and children are uninsured. Language and cultural issues also pose serious barriers to
accessing quality health care for immigrants and residents with limited English language skills,
and in some communities, transportation poses a major barrier to access. On-going efforts to
improve the health care system in the East Bay will be needed to reduce health disparities.
Moreover, eliminating health disparities will require improvements in the physical, social,
economic and environmental conditions in low-income communities that affect health status
over time.
State Budget Crisis and Federal Funding Cuts4
Despite the recent economic recovery, the state still faces a structural deficit resulting from the
economic downturn and the decline of the stock market in 2001. In a political climate strongly
averse to tax increases, cuts in education, social services and health care will continue to have a
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 6
profound impact at the county, local and neighborhood level for several years to come. The
governor’s budget currently under consideration by the state legislature proposes major savings
through cuts in K-12 education, social services, transportation and employee compensation.*
The state’s budget crisis has taken a toll on county finances. Health and human services
programs in Alameda and Contra Costa counties have experienced direct reductions in funding,
and have also been squeezed by more general pressures on county budgets, such as the deferral
of state payments owed to county and local governments for the provision of state-mandated
programs and services. So far, few programs have been eliminated outright; instead, the state has
failed to provide funding increases to cover rising costs and increased demand for services. As a
consequence, public and nonprofit service providers have had to do more with less. Providers in
Alameda and Contra Costa counties are reporting cuts in staff, reduced quality of services,
diminished access to services, and longer waiting periods to receive services.
In addition to state funding cuts, the US Congress is considering various budget proposals with
substantial funding reductions to scores of domestic programs, including programs that assist
California’s low-income, working families, seniors, and people with disabilities. Basic safety net
programs such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grant, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) could be cut.
Cuts are also proposed for federal childcare block grants; children and family services, including
Head Start and programs for abused and neglected children; and nutrition for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC). The President’s proposed budget would terminate 48 programs and reduce
funding for 16 programs administered by the US Department of Education. Under the President’s
proposal, fewer low-income California families would receive Section 8 vouchers for subsidized
housing rental. The President proposes to merge 18 community development programs into a
single block grant with a lower level of funding. Under this plan, the Community Development
Block Grant Program, which provides flexible dollars to East Bay city and county governments
for housing and social services, would lose significant funding.
*
The governor’s proposed budget for FY 2005-06 is only the beginning of a long process. Even if all of the
proposals were adopted, which is considered unlikely, the ongoing imbalance between revenue and expenditures
would be about $5 billion. The revised budget to be released in May 2005 will serve as the foundation for the
budget that the Legislature will debate.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 7
PART II: COUNTY SNAPSHOTS
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 8
ALAMEDA COUNTY SNAPSHOT
Total Population (2004 estimate)
1,498,000
Number of Children 0-17 (2000)
354,572
Diversity Index,* Alameda (California)
75.4 (72)
Diversity Index, under 18 years old
Total Number (Percent) living in Poverty (2000)
Number (Percent) of children living in poverty (2000)
81
156,804 (10.9%)
46,683 (13.5%)
Percentage of residents with incomes below self-sufficiency standard** (2003)
25%
Percentage of residents who can afford to purchase a home
25%
Percentage of renters spending more than 30% of income on rent (2003)
48%
Increase in median home price 2001 to 2004
34%
Number of residents touched by hunger or food insecurity (2004)
Number of adults (children) without health insurance (2003)
Percentage of babies with low birth weight (2002)
Births per 1000 teens ages 15 to 19. County Ave./ County High***/ State (2001-02)
Percentage of obese adults / overweight adults (2002)
th
Percentage of overweight 7 graders (2004)
168,000
210,000 (27,000)
6.6%
33.6 / 61.3 / 43.6
18% / 34%
33%
Number of public schools (2004)
Number of students enrolled in public school (2004)
Percent of students eligible for free/reduced price meals (2004)
365
216,822
34.8%
Number of students per guidance counselor (2004)
% Graduating high school with UC/CSU requirements (2003)
Percentage of U.S. counties with lower air pollution emissions (2003)****
559
41%
More than 80%
Percentage of open space at risk of urbanization (2000)
Percentage of waters that are considered “impaired” (1998)
Average commute time / one-way distance (2003)
Number of nonprofit organizations 1999 / 2002
Total Nonprofit Revenue (2002)
9%
26%
30 min. / 16 mi.
4,849 / 5,773
$4.1 billion
*The Diversity Index measures the probability that two people chosen randomly will be of different racial/ethnic
background.
**The Self-Sufficiency Standard measures the income required to afford basic housing, food, health care,
transportation, childcare, miscellaneous costs and taxes.
***Oakland has the highest teen birth rate in Alameda County (61.3/1000)
****Based on emissions of five “criteria” air pollutants.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 9
Alameda County Demographics5
Population Growth

The population of Alameda County was 1,443,741 in 2000. The population increased by
12.9% from 1990 to 2000, a rate of about 1.3% per year. The rate of population growth in the
county appears to be slowing. From 2000 to 2004, the population grew an estimated 3.7%,
about .9% annually.

South County and Tri-Valley cities grew much faster than North County cities (except
Emeryville) during the 1990s. The growth rate in most South County cities slowed from
2000 to 2004, whereas cities in the Tri-Valley region continue to grow at rates well above the
county average.
Table 1: Alameda County 2004 Population Estimates, with 2010 Straight-Line Projections
(Bold text indicates growth rates above county average)
Projected
Percentage
percentage
Percentage
Change
change 1990 2004 Estimated
change, 2000 to
2000 Population
to 2000
Population
2000 - 2004
2010*
33,871,648
13.8
1,443,741
12.9
1,498,000
3.7%
9.4
California
Alameda
North County
Alameda city
72,259
-5.5
74,400
3.0%
7.4
Albany
16,444
0.7
16,700
1.6%
3.9
Berkeley
102,743
0.0
104,300
1.5%
3.8
Emeryville
6,882
19.9
7,675
11.5%
28.8
Oakland
399,484
7.3
411,600
3.0%
7.5
Piedmont
10,952
3.3
11,050
0.9%
2.2
Central/South County
Hayward
140,030
144,600
3.3%
8.2
25.6
San Leandro
79,452
81,500
2.6%
6.4
16.5
Fremont
203,413
209,100
2.8%
7.0
17.3
Newark
42,471
12.2
43,750
3.0%
7.5
Union City
66,869
24.4
70,200
5.0%
12.5
Tri-Valley
Dublin
29,973
29.0
38,350
27.7%
69.3
Livermore
73,345
29.3
78,600
7.0%
17.5
Pleasanton
63,654
25.9
67,200
5.6%
13.9
Unincorporated
139,100
2.5%
6.2
135,717
13.2
*Rate represents a straight-line projection based on growth from 2000 to 2004 and does not take into account any of
the many factors that could affect the actual growth rate for the rest of the decade.
Source: Census 2000; California Department of Finance, State Census Data Center
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 10
Diversity and Immigration

Alameda County is one of the most ethnically and racially diverse regions in the nation and
the most diverse county in the Bay Area. The county’s “diversity index”—the probability
that two people chosen randomly will be of different racial/ethnic background—is 75.4,
higher than the California index of 72.
 Population growth has been fueled by increases in the numbers of Asian/Pacific Islanders
and Latinos, and particularly by immigrants born outside the United States. Twenty seven
percent (27%) of Alameda County residents were born outside the United States. About 43%
of these immigrants are US citizens.
 The number of foreign-born residents grew from 230,375 in 1990 to 392,656 in 2000, a
change of 70.4%. Asia is the most common region of origin (54.8%), followed by Latin
America (31%), Europe (8.7%), Africa (2.1%) and other areas (3.4%).

Of the 1.3 million Alameda County residents over the age of 5 years, 37% speak a language
other than English in the home, and 18% speak English less than “very well.” Nine percent
(9%) of households in the county are “linguistically isolated”—that is, no one over 14 years
old speaks English well. The percentage of linguistically isolated households is higher in
Oakland, Hayward, San Leandro, Union City, Newark, Fremont, and the unincorporated
communities of Ashland and Cherryland.

Alameda County has the second largest African American population in the state (after Los
Angeles). Whites have steadily declined as a percentage of total population and comprise less
than half the county population.
Table 2: Alameda County Population by Race/Ethnicity
Area
California
Alameda
Source: Census 2000
African American
White American
Indian
%
%
%
59.5
6.4
0.5
48.8
14.9
0.6
Asian
%
10.8
20.4
Two or
Pacific
More
Hispanic
Islander
Other Races Any Race
%
%
%
%
0.3
0.2
2.7
32.4
0.6
8.9
5.6
19.0
Table 3: Growth Rates of Racial/Ethnic Populations in Alameda County, 1990-2000
Total
African
American Asian/Pacific
Hispanic
American
Indian
Islander
12.5%
-7.3%
-3.7%
-18.5%
48.3%
42.4%
Bay Area
12.9%
-13.1%
-5.3%
-21.5%
62.9%
50.7%
Alameda County
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 1990 Census as reported in New Challenges for Bay Area Philanthropy:
Asian & Pacific Islander Communities, Asian And Pacific Islanders In Philanthropy, 2003
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
White
Page 11
Table 4: Diversity Indices* of Alameda County Cities
Hayward
Oakland
Newark
Union City
San Leandro
Emeryville
Fremont
Alameda
Berkeley
Albany
Dublin
Livermore
Pleasanton
Piedmont
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Source: Racial/Ethnic Diversity and Residential Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, 2001, Center for the
Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity
* The Diversity Index is a measure of the probability that two people chosen randomly will be of different
racial/ethnic background. An area where every person is of the same background would have a Diversity Index of
0; an area where every person is of a different background would have an Index of 100.
Race/Ethnicity in Alameda County
80
California
70
Alameda
County
60
50
Oakland
40
Hayward
30
Livermore
20
10
0
African American
American Indian
Asian
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Pacific
Islander
White
Other
Two or Hispanic
More Any Race
Races
Page 12
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SNAPSHOT
Total Population (2004 estimate)
948,816
Number of Children 0-17 (2000)
251,794
Diversity Index,* Contra Costa (California)
63 (72)
Diversity Index, under 18 years old
Total Number (Percent) Living in Poverty (2000)
Number (Percent) of Children Living In Poverty (2000)
72
71,575 (7.6%)
25,104 (10.2%)
Percentage of residents with incomes below self-sufficiency standard (2003)
21%
Percentage of residents who can afford to purchase a home
16%
Percentage of renters spending more than 30% of income on rent (2003)
48%
Increase in median home price 2001 to 2004
47%
Number of residents touched by hunger or food insecurity (2004)
Number of Adults (Children) Without Health Insurance (2003)
Percentage of Babies With Low Birth Weight (2002)
Births per 1000 teens ages 15 to 19. County Ave. / County High*** / State (2000-02)
Percentage of obese adults/overweight adults (2001)
th
Percentage of overweight 7 graders (2004)
91,000
43,000 (24,000)
6.2%
27.3 / 81.7 / 43.6
20.1 / NA
29%
Number of public schools (2004)
Number of students enrolled in public school (2004)
Number of students eligible for free/reduced price meals (2004)
208
165,562
26%
Number of students per guidance counselor (2004)
% Graduating high school with UC/CSU requirements (2003)
Percentage of U.S. counties with lower air pollution emissions (2003)****
828
40%
More than 90%
Percentage of open space at risk of urbanization (2000)
23%
Percentage of waters that are considered “impaired” (1998)
50%
Average commute time / one-way distance (2003)
Number of nonprofit organizations 1999 / 2002
Total nonprofit revenues (2002)
38 min. / 22 mi.
2,393 / 2,833
$1.5 billion
*The Diversity Index measures the probability that two people chosen randomly will be of different racial/ethnic
background.
**The Self-Sufficiency Standard measures the income required to afford basic housing, food, health care,
transportation, childcare, miscellaneous costs and taxes.
***San Pablo has the highest teen birth rate in Contra Costa County (81.7/1000)
****Based on emissions of five “criteria” air pollutants.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 13
Contra Costa County Demographics6
Population Growth

The population of Contra Costa County was 948,816 in 2000—nearly double the population
of the county in the early 1970s. Between 1990 and 2000, Contra Costa’s population grew by
18.1% making it one of the fastest growing counties in the Bay Area during that period.

East County and South County are the fastest growing areas. Antioch and Brentwood
represented 30.4% of the growth for the county, with a total of 44,076 new residents.

Contra Costa’s overall growth rate has slowed since the 1990s. However, Antioch, Bay
Point, Brentwood, Oakley, Pittsburg, Hercules and San Ramon are growing faster than the
county as a whole.7
Table 5: Contra Costa County 2004 Population Estimates, with 2010 Straight-Line Projections
(Bold text indicates growth rates above county average)
Area
California
Contra Costa
East County
Percentage
Percentage
Projected
Change
change 1990 to 2004 Estimated
Percentage Change
2000
Population
2000
Population
2000 – 2004
2000 to 2010*
33,871,648
13.8
1,003,900
5.8%
14.5%
948,816
18.1
100,600
Antioch
90,532
45.6
37,050
Brentwood
23,302
208.1
27,550
Oakley
25,619
39.4
61,500
Pittsburg
56,769
19.4
Central County
11,000
Clayton
10,762
47.1
124,900
Concord
121,780
9.4
24,300
Lafayette
23,908
1.7
36,800
Martinez
35,866
12.8
16,450
Moraga
16,290
2.8
17,750
Orinda
17,599
5.8
33,600
Pleasant Hill
32,837
4.0
66,000
Walnut Creek
64,296
6.2
West County
23,400
El Cerrito
23,171
1.3
21,700
Hercules
19,488
15.8
19,550
Pinole
19,039
9.0
101,700
Richmond
99,216
13.5
31,050
San Pablo
30,215
20.1
South County
43,250
Danville
41,715
33.2
48,600
San Ramon
44,722
26.7
157,400
Unincorporated
151,557
0.2
*Rate represents a straight-line projection based on growth from 2000 to 2004.
Source: Census 2000; California Department of Finance, State Census Data Center
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
11.1%
59.0%
7.5%
8.3%
27.8%
147.5%
18.8%
20.8%
2.2%
2.5%
1.6%
2.6%
1.0%
0.9%
2.3%
2.7%
5.5%
6.2%
4.1%
6.5%
2.5%
2.1%
5.8%
6.6%
1.0%
11.4%
2.7%
2.5%
2.6%
2.5%
28.4%
6.7%
6.3%
6.6%
3.7%
8.7%
3.9%
9.2%
21.7%
9.6%
Page 14
Diversity and Immigration

Contra Costa County is becoming increasingly diverse, although it is less diverse when
compared with other Bay Area Counties and with California. People of color now make up
34.5% of the population, compared to less than 20% two decades ago. The two fastest
growing groups are Asian/Pacific Islanders and Latinos. Whites comprise 65.5% of the
population of Contra Costa, followed by Latinos (17.7%); Asian/Pacific Islanders (11.4%);
African Americans (9.4%). People of mixed and other race/ethnicity comprise 13.2% of the
population. Native Americans are less than 1% of the population.

Over the next decade the Hispanic population is projected to increase to around 20% of the
population of Contra Costa County.8

Nineteen percent (19%) of Contra Costa County residents were born outside the United
States. About 46% are these immigrants are naturalized US citizens. The number of foreignborn residents grew from 107,060 in 1990 to 180,488 in 2000, a change of 68.6%. Asia and
Latin America are the most common regions of origin (41% each).

Of the 883,762 Contra Costa County residents over the age of 5, 26% speak a language other
than English in the home, and 12% speak English less than “very well.” 5.2% of households
in the county are linguistically isolated—no one over 14 years old speaks English well. The
percentage of linguistically isolated households is highest in Bay Point, Pittsburg, and San
Pablo.9
Table 6: Contra Costa Population by Race/Ethnicity
County/City
California
Contra Costa
Source: Census 2000
White
%
59.5
65.5
African
American
American
Indian
Asian
%
%
%
6.4
0.5 10.8
9.2
0.4 10.8
Pacific
Islander Other
%
%
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
Two or
More
Hispanic
Races
Any Race
%
%
2.7
32.4
3.4
17.7
Table 7 Growth Rates of Racial/Ethnic Populations in Contra Costa County, 1990-2000
African
Native
Asian/Pacific
Total
White
American
American
Islander
Hispanic
12.5%
-7.3%
-3.7%
-18.5%
48.3%
42.4%
Bay Area
18.1%
-1.9%
19.3%
-17.9%
43.4%
83.8%
Contra Costa County
Source: US Census Bureau as reported in New Challenges for Bay Area Philanthropy: Asian & Pacific Islander
Communities, Asian And Pacific Islanders In Philanthropy, 2003
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 15
Table 8: Diversity Indices* of Contra Costa County Cities
San Pablo
Pittsburg
Richmond
Hercules
Pinole
Antioch
El Cerrito
Concord
Brentwood
San Ramon
Martinez
Pleasant Hill
Moraga
Walnut Creek
Danville
Clayton
Lafayette
Orinda
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Source: Racial/Ethnic Diversity and Residential Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, 2001, Center for the
Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity
* The Diversity Index is a measure of the probability that two people chosen randomly will be of different
racial/ethnic background. An area where every person is of the same background would have a Diversity Index of
0; an area where every person is of a different background would have an Index of 100.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 16
Race/Ethnicity in Contra Costa County
70
California
60
Contra Costa
County
50
Concord
40
30
Pittsburg
20
San Pablo
10
0
African
American
American
Indian
Asian
Pacific
Islander
White
Other
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic
Any Race
Source: Census 2000
FOR MORE INFORMATION
State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report, Northern California Council for the Community, 2003
www.ncccsf.org/report/downloads/NCCC-final.pdf
East Bay Indicators 2004, Economic Development Alliance for Business
www.edab.org/study/EastBayIndicators2004.pdf
2003 Performance Index: The Changing Face of Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Economic
Partnership, 2003 www.cceconptnr.org/2003%20Index/2003index.htm
US Census Bureau, American Fact Finder
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 17
PART III: NEIGHBORHOOD CASE STUDIES
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 18
CITY OF PITTSBURG
Issue: Lack of affordable housing, overcrowding and the impact on low-income families.
Overview
The Pittsburg area is experiencing rapid population growth. From 2000 to 2020, the population
of the Pittsburg area (including Bay Point) is projected to increase 47%, from 77,479 in 2000 to
114,000 in 2020. This is due to the high amount of residential housing construction in the
Pittsburg area in the 1990s and the relative affordability of housing compared to the rest of
Contra Costa County, resulting in migration of families seeking home-ownership.
Ironically, housing availability is no longer keeping pace with population growth, leading to lack
of affordable housing and overcrowding. According to a City of Pittsburg study on inclusionary
housing, the median sale price of homes in Pittsburg increased 13% from 2002 to 2003 (from
$283,000 to $320,000), while a family earning the median household income in Pittsburg
($50,567) can only afford to pay approximately $200,000 for a home. The average rent in
Pittsburg ($1,052 in 2004) also exceeds what many low and moderate income households can
afford to pay. These prices are rapidly making housing unaffordable to many low and moderateincome families that have lived in Pittsburg for several generations. In fact, a 2002 study by
Greenbelt Alliance and the Non-Profit Housing Association gave Pittsburg a failing grade for
affordable housing, concluding that Pittsburg met only 51% of its affordable housing needs from
1988-1998.
The impact on low-income families is severe. According to the 2000 census, 2,932 households in
Pittsburg (16.5% of households) pay more than 30% of their income toward rent and 1,270
households (7% of households) are severely costs burdened by paying more than 50 percent of
their income toward rent. According to City records, 87% of very-low income families pay more
than they can afford for rent, making it difficult for these families to meet other basic needs such
as food, education, transportation and health care.
This has led to significant overcrowding. According to ABAG, approximately 15 % of total
Pittsburg households live in overcrowded conditions, of which 8% live in severely overcrowded
conditions. In 2000, Pittsburg had an average of 3.2 persons per household, which is significantly
higher than the Contra Costa County average of 2.72 persons. Community organizations such as
Pittsburg Better Together and FaithWorks have identified affordable housing and overcrowded
housing as priority issues in the Pittsburg area.
City and Community Response
Unfortunately, the City of Pittsburg has done little to solve these problems. According to City
documents, 40% of federally subsidized units (reserved for low income residents) have been
converted to market rate housing since 1999. The City did adopt a new Housing Element (to its
General Plan) in late 2003 but this was done without significant community involvement or
input. As a result, community groups such as Pittsburg Better Together (a collaboration of faithEBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 19
based organizations and community groups) and ACORN sued the City in February 2004, asking
the city to designate sites and pass policies that create more affordable housing.
Community groups were particularly concerned that the housing plan favors high-end residents
and limits zoning and other steps needed to create more affordable housing options. According
the lead attorney on the lawsuit (Richard Marcantonio of Public Advocates) “The city has
actually taken the position that it cannot meet its share of the regional need of new housing,
except for large homes for the wealthy.” According to the lawsuit, the City’s housing plan
assumed that needed affordable units would not be built—of the 534 needed very-low income
rental units, Pittsburg had set a goal of building only 347, or 65%. The housing plan focused
instead on building large homes for wealthy residents, intending to exceed the demand for
market-rate homes for upper-income people by more than 100%.
Challenges
As a result of the lawsuit and other community pressure, the City reissued its Housing Element
and adopted a new inclusionary housing ordinance in late 2004. But community organizations
such as Pittsburg Better Together are concerned that Pittsburg is becoming unaffordable to
families of teachers, nurses, police officers and others who have grown up in the city but can no
longer afford to live there. According to Rev. Greg Osorio of Pittsburg Better Together, “Our
lawsuit was necessary to ensure that the city we build in the future includes the residents who
live here right now.”
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 20
MONUMENT CORRIDOR, CONCORD
Issue: How immigrants can successfully build small businesses and invest resources back into
their community.
Overview
The Monument Corridor, a 10-square mile neighborhood contiguous to Concord’s Monument
Boulevard, is the site of rapid population growth that has resulted in a culturally diverse and
densely populated community, as well as in renewed efforts by residents to improve their
neighborhood and make it more livable. According to the 2000 U.S. census, 23,000 people live
in Monument Corridor, with 63% of residents low income and more than 40% very low income.
The neighborhood has become a portal community for new immigrants, including many who are
undocumented. Since 1990, the population grew 34%, with the greatest growth among the
Latino population (over 300% increase). As a result, over the last decade the population shifted
from primarily white (65% in 1990) to majority Latino (49% in 2000). This shift is further
evident in that more than half (54%) of Monument Corridor’s residents were born outside the
United States in 2000 and 32% of residents speak little or no English.
Poverty and low educational attainment are also prevalent in Monument Corridor. From 1990 to
2000, the number of children living in poverty in the neighborhood more than doubled, and the
overall poverty rate (44%) is more than twice the rate for Contra Costa County. In 2000, 40% of
Monument residents never graduated from high school, while among Latino residents age 25 and
over, the majority (58%) did not have a high school diploma. As a result, the community has
experienced larger numbers of people seeking work at lower skill and wage levels. In addition,
Monument Corridor’s Meadow Homes and Cambridge Elementary Schools had the 14th and
15th lowest Academic Performance Index (API) scores out of the 132 elementary schools tested
in Contra Costa County.
Community Action
Several community organizations are actively addressing these challenges in Monument
Corridor. One result of their efforts is the growth of small businesses run by new immigrants
that have a strong sense of giving back to the community.
Since 1999, Transformation Through Education and Mutual Support (TEAMS) has worked in
Monument Corridor with the mission of promoting a healthy, self-reliant community in which
people assist one another to achieve their individual and collective goals. Their programs focus
not just on moving individuals out poverty, but developing residents’ capacity to act collectively
to improve their neighborhoods. With TEAMS support, a group of Monument Corridor residents
recently developed a Financial Action Community Team (FACT) to build individual and
community wealth through home renovation and sales. In 2004, FACT members invested their
own money to purchase and rehabilitate a home. Some members of FACT had financial and
home improvement skills but many did not and learned from their cohorts. They are just
completing their first rehabilitation project and anticipate selling the house with a 50% return on
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 21
their investment in 4-6 months. Ten percent of the profit from this investment will be used to
start the neighborhood’s first Community Capital Pool, a resident-controlled fund that will
allocate resources for community benefit.
FACT is also helping TEAMS to manage a $20,000 grant from the City of Concord’s MicroEnterprise Loan Fund. The grant is for micro-loans to help residents start small businesses and
learn financial skills such as making business plans and leveraging community resources. Under
this grant, FACT members will conduct financial education workshops to reach at least 250
Concord residents. FACT members serve on the Advisory Board for the Micro-enterprise Loan
Fund and will help design a series of community workshops to assist community members who
want to be apply for loans from the Fund. In addition, graduates of the 2004 FACT will become
co-trainers for two new FACTs in 2005 and will help recruit new residents who want to start
small businesses. Through these efforts, FACT is helping to build a community whose members
can leverage their connections, skills and financial resources to improve their economic status
and quality of life.
With assistance from TEAMS and Monument Futures (a local community economic
development center) another group of local residents formed a successful business that involves
giving profits back to grow other local businesses. Nuestro Sabor Latino is a food-catering
cooperative started by Peruvian and Mexican immigrants that provides meals for local meetings
and conferences and through home delivery. They have a business plan with a succinct mission:
to provide nutritious Latin American cooking at competitive prices throughout central Contra
Costa County. In 2005, Sabor Latino aims to serve 1,400 plates per month and produce $5,000 in
monthly profits. By 2007, they hope to expand to 12,000 plates per month and $500,000 in
profits. To do this they plan to build up a solid customer base and then branch out into cooking
classes, recipe books, and possibly packaged dishes and sauces. Sabor Latino hopes to contribute
part of their profits to the Community Capital Pool described above. They have already received
significant attention through a January 2005 feature article in the Contra Costa Times that
highlights their unique business.
Challenges
While several existing economic development programs in the Concord area focus on wealthbuilding and financial education for the individual, the businesses and efforts described above
are different since they focus in part on building community wealth and resources. According to
Molly Clark (Executive Director of Monument Futures), “These businesses are good examples
of how the Monument Community is well organized, with residents helping others to achieve
with forward looking strategies.” However, community organizations will need to continue to
help these small businesses with business management skills to ensure that they can succeed
financially and can continue to give back to their community.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 22
NYSTROM NEIGHBORHOOD, RICHMOND
Issue: Can community engagement around public assets be used as tools for community
building?
Overview
The neighborhood* around Richmond’s Nystrom Elementary School and the MLK Jr.
Community Center and Park faces significant challenges common to many low-income
communities, such as economic blight, high crime rates, at-risk youth, high unemployment and
poverty. This neighborhood is one of Richmond’s more impoverished areas, with low-income
families making up a major share of households. In 2003, Nystrom’s median annual household
income was only $30,588, while 31% of Nystrom households had annual incomes of less than
$15,000. Unemployment remains a persistent problem in the community, with approximately
10% of Nystrom residents in the labor force unemployed. In addition, Nystrom Elementary
School is the lowest performing elementary school in west Contra Costa County and Richmond
Police Department records show that crime remains a pervasive problem in the community.
At the same time, Nystrom is a dynamic, rapidly growing community, with an increasing
proportion of Hispanic and young residents. The neighborhood is growing rapidly—from 1990
to 2000, the population increased an average of 2.1% per year. During this time the
neighborhood’s racial and ethnic composition also changed significantly. Over 61% of the
population is African American, although this number fell by 12% from 1990 and 2000. In
contrast, the number of Hispanic residents has grown by 374% since 1990 and Hispanics now
makes up approximately 29% of the neighborhood’s population. Young people constitute a
major portion of the community, with youth up to 19 years old comprising 39% of residents.
Community Revitalization
To address these challenges and take advantage of these opportunities, EBCF and the Richmond
Children’s Foundation (RCF) are sponsoring the Nystrom United Revitalization Effort (NURVE)
that seeks to build a vision of a healthy and vibrant community and clear a path to achieve that
vision. Working closely with local residents and partners, the project seeks to transform the
Nystrom neighborhood into a place that meets the diverse needs of children and families. For
example, although Nystrom Elementary and MLK Jr. Community Center and Park remain
underused and need significant maintenance, NURVE believes they have the potential to become
valuable resources for local families and youth, offering recreation, education, employment, and
health services. By revitalizing the school and community center, this initiative hopes to create a
greater sense of community.
This effort, which began in 2003, is working to identify key neighborhood sites that can serve as
catalysts for community development, such as a new full-service grocery store, more affordable
*
The Nystrom Neighborhood is not an official neighborhood as defined by the City of Richmond. It includes
portions of the Santa Fe and Coronado neighborhoods, and the southern edge of the Iron Triangle Neighborhood.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 23
housing, a renovated community center and streetscape improvements. Working with EBCF and
RCF, stakeholders are currently in a planning process to define more specific goals for the
project, identify key strategies for economic development and engage residents in the
revitalization effort. In 2004, the project hired Bay Area Economics and other consultants to
produce a detailed report on existing neighborhood conditions and a proposed neighborhood
plan.
Although the project is coordinated by EBCF and RCF, there is significant community
involvement and input. The project is advised by an Executive Committee, made up of
representatives from the City of Richmond (planning department, Mayor’s office), West Contra
Costa school district, neighborhood councils and others. A Working Committee, designated by
the Executive Committee, provides ongoing management and direction. The Working
Committee includes Neighborhood Council presidents, community leaders, public officials, and
other stakeholders that help to assure the project remains true to the goals of the community at
large. The project has also sought community engagement through numerous one-on-one
interviews with a broad range of stakeholders and by training high-school students to interview
other residents about neighborhood service and retail needs. Student researchers from the Ma’at
Youth Academy conducted 30 one-on-one interviews with residents at key public locations.
Results of these interviews are described in the consultants’ reports.
Accomplishments
In a significant sign of success, project partners helped the City of Richmond receive a $2.5
million California State grant to revitalize the community center and park. Through the grant,
NURVE and other partners will significantly upgrade the park (with a playground, picnic area,
garden, running track etc) and improve the center (upgrade parking/entry/lighting, add areas for
teens, job training, seniors, exercise, etc.). Through this effort, NURVE hopes to revitalize the
community center as a center of neighborhood services, including space for organizations
providing youth services, visual/performing arts and employment/training services.
NURVE consultants have also produced a detailed neighborhood plan that identifies key
community needs and strategies for meeting these needs. Recommendations from the
neighborhood plan include:
1) A streetscape program that improves the appearance and safety of Nystrom Elementary
School and the MLK Jr. Community Center/Park through street trees, widened sidewalks and
other safety measures; and 2) Six possible “opportunity sites” for development projects that
address local needs such as affordable housing, community services, and local-serving retail
centers.
Challenges
The challenges for this community initiative are very similar to those faced by other communityengagement efforts in low-income neighborhoods. Nystrom is a neglected part of Richmond and
thus has no large nonprofit organizations focused on the neighborhood’s problems or how to fix
them. For this reason, the project’s leadership is in the hands of non-local organizations such as
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 24
EBCF, Richmond Children’s Foundation and hired consultants. In this way, the project might
help to create a shiny new community center or other projects, but if neighborhood residents are
not truly behind this effort, the programming and sustainability of the center (and other projects)
remain in question.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 25
LOWER SAN ANTONIO NEIGHBORHOOD, OAKLAND
Issue: home ownership as a means of asset building for low-income families
Overview
The Lower San Antonio (LSA) is a diverse and growing community in Oakland, located south of
Lake Merritt, west of E. 22nd St and north of 28th Ave.1 Like many low-income communities in
the Bay Area, LSA faces significant challenges from poverty, low educational levels, and the
fact that many residents do not speak English. According to the 2000 Census, this neighborhood
has a population of almost 33,000 people, with 34% Asian, 35% Hispanic/Latino and 29%
African American residents. LSA residents are young (29% under 18 years), with many new
immigrants (49% foreign born that arrived since 1990) and many residents (69%) speaking
languages other than English at home. Almost half the residents (47%) have no high school
degree and 58% of households earned less than $35,000 in income in 1999. Poverty in LSA is
quite high, with a 40% child poverty rate and 18% of survey respondents receiving public
benefits for housing (Section 8, public housing, housing subsidies) in 2002/2003.
In terms of housing needs, housing is not affordable for many residents, with 63% of residents
spending 30-50% or more of their income on housing costs according to the 2000 Census. In
addition, almost 40% of residents are living in overcrowded or severely overcrowded housing
conditions. Home ownership is beyond the means of most residents since the median home sale
price in 2001 was $259,000, while the mean household income in 1999 was $38,820. Only 19%
of LSA residents own their homes and roughly 80% of LSA households rent a home/apartment,
compared to renters among 34% of Oakland households and 24% of Alameda County
households. In a survey conducted by Making Connections (a coalition of 40+ community
groups, city agencies, schools and immigrant organizations funded by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation), respondents cited insufficient savings, insufficient income and high housing prices
as the top three barriers to buying a home.
Community Action
To address these problems, several community organizations are working with LSA residents to
increase home ownership and provide more affordable rental housing. Making Connections has
an active Housing Work Group that has ambitious goals to support families in purchasing homes
as a method of increasing family assets. By 2010, the working group plans to facilitate
homeownership for at least 50 LSA families and increase the number of affordable rental and
ownership housing units in LSA by 2010. In 2005 (if adequate funding is provided), their
strategy is to provide 350 families with multilingual home-ownership material and to organize 10
workshops and a homeownership fair reaching 250 LSA residents. They will also investigate the
barriers to homeownership among LSA renters. Organizations involved in this ambitious effort
include the East Bay Community Law Center, the East Bay Asian Local Development
1
It’s interesting to note that LSA (like Nystrom) is not an officially recognized neighborhood name. While part of the San
Antonio neighborhood in Oakland, the LSA name/identify was developed by the Making Connections project.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 26
Corporation and the City of Oakland (Community and Economic Development Agency). The
home-ownership activities will be spearheaded by the Multilingual Homeownership Center
(MHC) based at Lao Family Community Development, Inc.
MHC has provided homeownership assistance to non-English speaking families in LSA since
2002. In an innovative program, they provide assistance at the neighborhood level in Spanish,
Cantonese, Vietnamese and other Asian languages. Services include one-day workshops that
qualify residents for Oakland’s down-payment assistance program and classes that help people
find realtors, get a mortgage and receive post-purchase counseling. Since 2002, MHC has
helped 79 families buy a home, with 89% of these being low-income families.
Other community-based organizations are focused on developing affordable rental units in LSA.
San Antonio Community Development Corporation (SACDC) has rehabilitated or completed
construction on multiple housing units with retail space in the neighborhood since 1980. Their
largest project is the Hismen Hin-Nu Terrace, a mixed-use development with 92 apartments and
commercial space occupied by small businesses, Head Start and other nonprofits. This project is
a joint venture with East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation, which has developed over
95 single-family homes for first-time homebuyers in the East Bay. EBALDC has a unique
Homeplace Initiative that rehabilitates single-family homes and works with loans from the City
of Oakland to make these homes affordable to low-income and moderate-income buyers.
Challenges
Clearly LSA is blessed with many well-organized community groups and a variety of innovative
and effective programs that promote home-ownership and asset building. However, challenges
still confront these efforts. One is lack of funding. For example, the Making Connections
Housing Work Group has not yet received the funds they need for 2005 and therefore has to
delay or cut back its ambitious goals. Another challenge is that when LSA residents receive
home-ownership assistance training, some residents use these skills to buy homes in more
affordable areas (like the Central Valley) rather than remain in LSA where housing is more
expensive.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 27
CITY OF FREMONT
Issue: Service provision to the Afghan community and how immigrants impact public institutions.
Overview
With a population of more than 209,000 people, Fremont is the fourth largest city in the Bay
Area. Like many other communities featured in these case studies, Fremont’s population grew
rapidly (21% increase) from 1990-2000, but unlike other communities, Fremont does not face
many low-income challenges. In 2000, the city’s median family income was $82,199, 41% of
Fremont’s population earned more than $100,000 and only 5% of residents lived in poverty.
Home ownership is high with 65% of housing units being owner occupied. Educational
achievement is also high with 23% of residents holding bachelor degrees or higher and with 15
"High Performing" schools in the city with Academic Performing Index scores over 800.
At the same time, Fremont is one of the most culturally diverse communities in the Bay Area.
The city evolved from a predominantly Caucasian population in 1990 to one where no ethnic
group constitutes a majority; in 2000, 48% of the population was white, 37% Asian and 14%
Latino. Fremont also has one of the largest Afghan communities in the United States with an
estimated 5,000 to 15,000 Afghan residents living in the area. (Since Afghans tend to selfidentify as being Caucasian, precise numbers are difficult to ascertain).
The problems faced by this community are varied. Many Afghan immigrants came to the Bay
Area (via refugee camps in Pakistan) in the 1980s and 1990s during Soviet occupation and
subsequent Taliban control. Many who came were highly educated, working as teachers, doctors
and government officials but have not learned English and therefore remain unemployed and
dependent on welfare. For these reasons, elders in the community face significant language
barriers, mental health issues and poverty. As Suzanne Shenfil (Director of Fremont Human
Services) explains, “Of all the immigrant communities in Fremont, this is the least affluent.” The
youth face different challenges since most were born in the U.S., do not speak Farsi and feel
sandwiched between two cultures. There are a growing number of Afghan gangs in Fremont,
which have evolved possibly as self-protection against post September 11th discrimination in
school.
City Services
To address the needs of its diverse residents, the City of Fremont has developed several
innovative programs. Since 2001, the Family Resource Center (FRC) has been at the forefront of
efforts to integrate different agencies services and to improve outcomes for local residents.
Owned and maintained by the City, the center houses 22 nonprofits, city, county, and state
agencies serving individuals and families. With a diverse staff that is reflective of community
demographics, FRC offers a wide range of services including food stamps, counseling,
public/mental health, domestic violence prevention and coordinated case management. FRC has
assisted the Afghan community by housing the Afghan Coalition (see below), which allows
Afghan residents easier access to the wide variety of services offered by FRC.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 28
City staff now use Afghan radio/TV and presentations at local places of worship to get the word
out about FRC and other programs. In addition, the Fremont Unified School District has
increased its efforts to support cultural understanding and reduce scapegoating in the aftermath
of September 11th. The District produced a flyer (Replacing Fears with Facts) that includes
detailed information about Afghanistan and Fremont’s Afghan community. The flyer was sent to
all teachers and administrators in the belief that “students who have information rather than
rumor, and facts rather than stereotypes, will treat all people with respect.”
Community Action
The Afghan community is extremely well organized, as is evident with the Afghan Coalition
(AC), a network of 9 professional and service organizations. The coalition is dedicated to
strengthening Afghan families in Northern California, improving their access to social services,
and building a strong and united Afghan American community. The Coalition uses both
professional staff and volunteers to provide services to over 3,500 clients each year. The AC is
the largest Afghan-American organization in the U.S. Reflecting the diversity of this
community, member organizations include the Society of Afghan Professionals, the Afghan
Women’s Association, the Afghan Student Association/UC Berkeley and the Afghan Domestic
Violence Prevention Association
The coalition provides an impressive list of services. Health services include both in-home and
on-site mental health counseling, and health navigation to help limited-English speaking clients
overcome barriers to accessing healthcare. The AC provides case managers that assist clients
with housing, social adjustment, parenting, and other issues, as well as counseling on how to
adapt to U.S. culture (including counseling for pre-marriage, youth and domestic violence). With
funding from the California Endowment, the Coalition started an Afghan Health Partnership
Program in late 2004 to address major obstacles to healthcare encountered by the Afghan
community and to improve culturally competent healthcare among provides such as Kaiser and
Washington Hospital.
The AC has an active outreach effort including a new cable TV program reaching thousands of
Afghans in the Bay Area and a Cross-Cultural Unity Partnership that seeks to increases
awareness of heightened discrimination against local Muslim communities since Sept. 11th. In
addition, the Coalition has active youth programming such as youth tutoring and mentoring,
youth leadership training and an Afghan youth video project. According to Rona Popal, AC
Executive Director, “The Afghan Coalition is an example of how agency and nonprofit
organizations can combine their efforts to provide the best service to all clients, including the
immigrant and refugee residents in the community.”
Challenges
The City of Fremont and the Afghan Coalition seem to be successful in providing vital services
to the Afghan community, including helping families to be resources to each other. The
challenge now faced by the city and Afghan organizations is how they can use these programs
and models to assist other members of the Muslim community (such as Pakistani, Arab and
Iranian immigrants in Fremont) who are not as well organized as the Afghan community.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 29
PART IV: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 30
STRENGTHENING FAMILIES
Overview
Family Self-Sufficiency
In the East Bay, tens of thousands of individuals and families are unable to earn enough to meet
their basic needs. In 2003, 11 percent of all people in Alameda County and 9 percent of all
people in Contra Costa County lived below the federal poverty level. (The 2003 federal poverty
level ranged from $9,573 for an individual to $18,660 for a family of four.10) In absolute
numbers, this amounted to 239,846 people in both counties who were living below the federal
poverty level. While this number is large, it does not capture the actual number of families that
are having difficulty making ends meet.
Because of the of the high cost of living in the region,* the federal poverty level is no longer an
accurate measure of a family’s economic hardship or poverty level. In its place, the United Way
has promoted the California Self-Sufficiency Standard, which measures the actual cost of living
needed by individuals and families to meet their basic needs. These include the costs of
transportation, taxes, childcare, housing, food and health care.11 The standard varies by county,
family size and ages of children. Following are two examples from the self-sufficiency standard:

In 2003, two working parents with two school age children had to earn $45,757 per year to
meet the family’s basic needs in the East Bay.12 This income is equivalent to a wage of $11
an hour per working adult, or more than twice the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.

For families with young children, costs are even higher because of the high cost of childcare.
In 2003 a single parent with an infant and a preschooler had to earn $56,047 a year to meet
the family’s basic needs in the East Bay.13 This income is equivalent to a wage of between
$26 and $27 an hour, or five times the federal minimum wage of $5.15.
Based on the self-sufficiency standard, in 2003, 25% of the residents of Alameda and 21% of the
residents of Contra Costa had incomes too low to pay for housing, food, health care,
transportation, child care, miscellaneous costs and taxes.14
The individuals and families who earn below the self-sufficiency standard live throughout the
East Bay, but tend to be clustered in specific parts of each county. Alameda County’s poorest
areas include East Oakland, in which 54.0% earn less than the self-sufficiency standard, and
West Oakland, North Oakland, and Emeryville, in which 39.3% earn less than the
standard.15Contra Costa County’s poorest areas include Richmond and San Pablo, in which
42.3% earn less than the self-sufficiency standard, and Pittsburg, Antioch, and Bay Point, in
which 36.3% earn less than the self-sufficiency standard.16
*
The cost of living in the East Bay is 28% above the national average.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 31
Because of the high cost of living, people in many common occupations, including childcare
workers, retail sales people, delivery truck drivers, elementary school teachers and fire fighters
may be having a hard time affording housing and basic household expenses in the East Bay. In
addition, many workers are in the double bind of earning too much to qualify for public
assistance, but too little to cover basic living expenses out of pocket. Eligibility for many
assistance programs is based on the federal poverty level, which measures only the cost of food
multiplied by three.17
Table 9 2003 Income Levels Required to Qualify for Public Assistance Programs, Family of Four
Federal Poverty Level
$18,660
130% Poverty Level
$24,258 (eligibility for free school lunches)
185% Poverty Level
$34,521 (eligibility for reduced cost school lunches)
200% Poverty Level
$37,320 (eligibility for Medi-Cal)
75% State Median Income
$37,665 (eligibility for subsidized child care)
Self-Sufficiency
$45,757 in the East Bay18
Source: Northern California Council for the Community19 and U.S. Census
Lack of Affordable Housing
Complicating matters is the fact that the East Bay is one of the least affordable regions in the
country for home ownership. According to the National Association of Homebuilders, the East
Bay ranks 171st out of 177 areas nationally in terms of housing affordability.20 Despite the high
median incomes in the region, only 25% of residents in Alameda County can afford to purchase
a home, and only 16% of residents in Contra Costa County can afford to purchase a home.21
In the East Bay, median housing prices have increased more than any other region in the Bay
Area, increasing 47.4% in Contra Costa County and 33.8% in Alameda County between 20012004. By 2003, the median home price had risen to $456,643 in Alameda County,22 and had
risen to $430,312 in Contra Costa County.23 The high cost of home ownership impacts the rental
market, as would-be buyers stay in the rental market and tighten the competition for units,
driving up rental prices.24 Median rents have also increased sharply, rising 18% in Alameda and
16% in Contra Costa between 2001-2003.25 By 2003, almost two-thirds of all rental units in the
East Bay cost $1,000 or more a month.26
In both counties, housing costs are a major factor contributing to the high cost of living, and
place a significant payment burden on low and middle-income families. In Alameda County
45% of owners with mortgages and 48% of renters spent 30% or more of household income on
housing.27 In Contra Costa 42% of owners with mortgages and 48% of renters in the county
spent 30% or more of household income on housing.28
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 32
The rise in housing prices has driven low-income families to search for more affordable housing
in the eastern part of Contra Costa and further outlying areas such as the Central Valley and
Vacaville, creating a structural imbalance between the location of jobs and housing. This in turn
is forcing many workers to spend hours commuting to their jobs, increasing traffic congestion,
and preventing them from spending more time with their families and communities.
Employment and Wages
After experiencing one of the worst regional downturns in US history between 2001 and 2003,
the East Bay moved back onto a growth path in 2004, albeit at a slow pace.29 In 2004, the region
began posting job growth, and the unemployment rate dropped to 5.0%.30The East Bay also
continued to have a high median income well above the national average. However the growth
in jobs and income has not been equitably distributed. While the unemployment rate has
improved in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in the last year, for the first time since welfare
restructuring in 1996, the number of CalWORKS recipients in both counties has increased.
Over the last decade, the East Bay economy has continued to transition to a service-based
economy. This transition has created an hourglass shaped economy, where new service jobs are
divided between high wage jobs and low wage jobs. In the East Bay, the rich are getting richer;
the poor, poorer, and the middle class is disappearing.31
The current federal minimum wage is $5.15, the equivalent of $4.23 in 1995, which is lower than
the $4.25 minimum wage level before it was increased in 1996-97.32 A full-time worker earning
$5.15 an hour would earn $10,712 a year—less than one fourth of the self-sufficiency wage in
the East Bay for a family of four.
Unfortunately, research shows that the majority of new jobs will be created in low skilled, low
wage sectors. According to the California Budget Project, a leading policy research institute,
61% of projected job openings in California from 1998-2008 will be in the two lowest wage
sectors: services and retail trades. The California Employment Development Department has also
identified the top 50 growth occupations between 1998-2008. The majority of those jobs (63%)
are in low-skilled areas that require on-the-job training while a smaller group of new jobs (30%)
will require a Bachelor’s degree or an advanced degree. The trends show an increasing division
between the majority of low skilled, low wage jobs that will not allow individuals and families to
meet their basic needs versus a smaller proportion of jobs that pay higher wages but demand
advanced education.33
The Working Poor
The East Bay is home to a growing number of working poor families who are unable to earn
enough to pay for basic living expenses for themselves and their children. Working poor families
are classified into two groups: very low-income families who have incomes below the federal
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 33
poverty level (FPL) and low-income families who have incomes between the FPL and 200% of
the FPL, which is a level of income that still falls short of providing an adequate standard of
living. According to research done in 2002 by the California Budget Project:
Low-income families are working hard, but many lack education, health coverage and food
stamps

The working poor include families of all races, education levels, and family structures. 34

Most low-income and very low-income families are working families with children in which
the adult members have had significant employment over the past year.35

Nearly half of low-income and very low-income working families are married couples with
children. 36

California’s low-income and very low-income working families are much more likely to be
headed by an adult without a high school degree or GED. 37

Two out of five people in very low-income working families have no health coverage and
one-third of people in low-income working families have no health coverage.38

The great majority of very low-income working families do not report receiving food stamps,
despite having incomes below the eligibility threshold.39
Women and children are disproportionately represented

Children are more likely than adults to live in low-income and very low-income families.
Almost one out of four children live in low-income families, and almost one of five children
live with very low-income families. 40

Among very low-income families in the East Bay, children and single mothers are
disproportionately represented.

In 2003, in Alameda County there were 29,768 very low-income families, of which 76% had
children under the age of 18.41 Forty-two percent of these families were headed by a single
female head of household. In Contra Costa County, there were 15,625 very-low income
families, of which 88% had children under the age of 18. Fifty-nine percent of these families
were headed by a single female head of household.42
Most working poor families are Latino, Asian and from other countries

The majority of California’s low-income and very low-income families are Latino. Nearly
two-thirds of California’s low-income working families with children are headed by a Latino.
More than seventy-percent of California’s very low-income working families with children
are Latino. Working families headed by Asians or African Americans are not
disproportionately represented among the working poor.43
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 34

Families with non-citizen adults are also disproportionately represented among the working
poor. This pattern reflects the fact that recent immigrants are more likely to be poor than are
native workers or immigrants who have been in the US for a long period.44 .

The growing ethnic diversity of the working poor is particularly noticeable in the East Bay’s
low-income communities, where Latino, Asian and other immigrant families are moving.45
This influx of newcomers is transforming the ethnic make up of many historically lowincome communities and placing new demands on public agencies, service providers and
public schools to overcome language barriers and to provide culturally appropriate services.
Hunger and Homelessness
Throughout the East Bay, working poor families of all ethnic backgrounds live on the edge. An
unexpected job loss, illness, domestic violence or eviction can force them into a crisis situation
where they experience hunger or end up homeless. Their low wages, high rents and the high cost
of living in the region preclude them from accumulating a savings cushion to protect themselves.

In 2003 in the East Bay, a total of 80,000 adults lived in food insecure households. There
were 179,000 other household members living with them, meaning that a total of 259,000
individuals in the region were touched by hunger or food insecurity.46 Almost twice as many
people experienced hunger or food insecurity in Alameda as in Contra Costa.

In 2003, in Alameda County an estimated 10,420 adults used homeless assistance services.
Of these, an estimated 4,460 adults accompanied by 1,755 children were actually homeless
(versus in some kind of shelter or housing); most of them were chronically homeless.
Almost half of the homeless persons who utilized services were female, the majority were
African American, three-quarters had at least a high school diploma or GED, and 21% were
accompanied by children. The shortage of very low income and affordable housing, the cost
of health care, high rates of unemployment and poverty, and multiple problems all
contributed to individuals becoming homeless. 47

In 2003, in Contra Costa County an estimated 15,000 people experienced homelessness on
any given night, and more than 4,800 people were homeless. In addition, an estimated
17,000 households in Contra Costa County had extremely low incomes and were at-risk of
homelessness, because they were paying an excessive portion of their income for rent.48
The Safety Net
Where do families turn for help when they are unable to make ends meet? Many low-wage
workers resort to emergency assistance programs, including CalWORKS, food stamps, school
lunch programs and housing subsidies. In 2003, both counties experienced a slight increase in
the number of participants in California’s welfare program, CalWORKS49 - the first increase
after six years of steady declines.50
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 35
CalWORKS. While CalWORKS is helping tens of thousands of individuals and families in the
East Bay, it has its shortcomings. CalWORKS offers a time-limited cash grant based on family
size, while supporting recipients in their efforts to seek and secure employment. However, many
individuals and families who do participate in CalWORKS are unable to earn high enough wages
in their new jobs to meet their basic needs. In California, in 2001 many CalWORKS participants
found jobs that paid enough to make them ineligible for further aid, but they did not earn enough
to become self-sufficient. The average earned income of a CalWORKs recipient in 2001 was
$780 per month (not including any other subsidies they may have received such as food stamps),
an amount which is far below the East Bay self-sufficiency wage of $3,800 per month for a
family of four.51 Overall, in the Bay Area, approximately 80% of CalWORKs recipients were
female.52
Secondly, CalWORKs imposes strict time limits on recipients: a maximum of 24 consecutive
months with few exceptions and a cumulative five-year time limit to receive aid, including aid
that was received from other states. 53 Because of the strict time limits, many individuals who
have been unable to secure reliable employment or who continue to face significant barriers to
keeping a job are eventually forced to leave the program. As more and more welfare recipients
“time out” of CalWORKS, the number of working poor families is increasing.54 Many of them
still need a lot of support to become self-supporting, but are no longer eligible for assistance.
Nutrition Programs. Mirroring the recent upward swing in CalWORKS recipients, the number
of food stamp recipients has also recently increased. Between 2002 and 2004, the number of
food stamp recipients increased 28% in Alameda and 39% in Contra Costa. During this period,
Alameda had more than twice as many food stamp recipients as Contra Costa.55
In spite of the increase in food stamp recipients, in the East Bay federal nutrition programs such
as food stamps and school food programs remain under-utilized and do not meet the basic
nutritional needs of low-income families.56 In both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, in 2003
only 53% of those who were eligible to receive food stamps actually participated in the program.
This underutilization led to an estimated loss of $54 million in federal funds for Alameda
County, and an estimated loss of $23 million in federal funds for Contra Costa County. 57 A 2001
study conducted by the Alameda County Community Food Bank found that 90% of the
households who were receiving food stamps said that their benefits did not last the entire month,
reporting that on average the benefits lasted 2.2 weeks.58
In both counties, the school breakfast program is also underutilized. Research has shown that
children who eat school breakfast do better on standardized tests and are less disruptive in the
classroom. However, more than a quarter of eligible schools in the East Bay do not serve
breakfast through the federally funded National School Breakfast Program, including many lowperforming schools that have a special responsibility to give children the tools they need to
succeed. 59
Housing Subsidies. The rising cost of housing in the East Bay has made more working poor
families dependent on federal housing subsidies. The nation’s principal low-income housing
assistance program is the Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly referred to as “Section
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 36
8.” The program enables low-income households - most of them low-income working families,
elderly individuals, or people with disabilities - to afford modest rental units in the private
housing market. Nationally, only about one out of four households that are eligible for vouchers
receive them. Many areas have long waiting lists for vouchers, and numerous housing agencies
have closed their waiting lists because the backlog has grown unmanageable.60 When a family
rises to the top of the waiting list, the family is given a voucher certificate and typically three
months to find a landlord who will accept the voucher.61 In Alameda County, there are currently
20,512 individuals with Section 8 vouchers, and in Contra Costa County, there are currently
9,479 individuals with Section 8 vouchers.62
Major Trends Affecting Low-income Families
Reductions in Public Funding. Unfortunately, proposed federal budget cuts threaten to reduce
or eliminate the Section 8 housing assistance program, as well as other important housing
programs for low-income families. These cuts could force thousands of low-income families
into overcrowded or substandard housing, or, even worse, onto the streets.63
President Bush’s budget for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2005 proposes dramatic cuts of more than
$1 billion to the Housing and Urban Development Department’s (HUD) Section 8 program with
further reductions planned for subsequent years. Under the President’s proposal, over 35,000
low-income families in California could lose their federal housing assistance in 2005, rising to
nearly 86,000 by 2009.64
The impact of this reaches into all Bay Area communities. Low-income households are already
pinched because local Section 8 programs are already crippled—nearly 2,900 Bay Area
households are seeing their housing assistance cut this year, including 1,120 working families,
705 elderly, and nearly 680 people with disabilities, not to mention the thousands more on
waiting lists. In five years, those figures will triple.65
HUD’s Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program is also under threat. The
President’s FY 2006 budget includes a proposal to consolidate 18 programs, including CDBG,
into a new program to be operated by the Department of Commerce. Proposed funding for this
consolidated program would be 35% lower than the current combined FY 2005 level for these 18
programs. The reduction for CDBG alone would be $1.42 billion.66 For FY 2005, Alameda
County received more than $18 million in CDBG funds and Contra Costa County received
almost $9 million. These funds, which support homeowner and rental housing rehab, first time
buyer assistance, and affordable housing construction, will be threatened if the President's budget
goes through.67
In addition to these cuts in federal housing programs, federal and state budget cuts are having a
far-reaching effect on other social support programs throughout the East Bay. Federal and state
budget cuts are leading to severe cutbacks in human services and health care staffing and
services at the county level. At this point, preventive and early intervention services for lowincome families are being cut more severely than emergency assistance services. The cut backs
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 37
in preventive services are part of a trend. Twenty years ago, 70% of federal and state allocations
were available for prevention. Now only 20% of federal and state allocations are available for
this.68 However, there are signs that emergency services are being cut as well. In Contra Costa
County, funding for emergency shelters was cut last year, and First Five Contra Costa stepped in
to support the shelters.69
Employment programs are also being cut. By next year, Contra Costa County will have to
eliminate all of its employment retention services for low-income individuals. In the past, the
county put resources into post-employment job retention services; continuing education to help
people move up the employment ladder; and programs to help people with ongoing child care
and housing needs, family counseling issues and children’s issues. Most of that funding has
already been radically cut back, and the county may have to eliminate all of it. This will have a
tremendous impact on the ability of low-income individuals to stay employed and to continue to
move up the self-sufficiency ladder.70
Alameda County has experienced similar cutbacks to its employment programs. Two years ago,
the county had a $10 million budget for employment and training services for CalWORKS
recipients, which now has been cut to $1 million. The county has had to eliminate
comprehensive employment development programs, and has had to replace them with a basic job
search assistance program.71
Child Welfare Redesign. Another major trend that will affect low-income families is the
redesign of the child welfare programs in both counties. Many people see this as a positive step.
For years, consistently high numbers of child abuse reports have been challenging the capacity of
county child welfare systems to respond effectively. The social, emotional and developmental
cost to the children at risk of harm is profound. Many cases involve children under five years of
age, with African-American children substantially over-represented. Many of the children who
are in the child welfare system have parents who are burdened with substance abuse, domestic
violence or mental health problems, creating an environment of chronic neglect for their
children.72 Due to federal and state budget cuts, child welfare programs have retrenched to the
point where many of them are only providing emergency, remedial, or court ordered services.
Preventive family services have been defunded and services have been cut in the last three
years.73
To compensate for this loss of county run services, the counties are creating a more flexible
service delivery network, which will rely on community based organizations (CBOs) and faithbased organizations (FBOs) to help families with child welfare issues – before the issues rise to
the level of child abuse and neglect. The counties have begun to provide grants to CBOs to start
providing these preventive services, which will be coupled with more rigorous case management
and tracking of families. The CBOs and FBOs will help to establish service plans for the
families, will link them with available services like parenting education, substance abuse
treatment, marriage counseling and getting kids back to school, and will follow up to make sure
that these plan elements are implemented. 74
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 38
The goal of the child welfare redesign is to provide more than remedial emergency services to
families and to involve the community to a great extent in caring for these families. However,
the success of child welfare redesign is crucially dependent on the ability of CBOs and FBOs to
handle these new responsibilities. In this vein, efforts to strengthen nonprofits in both counties –
both in terms of educating them about best practices, improving their organizational
effectiveness, and helping them weather the growing competition for private and public dollars –
will be essential. 75
Aging Baby Boomers. The final major trend that will affect low-income individuals and
families in the East Bay is the current and projected increase in the number of residents over 65
years old. The Baby Boomers – those people born between 1946 and 1964 – are hitting
retirement, even as modern medicine and health education help people live longer. In the East
Bay, close to half of the population is from the Baby Boom generation or older. This wave of
aging will create significant demands for services in every sector. Unfortunately, many public
agencies have been slow to focus on this issue. The challenge of preparing to meet the needs of
the Baby Boom seniors is all the more urgent because the region is not meeting the needs of its
current low-income and very low-income seniors. 76
County agencies that serve seniors are experiencing budget cuts and a number of private
foundation funders are also moving away from funding seniors. Fortunately, both counties are
cognizant of the challenge that lies before them and have recently completed comprehensive
surveys of their seniors, which will be used to guide the development of program strategies and
services. Under the leadership of the John Muir/Mt. Diablo Community Health Fund and the
Y& H Soda Foundation, Contra Costa has organized a countywide initiative called Contra Costa
for Every Generation. The initiative has organized interdisciplinary task forces to review the
survey findings and develop strategies for addressing the following senior issues: housing,
transportation, health care and wellness, neighborhood quality of life, involvement in the
community and support services. 77 Currently, there is no similar effort in Alameda County to
develop countywide public/private strategies for meeting the needs of seniors.78
Opportunities
Despite the significant challenges facing families in the East Bay, there is an extensive network
of county agencies and nonprofit service providers that are dedicated to meeting the needs of
low-income and very low-income families. Many of these county agencies and nonprofits are
piloting innovative efforts to address the needs of low-income families through the provision of
direct services, policy advocacy and systems change. As a result, there is a wealth of expertise
and information about best practices in both counties.
In addition, for many years the East Bay Community Foundation has been committed to helping
families and individuals in the East Bay become self-sufficient, contributing members of their
communities. The Foundation has supported family self-sufficiency by investing in efforts that:
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 39
1. Provide training and support to those struggling to achieve or maintain economic
independence;
2. Develop family support services that provide parents and other adults with resources that
foster their learning and growth; and
3. Provide the community’s most vulnerable residents with the basic supports they need to
live with dignity and the greatest possible degree of independence.
In addition, the Foundation is committed to supporting greater equity and inclusion for the
region’s low-income families, and particularly for the region’s low-income immigrant and
refugee families.
Within in these four broad areas, the Foundation has a wide range of options for using its
leadership, convening and grantmaking capabilities to make a difference. The following section
describes those opportunities that currently are the most promising or offer the greatest leverage
for the Foundation.
1. Improving the Economic Self-Sufficiency of Families
Economic Self-Sufficiency: Best Practices
In the East Bay, low-income and very low-income families must overcome a wide variety of
challenges to advance economically and build a better future for themselves and their children.
Consequently, they need a continuum of supportive services. Their primary need is to improve
their incomes and savings to become more financially stable. There is a wide-range of strategies
used to improve their economic self-sufficiency. Of these the most promising include:
Helping low-income families secure tax credits and public assistance. One of the most
immediate ways to help families is to help them secure tax credits such as the Earned Income
Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit, and to help them sign up for public benefits such as
food stamps, childcare subsidies, school lunches and health insurance. These income supports
are critical to families living on the edge. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable tax
credit of up to $4,204 available to taxpayers who earn less than $34,692 per year, and the Child
Tax Credit provides an additional $1,000 per qualifying child. An estimated $27.6 million in
EITC goes unclaimed in Alameda County per year, and an estimated $15 million goes unclaimed
in Contra Costa County per year, because tax filers fail to claim credits.79 An estimated 15% to
20% of eligible families—and even higher percentages among immigrants and families in poor
neighborhoods—fail to claim this credit.80
Helping low-income workers find and keep livable-wage jobs. Many low-income workers
need help finding livable-wage jobs and developing careers that will enable them to move up the
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 40
economic ladder. Promising strategies include offering workers job search assistance, career
advising, training in soft and hard job skills, and support to pursue additional education (GED
and BA); working with employers to provide job advancement opportunities; and creating
workforce development initiatives which help develop jobs for low-income workers in high
growth, high demand occupations, which can provide the workers with livable wages, benefits
and opportunities for career advancement.
However, low-income workers also need help overcoming some of the barriers to keeping a job,
which includes support for dealing with on-the-job challenges, reliable transportation (including
access to a car) and high-quality child care (available at both regular and non-standard working
hours). Promising strategies here include helping low-income families purchase inexpensive
cars and supporting efforts to provide more affordable childcare for low-income workers.
Helping low-income families increase savings and asset accumulation. At least a quarter of
all Americans are “asset-poor,” meaning they couldn’t survive for three months, even at the
poverty level, if they had to live on their savings and other assets. When families lack assets,
they cannot weather hard times or plan for the future. A promising new strategy to address this
problem is the Individual Development Account (IDA), a savings account for poor people in
which their savings are matched by government or private funders (typically at a 2:1 rate for up
to $6,000). The savings are earmarked for activities that increase financial and human capital
such as education, starting a business or buying a house. 81 The most promising IDA programs
are being implemented by nonprofits that are working closely with low-income families to help
them address specific issues such as housing and education. IDA programs are also being
combined with financial literacy training for families.
Helping low-income families utilize peer networks. Peer supports play a critical role in
helping parents get and keep jobs. Most people hear about job opportunities through personal
connections rather than advertisements. Once a parent has a job, he or she often relies on friends
to help to solve problems at work, find ways to get a ride to work, take care of a sick child or
deal with family emergencies. Family resource centers have been particularly good at providing
these peer supports to working parents. These centers have also been good at connecting families
with high-quality affordable child care and other family services essential to keeping one’s job,
such as subsidized housing, mental health care and counseling.82 Another promising model,
which EBCF helped develop, is the Oakland-based Family Independence Initiative (FII). FII
works with groups of low-income families who are committed to working together toward selfsufficiency. Currently, FII supports 150 participants of all ages from four distinct communities,
each with its own approach to building long-term stability. FII follows their leadership and
initiative; provides them with IDAs, home computers and small pools of money for groupinitiated projects; and helps them in developing both economic and social assets.
Supporting comprehensive community development. The well-being of families is tied
closely to the conditions of their neighborhoods. Families are profoundly affected by
neighborhood conditions. When neighborhoods suffer from high crime and lack basic services, it
is much more difficult for families to thrive. Low-income families also have a harder time
advancing economically when good jobs are absent in the neighborhood, and transportation to
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 41
more vibrant centers of employment is unreliable, unaffordable or nonexistent. At the same time,
families can be key players in building strong neighborhoods. When families work together, they
can bring critical resources into their neighborhoods by advocating, for example, for safer parks,
for neighborhood schools, and for enhanced after-school programs.83
Comprehensive community development efforts tend to be more successful when they include
the following elements: starting with a focus on desired outcomes – not programs; building on
the assets of individuals, families and neighborhoods – not on deficits; involving and investing in
communities and neighborhoods – not just services; providing comprehensive, integrated support
for families and individuals – not fragmented, disconnected services; promoting collaboration
between funders and policy makers, not just agencies; being culturally competent and allowing
the community to direct the process – not determining programs externally; and taking promising
initiatives to scale – not just pilots.84
Addressing regional issues affecting the poor. Low-income families and their communities
are also affected by larger regional economic patterns. Promising strategies include supporting
livable wage ordinances; working on a county level to improve the amount of high quality,
affordable child care for low income workers; improving the availability of affordable housing
for low-income and very low-income families; and improving public transit service to link lowincome communities to critical health and human services.
Economic Self-Sufficiency: Grantmaking and Leadership Opportunities

Support nonprofits that help low-income families file their taxes at free tax assistance sites,
secure tax credits, and sign up for public benefits such as food stamps, childcare subsidies,
school lunches and health insurance.

Support nonprofits that help low-income workers get and keep jobs by providing them with
job search help, job counseling and training in job skills.

Support nonprofits to carry out workforce development initiatives which help develop jobs
for low-income workers in high growth, high demand occupations, in order to provide the
workers with livable wages, benefits and opportunities for career advancement.

Support programs that help low-income families increase their savings, improve their
financial literacy, and build assets through IDAs to achieve important goals such as getting a
B.A., starting a business or buying a house.

Support peer support networks for working parents at family resource centers and at local
nonprofits.

Support nonprofit organizations carrying out organizing work, policy research and advocacy
to establish livable wage ordinances.

Support the organizational capacity building of nonprofits that are working to strengthen the
economic self-sufficiency of low-income families.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 42
2. Improving Supportive Services for Families
Supportive Services for Families: Best Practices
In the East Bay, low-income and very low-income families also need a wide range of longerterm supportive services such as case management and family support services, which help them
become more self-reliant. Because family support services deal with all members of the family,
from the very young to the very old, there is a plethora of possible strategies to pursue.
Creating comprehensive, wrap-around family services. Many low-income and immigrant
families face significant barriers to accessing public services. In addition, when services are
fragmented, families often must contend with conflicting priorities from different service
providers, which are often not responsive to their needs. In an effort to make it easier for
families to access and gain the most benefit from family support services, many cities, county
agencies and nonprofits have created family resource centers. In a family resource center,
service providers are located in one facility in a low-income neighborhood. The service
providers work as a team to oversee the case management of families, ensure that their services
are not conflicting, and develop plans for the families, which build on the families expressed
needs, goals and strengths. These neighborhood resource centers provide multiple services to
families, educational opportunities and resources for parents, social and peer support, special
childcare, early intervention screening services, neighborhood capacity-building and family
literacy promotion.
Providing services for the very young. The most important trend in family supportive services,
however, is based on the growing recognition of how critical the first few years of life are for
shaping mental, emotional and physical well-being. Increasingly, family support services are
focusing their efforts “down-the-line” on the healthy development of the very young.
The early childhood years offer a critical leverage point for improving educational achievement
among children, especially in immigrant families. Recent research on brain development shows
that a stimulating environment is crucial to a young child’s later success. Numerous studies also
show that high-quality childcare helps children develop the social, emotional and cognitive skills
fundamental to long-term educational and economic achievement. This research has led to a
widespread political consensus at the federal, state and local levels that early childhood is a
period of high impact that merits attention.85 Promising strategies for supporting the very young
include prenatal substance abuse screening; referral and substance abuse services for young
children; mental health and special needs early screening and services; special services for
premature birth babies; home visitation; and parenting education.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 43
There are also some promising programs to improve the quality of child care by providing
financial support to early childhood educators to improve their educational levels; to improve
child care and preschool facilities and programs; and to get universal pre-school mandated at the
state or county level. Other promising programs include efforts which help parents of young
children learn English and learn to read, and then encourage them to read and teach their
children.
Creating community-wide support for young children. Another promising strategy is using a
community-wide approach to support young children. This work has been pioneered by the
Harlem Children’s Zone in Central Harlem, and is based on two major tenets. First, that children
from troubled communities are far more likely to grow to healthy, satisfying adulthood (and to
help build a better community) if a critical mass of the adults around them are well versed in the
techniques of effective parenting and are engaged in local educational, social, and religious
activities with their children. Second, the earlier a child is touched by sound health care,
intellectual and social stimulation, and consistent guidance from loving, attentive adults, the
more likely that child will be to grow into a responsible and fulfilled member of the community.
Intervention at later stages is still important — and must be adjusted as the person progresses
through the various stages of youth. But later intervention is more costly and less sure of
success. Families will need these later efforts to a lesser degree and in declining amounts if the
earliest intervention is effective.86
Supportive Services for Families: Grantmaking/Leadership Opportunities

Support family resource centers which offer comprehensive, wrap-around services to lowincome families, which are responsive to the families’ needs.

Work in collaboration with other funders to strengthen the organizational capacity of
nonprofits providing family support services and senior services. In particular, these
nonprofits need support to be able to adapt to funding reductions, meet the growing demands
being placed on them as county agencies cut services and devolve responsibilities to them
(especially in the areas of child welfare redesign and seniors), and provide more culturally
appropriate services.

Support nonprofits that provide support services for families and young children, focusing on
ensuring that children from 0-3 years old get effective physical and mental health care,
intellectual and social stimulation, and skilled parenting from caring adults.

Support efforts in Contra Costa County to create universal pre-school for children aged 3-4 to
stimulate the children’s mental growth and learning through reading and talking, and to
provide public supported high quality care for this age group of children.

Support nonprofits to provide preventative services to families with child welfare issues,
before the issues rise to the level of child abuse and neglect.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 44

Support nonprofit organizations to do recruitment, training and professional development of
bilingual staff for family services providers.

Support the following types of family services nonprofits that are being most affected by
recent funding cuts: mental health care, substance abuse treatment, counseling and crisis
intervention.

Support nonprofits to provide in-home assistance (cooking, gardening, etc.) and to run
errands for homebound seniors.
3. Strengthening the Safety Net
Strengthening the Safety Net: Best Practices and Grantmaking/Leadership
Opportunities
As this report has clearly documented, a growing number of low-income families are using
public assistance programs such as CalWORKS and food stamps. And yet this recent increase in
demand is occurring as public funding cuts are weakening basic safety net programs.

Support nonprofits to conduct public policy research and advocacy on the federal and state
levels to oppose budget cuts affecting the most vulnerable residents of the East Bay.

Support nonprofits to increase the number of schools providing school meal, summer lunch
and after-school snacks and nutritious food to low-income children.

Fund outreach campaigns to increase utilization of all federal nutrition programs.

Support local food banks’ networks of member agencies to expand service hours and
language capabilities.

Support local food banks to coordinate more emergency food delivery programs for seniors
and the homebound.

Support nonprofits to organize farmers markets in low-income communities.

Through grantmaking and leadership, ensure that homeless shelters are adequately funded,
and support nonprofit providers of homeless services.
4. Helping Immigrant and Refugee Families
Immigrant and Refugee Families: Best Practices and Grantmaking/
Leadership Opportunities
One of the most critical needs in the East Bay is to help immigrants and refugees access the help
they need and create self-sustaining lives for themselves and their children. But immigrant
integration is a “two-way street.” Newcomers need to learn about and adapt to life in the United
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 45
States, and established residents, public agencies, and community organizations also need to
learn about newcomers and make basic accommodations that will facilitate their successful
transition into local communities. In particular, service providers need to improve their
organizational capacity to be able to provide more culturally appropriate services in the requisite
languages.
In all of the Foundation’s grantmaking areas,
1. Support nonprofits that are providing culturally appropriate and language appropriate
services for immigrant populations; and
2. Provide organizational strengthening grants to nonprofits to build their capacity to
“bridge” the language and culture gap, and serve more immigrant and refugee
populations effectively.
In addition:

Support the organizational capacity building of community based organizations dedicated
specifically to helping immigrants integrate into society. Community-based organizations
play a critical role in the successful integration of newcomers because they understand the
immigrant experience, languages, and cultures.

Increase the economic self-sufficiency of low-income immigrants by supporting innovative
programs that help low-income immigrants create viable business and employment
opportunities that pay a living wage, provide a range of benefits, and bolster their long-term
economic security.

Support programs that provide information and referral to newcomers about immigration
regulations, community services and public benefits, and laws and public policies, as well as
technical assistance to service providers and agency personnel.

Support programs that teach newcomers about U.S. customs, laws, and institutions and help
them develop the skills they need to work on their own behalf and to join with other residents
to improve their lives and their neighborhoods. Increase the civic engagement of immigrants
by supporting activities which involve them in improving the quality of community life, such
as volunteerism, mentorship, community organizing and voting.

Support the provision of affordable immigration legal services. Access to affordable and
reliable immigration legal services enables qualified immigrants to obtain the legal status that
leads to better and more secure jobs, more rapid acquisition of English, family unification
and stability, improved access to health care, improved educational outcomes for children,
and fuller participation in community life. Even immigrants who do not qualify for an
immigration remedy need truthful information about their options so they do not fall prey to
exploitation or forgo health and educational programs for their children.

Support nonprofit organizations engaged in research and advocacy to improve the policies
and programs that impact the quality of immigrant community life. Community organizations
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 46
are uniquely positioned to inform policy makers about the local impacts of public policies
and to work with them to design improvements.87
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Northern California Council for the Community, web site: www.ncccsf.org
United Way of the Bay Area, The Bottom Line: Setting the Real Standard for
Bay Area Working Families, September 2004
www.ncccsf.org/DataCentral/SSS/downloads/The%20Bottom%20Line.pdf
Northern California Council for the Community, State of the Bay Area: A
Regional Report Pathway to Results Measuring Progress Toward Healthy and
Self-Sufficient Families and Communities Pathways, March 2003
www.ncccsf.org/DataCentral/PDF_StateoftheBayArea.pdf
California Food Policy Advocates, 2004 County by County Profile, data on web
site: www.cfpa.net
California Budget Project, web site: www.cbp.org
California Budget Project, Working Hard, Falling Short. Investing in
California's Working Families, Executive Summary, January 2005
www.cbp.org/2005/0412wpfExecSumm.pdf
Women's Foundation, Failing to Make Ends Meet—The Economic Status of Women
in California, August 2002 www.womensfoundca.org/fullreport02.pdf
Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees, website: www.gcir.org
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 47
EDUCATION
Overview
A number of convergent forces have put East Bay public schools under tremendous stress in
recent years. Against a historic pattern of under-funding of public education in California dating
back to the passage of Proposition 13, the state budget crisis that resulted from the economic
recession in 2001 has led to further funding cuts in education spending. Faced with rising costs
and reduced funding, virtually every East Bay school district has been forced to lay off teachers
and cut essential programs and services, from counselors and librarians to music, arts and sports
programs. As the 2006 state budget is currently being shaped in a political environment averse to
increased taxes, education remains vulnerable to more cuts.
The larger districts with high percentages of low income and minority students have been
particularly hard hit. Oakland Unified School District went bankrupt in 2003, requiring a $100
million state bailout loan and takeover by a state administrator. In 2004 the West Contra Costa
Unified School District was facing a $16.5 million deficit and narrowly avoided drastic cuts in
high school sports, libraries, music teachers and counselors when community and corporate
donors stepped in and voters approved a parcel tax. Schools districts in Berkeley, Hayward,
Livermore, Emeryville, Antioch, Martinez, Concord and elsewhere have all faced serious budget
problems in recent years.
While all East Bay school districts are strained financially, some communities have partly offset
funding shortfalls with parcel tax measures and community fund raising. Although these efforts
demonstrate the strong support for education that exists in the East Bay, they do not address the
fundamental structural funding issues and often only postpone the problems for a year or two.
Furthermore, they tend to exacerbate inequalities between schools in low-income communities
and those in wealthier areas.
Accountability and No Child Left Behind
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation enacted in 2001 compounded the
challenges that East Bay schools were already facing in implementing the standards-based
reforms adopted by California two years earlier. Implementing the new set of sweeping reforms
required by NCLB in an environment of budget cuts has been extremely difficult for many
districts. NCLB seeks to address the unequal quality of education received by ethnic minorities,
English language learners and other groups that have been poorly served by the public schools.
While this is a laudable goal, the way NCLB is structured puts a particularly onerous burden on
schools and districts with highly diverse student populations. In a very short time frame, these
districts must demonstrate improved achievement in each significant subgroup of students as

Per pupil spending increased steadily from 1993 through 2000, and has dropped to about the 1998 level. California
still ranks near the bottom nationally in per pupil spending, and is well below the national average for teacher pay
and percent of teachers without a full credential.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 48
well as for the student population overall. To date the federal government has not provided the
substantial new resources that schools would need comply with NCLB mandates and achieve its
objectives.
NCLB requires all schools to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) that places them on a
trajectory to have all students meeting state proficiency standards by 2014.* Criteria for AYP
include improvements in the areas of student achievement, English proficiency, graduation rates,
teacher credentialing, and school safety. For schools receiving Federal Title I funds for lowincome students, failure to meet AYP criteria results in a 5-year Program Improvement (PI)
program of increasingly severe sanctions. In the first two years of PI, teachers receive training
and students may transfer to a higher performing school within a district or get free tutoring. In
year three the district must take corrective action, which may include demoting principals and
staff, bringing in consultants and reorganizing the school. In year five, districts must pursue one
of several options that offer substantial promise of enabling the school to make AYP. These
include: replacing all staff, reopen the school as a self-governing charter, contracting
management of the school to another organization, or closing the school and re-assigning
students to higher performing schools in the district, or other restructuring.
Sixty-five schools in Alameda County and 42 schools in Contra Costa County are currently
identified as Program Improvement sites. Thirteen schools in Oakland, eleven schools in West
Contra Costa and 2 schools in Pittsburg are in the fourth consecutive year of Program
Improvement in the 2004-2005 school year and face the prospect of restructuring or closure in
the fall. Table 1 summarizes the status of East Bay districts in NCLB Program Improvement.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 49
Table 10: NCLB Program Improvement schools in the East Bay, 2004-05 school year
Total PI schools Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Alameda County
65
26
19
6
14
Berkeley Unified
8
5
1
1
1
Emery Unified
1
1
--
--
--
Fremont Unified
1
1
--
--
--
Hayward Unified
10
1
5
4
--
Oakland Unified
45
18
13
1
13
Contra Costa County
42
11
16
2
13
Antioch Unified
3
1
2
--
--
John Swett Unified
1
1
--
--
--
Martinez Unified
1
--
1
--
--
Mt. Diablo Unified
8
3
5
--
--
Pittsburg Unified
7
2
1
2
2
West Contra Costa Unified
22
4
7
--
11
Source: California Department of Education, Data Quest
Oakland Schools
Oakland schools have struggled for years with low academic achievement, high dropout rates
and, more recently, declining enrolments. Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) enrollment
declined by 8.4% between 2000 and 2004. The sharpest declines, ranging from 14% to 19%,
were in grades K-4.88 This drop in enrollment represents a loss of more than $36 million in state
funding, a key precipitating factor to the fiscal crisis that led to the state takeover of the District
in 2003.
While there are no reliable data on population trends for Oakland’s children during these years
with which to analyze this decline in public school enrollment, many observers attribute it to a
combination of at least two factors:

Despite modest improvements in test scores at some elementary schools, many parents are
taking their children out of Oakland schools. Charter schools are attracting a greater share of
public school students, and some families may be enrolling their children in schools in
neighboring districts, or in private or parochial schools.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 50

Another major push factor is the rising cost of housing, which has led some families to move
out of Oakland, to East Contra Costa County, the Central Valley, and elsewhere in search of
affordable housing and better schools. Middle-income homebuyers, many of them without
children in public schools, are buying up relatively inexpensive houses in neighborhoods like
North Oakland, West Oakland and Fruitvale, further driving up housing costs and continuing
the cycle of gentrification.
The fiscal and academic crisis in Oakland’s schools has led to tremendous volatility within the
district, a situation that will likely continue for several more years as OUSD undertakes much
needed but often painful restructuring. At the end of the 2003-2004 academic year, OUSD closed
five low-performing elementary schools with low enrollments. No schools are slated for closure
during the current school year, but thirteen additional Oakland schools have been identified as
requiring significant intervention or restructuring in the 2005-06 school year under NCLB
requirements. The district has decided to support a local restructuring option with some staff
changes at two of the schools and to support the development of new schools through Oakland’s
New Small Autonomous Schools incubator at three of the sites (see below). For the other eight
schools Oakland has identified two nonprofits with the capacity to manage these schools as
charters. As many as 29 additional Oakland schools could be closed or restructured if they fail to
meet state and federal Performance Improvement goals by 2007.
The school closings generated a public outcry, with some parents, teachers and community
members decrying the loss of local schools that are among the few stable institutions in lowincome neighborhoods. However, the realities of OUSD’s fiscal crisis and poor academic
performance mean that the district will continue to make sweeping changes to meet school
accountability standards and restore financial stability. On April 15, 2005, the state administrator
in charge of Oakland schools released a strategic recovery plan that outlines a course for
remaking schools, streamlining the district’s central office and balancing chronic budget deficits.
The plan indicates that it will take at least three more years to make OUSD financially stable.
New Small Autonomous Schools
A significant body of national research has confirmed the educational benefits and the cost
effectiveness of small schools as an alternative to large urban schools.89 In 2000, the Oakland
Unified School District passed a policy calling for the formation of New Small Autonomous
Schools (NSAS). The policy was the result of a parent-led movement organized by Oakland
Community Organizations (OCO), and inspired by the successes of small autonomous schools in
New York. Both OCO and the Bay Area Coalition for Equitable Schools (BAYCES) are official
partners with OUSD in implementing the NSAS policy. Implementation of this policy has
received significant funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other private
foundations.
From 2001 to 2003 OUSD opened 9 NSA Schools, all located in low-income neighborhoods of
East and West Oakland: three elementary, three middle and three high schools. With the
exception of one high school, all of these schools are still in operation. In the past two years, 3
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 51
new elementary schools and one high school have been added. Three large Oakland high schools
(Fremont, Castlemont, and McClymonds) have been restructured into smaller autonomous units,
called New Small Autonomous Interconnected Schools (NSAIS). The District is working with
teams of parents and teachers to design nine additional elementary and middle schools.90
Beyond their importance to OUSD’s restructuring efforts, the New Autonomous Schools are
being looked to as a model for reform by other East Bay districts grappling with low student
achievement, lack of parental involvement, low teacher morale, and other issues.
Although Oakland’s NSA Schools remain in an early stage of development, there are positive
indications of student achievement and attainment. In an initial assessment, NSA Schools
generally outperformed their comparison schools on a variety of measures, including test scores,
attendance, suspensions, and high school graduation rates. 91 On the whole, teachers have
expressed satisfaction with the professional and academic environment in the NSA schools, and
these schools have outperformed comparison schools in their ability to attract credentialed
teachers. The degree and form of parent involvement varies, but can be generally characterized
as very high, and going well beyond having mandated parent representation on official site
committees. This holds true for NSA middle schools and high schools as well—a marked
contrast to the usual drop-off in parent participation beyond elementary school. High attendance
at NSA schools has contributed significantly to district ADA revenues. At least two schools are
attracting private and charter school students back to the district, increasing revenues. High
schools are maximizing revenue by attracting students who were otherwise lost to the district
because they had not been attending any school, thus also increasing revenues.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 52
Data Highlights—Education in the East Bay
Student Demographics
The following chart shows the racial/ethnic composition of public schools in Alameda and
Contra Costa counties.
East Bay K-12 Student Ethnicity 2003-04
(Major Ethnic Groups)
60%
50%
African
American/Black
40%
Hispanic
30%
Asian
20%
Filipino
White
10%
0%
Alameda County
Contra Costa
County
California
Source: California Department of Education, Ed-Data
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 53
Student Achievement/Test Scores

Test scores for reading and math improved from 2000 to 2003 in most districts in Alameda
and Contra Costa counties. Overall, East Bay schools do better that the statewide average.
Table 11 shows trends in academic performance indicators, including the percentage of
fourth graders scoring above the 50th Percentile Ranking in reading and math. Note: the drop
in test scores from 2003 to 2004 reflects California’s adoption of a different standardized test
in that year. Consequently, no comparison is possible between 2004 and prior years, although
comparisons within the 2004 test year are valid.

There are wide disparities in academic achievement in different East Bay schools districts, as
well among groups with each district. Students in districts with large numbers of lowincome and minority families perform well below the county average.
Table 11: Trends in academic East Bay achievement indicators
Fourth Grade
Reading
(STAR)
Alameda
Contra Costa
CA
1999-00
49%
55%
41%
2000-01
51%
58%
45%
2001-02
53%
60%
46%
2002-03
54%
61%
49%
2003-04
40%
46%
35%
Fourth Grade
Math (STAR)
Alameda
Contra Costa
CA
49%
53%
44%
54%
61%
51%
59%
62%
54%
61%
65%
58%
52%
56%
48%
Percentage of
Graduates
with UC/CSU
Requirements
Alameda
Contra Costa
CA
38%
43%
36%
40%
42%
35%
42%
42%
36%
43%
42%
35%
41%
40%
34%
High School
Dropouts
Alameda
Contra Costa
CA
9.3%
8.7%
11.1%
9.1%
5.7%
11.1%
8.0%
6.4%
11.0%
10.1%
6.1%
10.8%
10.5%
13.3%
12.7%
Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest, and CLIK Online Data (Kids Count)
website: http://www.aecf.org/cgi-bin/cliks.cgi
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 54
Table 12 Percentage of 3rd graders scoring above the 50th National Percentile Ranking in Reading (2003-04)
Alameda County
40%
Oakland
Hayward
Fremont
Livermore
Contra Costa
Antioch
Mt. Diablo USD
Pittsburg
West Contra Costa USD
Source: California Department of Education, Data Quest
23%
25%
56%
53%
44%
38%
44%
20%
26%
Graduation Rates*
Graduation rates in Alameda and Contra Costa counties are slightly higher than California’s rate,
and have risen steadily since the mid-1990s. But some districts in each county, most notably
Oakland Unified and West Contra Costa Unified, have historically low graduation rates which
have not risen significantly or have been falling. Moreover, countywide and district-wide data
mask disturbing differences in graduation rates between ethnic groups.
Table 13 shows graduation rates for selected districts in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. (As
discussed below, actual graduation rates are probably much lower than the official rates
reported by schools in California).
In Alameda County, all districts reported graduation rates above 90%, with the exception of
Oakland Unified (66.2%) and Newark Unified (85.3%). There is wide variation even within
those districts reporting high overall rates of graduation. For example, the 2002-03 graduation
rate for Hayward Unified was 91.1%, but Tennyson High had a rate of 86.3%, as compared with
98.1% for Mt. Eden High. In Contra Costa as well, county and district-wide graduation rates
also mask large disparities between schools in lower income areas and schools in middle and
upper income communities.
*
“Graduation rate” refers to the percentage of 9th grade students who graduate with a regular diploma with their 12th
grade class.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 55
Table 13: Graduation Rates, Selected School Districts
1998-99
85.1
2000-01
86.8
2002-03
86.7
Oakland USD
85.8
63.4
89.7
73.5
89.0
66.2
Hayward USD
Fremont USD
Livermore Valley Joint USD
77.5
92.5
95.6
84.8
93.4
98.6
91.1
94.6
97.3
WCCUSD
Mt. Diablo USD
Antioch
91.1
86.3
92.3
96.1
91.2
83.7
94.2
96.7
90.4
79.0
88.1
95.8
Pittsburg
89.2
81.6
86.7
California
Alameda County
Contra Costa
Source: California Department of Education
It should be noted that these rates are calculated based on dropout estimates, which, according to
recent studies, often dramatically underestimates the numbers of students who leave high school
without diplomas.92 Using a method based on actual yearly enrollment data (Cumulative
Promotion Index—CPI) produces estimates for graduation rates in Oakland and other Bay Area
districts that are significantly lower than the officially reported rates (Table 14). These reports
also found large gaps in graduation rates for different racial/ethnic groups, with African
Americans, Latinos and Native Americans having the lowest rates of high school completion.
Table 14 Comparison of graduation rates using different estimation techniques*
District
Rate using NCES (official) method
Rate using CPI (Urban Institute) method
Oakland
66.2%
47.8%
Hayward
91.1%
81.5%
Mount Diablo
89.1%
85.2%
West Contra Costa
79.0%
79.0%
Source: The Civil Rights Project and San Francisco Chronicle article, April 5, 2005
*
The National Center for Educational Standards (NCES) method used by California calculates the rate by dividing
the number of 12th grade students who receive a diploma by the 12 grade enrollment plus the estimated number
who dropped out in 9th, 10th and 11th grades. The Cumulative Promotion Index (CPI), developed by the Urban
Institute, uses actual enrollment figures for grades 9-12 to produce a more accurate count of dropouts. Both
methods are only estimates; more accurate information on graduation rates awaits a statewide student tracking
system of for California, which will not be in place for at least five years.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 56
School Environment and Safety
It is axiomatic that school safety is a prerequisite to student learning and achievement. The
California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS), administered every three years in schools throughout
the state, provides insight into students’ perceptions of how safe their schools are. Data from the
2003 CHKS in Oakland schools suggest that middle school is a time when students feel
particularly vulnerable and issues of safety and harassment are a great concern.

One-third of 7th graders reported having experienced harassment and fear of being beaten up.
Nearly 40% reported having been in a fight.93

The CHKS revealed that 13% of Oakland 7th graders, 14% of 9th graders, and 9% of 11th
graders have belonged to a gang at some point.94
Percent of OUSD Students Who Experienced Safety-Related
Incidents on School Property During the Past 12 Months
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
Grade 7
20%
15%
10%
Grade 9
Grade 11
5%
0%
Been
harassed
Been in a
fight
Been afraid
of being
beaten up
Carried a
gun
Carried any
other
weapons,
such as a
knife or a
club
Source: California Healthy Kids Survey, OUSD

Statewide, the CHKS revealed that harassment and bullying based on actual or perceived
sexual orientation are pervasive.95 7.5 percent of California students reported being harassed
on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, which translates to over 200,000
middle school and high school students, harassed every year.

Harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation has dangerous consequences for
students, according to data from the California Healthy Kids Survey. For example, compared
to students harassed based on actual or perceived sexual orientation are more than three times
as likely to carry a weapon to school, to seriously consider suicide, to make a plan for
attempting suicide or to miss at least one day of school in the last 30 days because they felt
unsafe.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 57
Opportunities
Education: Best Practices
Ultimately, the crisis in education in the East Bay and elsewhere is one of equity. Across and
within districts in the East Bay there are large disparities in educational outcomes—between
minority students and white students, between students who speak English well and those who
are learning, and between students from poor families and those from middle and upper income
families. Now more than ever educational attainment is a pathway out of poverty. At a time
when a college degree is an increasingly important predictor of person’s future economic selfsufficiency, the number of East Bay students leaving school without even a high school diploma
is disturbing. Addressing the issue of equity in education bears directly on the East Bay
Community Foundation’s long-term goal of strengthening low-income families.
While EBCF and other private funders can do little to offset cuts in East Bay school budgets, the
Foundation can continue to have an impact on education in the region by supporting work that
promotes equity and inclusion within East Bay schools. Many low-income and immigrant
parents have the desire but not the knowledge about how to advocate for their children and how
to promote school reform. As schools continue to grapple with difficult funding choices,
accountability and restructuring, East Bay Community Foundation funding and leadership can
play an important role in ensuring that parent, student and community voices are part of the
process.
The value of parental involvement in a child’s education is indisputable. In study after study,
students whose parents are involved in and supportive of their children's school activities
outperform students of similar family backgrounds whose parents are not involved.96Many
parents need support and encouragement in becoming more involved in their children’s
education, especially those with limited English skills or educational background. Additionally,
many principals and teachers need training in how to create an inclusive environment within
their schools that encourages meaningful participation by the entire school community.
Education: Grantmaking and Leadership Opportunities
Parent Involvement

Promoting direct parent participation in school and classroom activities, especially removing
barriers to participation by immigrant families in the life of the school. Promoting activities
that bring together families of different backgrounds to work together for the improvement of
a school or district.

Supporting the ability of school personnel—administrators, principals, teachers and staff—to
partner more effectively with parents, particularly those with limited English skills.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 58

Supporting low income and/or immigrant parents to be effective advocates for the own
children’s education, and helping them learn to navigate school bureaucracies in order to take
advantage of school resources that will benefit their children.

Promoting authentic parent and community participation in education policy and resource
decisions at both the local and state level. Supporting parents, particularly those who have
not had a voice, to become informed advocates for effective schools in their neighborhood.
Youth Voice

Promoting the voice of minority and immigrant youth in school improvement and reform
efforts. Supporting youth leadership development, student activism and organizing on
educational issues.

Supporting high quality school-based programs for students and families that provide
academic support and youth development activities for youth as well as supports for parents
and families.
School Environment and Safety

Promoting school safety, with a focus on interrupting bullying and harassment based on
gender and sexual orientation at the pre-school, elementary, middle school and high school
level. Help schools establish harassment policies and provide training for teachers,
administrators and school staff on how to intervene effective in harassment and bullying
behaviors. Help introduce curriculum that includes LGBT people and information about
sexual orientation and gender identity.
Community institutions

Promoting continued and increased involvement of area businesses, congregations,
community organizations, community colleges and universities in support of public schools.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Ed-Data http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp
Data Quest http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Oakland Unified School District Data Portal http://209.77.220.74/portal/profile.asp
California School Boards Association (CSBA), No Child Left Behind: Update on Federal
Regulations and State Board of Education Actions http://www.csba.org/nclb/nclb.htm#ayp
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 59
CLIKS Online Data (Kids Count) www.aecf.org/cgi-bin/cliks.cgi
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
Overview
Nearly 20 years of experience with the theory and practice of youth development has
demonstrated the importance of the basic supports and opportunities that all young people need
to develop into healthy and productive adults: opportunities for caring relationships with adults,
challenging learning experiences, a sense of safety and belonging, and opportunities to contribute
to the community. Providing young people with programs in the non-school hours that meet
these fundamental criteria is essential to keeping them safe and preparing them for future
success. The number and types of after school programs has grown dramatically since the early
1990s, and through this growth the field of youth development has created a body of knowledge
for individual organizations and whole communities about how to promote healthy development
and create quality programs that engage young people’s interest and enthusiasm.
In the East Bay as elsewhere, the growing gap between rich and poor has meant a gap between
the after school experiences of middle- and upper-income youth and those of children in lowincome families. While families with more resources can afford to pay for activities that support
their children’s development, lower income youth are often left to fend for themselves while
their parents work longer hours to make ends meet. This has been the case for some time in lowincome urban communities such as Oakland and Richmond. But it is increasingly true in fast
growing communities like Antioch, Pittsburg and Brentwood, where long commutes limit the
amount of time and attention parents can give to their children.
Need for Youth Development Programs
Producing accurate estimates of the need for after school and other youth development programs
is extremely difficult given limitations and variations in data gathering by the numerous program
providers in the East Bay, as well as the drop-in nature of many after school youth programs.
With the exception of Oakland, which has begun to put in place a data system to track demand
and availability of after school programs, no county- or city- level estimates exist for other parts
of the East Bay. However, in California overall, twenty-two percent of California youth from
elementary through high school are responsible for taking care of themselves for an average of
seven unsupervised hours per week. Only 12 percent of those 22 percent are currently involved
in any kind of after-school activity. One of the main reasons given for not participating in afterschool activities is the lack of available programs. More than 38 percent of youth currently
taking care of themselves say they would participate in after-school programs if programs were
available in their community. 97
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 60
Even in Oakland, with almost a decade of Oakland Fund For Children and Youth (OFCY)
funding, there is still a large unmet need for quality programs for low-income youth. A 2002
report estimated that a minimum of 4,000 (and as many as 12,000) elementary and middle school
students needed subsidized after-school services.98 Currently, 34 Oakland school sites (less than
one third) have 21st Century Community Learning Center grants that fund school-based after
school youth and family support programs.
More than 70 percent of high school principals surveyed from schools in California’s lowest
income neighborhoods believe there are not enough after school programs at their schools.99
OFCY resources have primarily focused on elementary and middle school youth, and to a lesser
extent on early childhood programs. Relatively few OFCY grants support programs for high
school age and youth and youth in transition to adulthood. Public and private funding for after
school programs in other East Bay communities has also tended to focus on the elementary and
middle school level, and California’s Proposition 49, when fully funded, will direct additional
resources to these programs. While there are some local resources for high schools in the region,
and high schools are eligible to receive 21st Century Learning Center grants, the majority of these
funds support programs for younger children.
There has been growing attention in recent years to the lack of resources and programs for the
hardest to serve young people—youth in the juvenile justice system, foster youth and former
foster youth, high school dropouts and young, unmarried mothers. Research has shown that 1417 year olds who fall into one or more of these groups are least likely to be connected to systems
of support that help them make a successful transition to adulthood and are most likely to
become chronically unemployed, homeless or incarcerated.
Funding Sources for Youth Programs in Oakland

Oakland Fund for Children and Youth. The Oakland Fund for Children and Youth
(OFCY) administers approximately $5 million annually (2% of the city general fund) set
aside by the citizens of Oakland to fund children and youth programs in the City. The
current strategic directions—support for children’s success in school, child health and
wellness, healthy transitions to adulthood and youth empowerment—allow for a broad range
of youth and child development projects to be funded. OFCY is currently in the process of
creating a needs assessment and a new four-year plan, to be completed in September 2005.
The strategic planning process is looking at whether the Fund should become more focused
and strategic by adopting an initiative-type funding approach focused on major identified
needs (such as youth employment training).

Measure Y. In 2004 Oakland voters adopted Measure Y, “The Oakland Violence Prevention
and Public Safety Act of 2004.” Measure Y allocates $6.4 million annually for ten years for
youth violence prevention programs, including job training, mentoring and counseling
services for children and young adults and expanded after-school and truancy programs for at
risk youth. The City Council is considering recommendations for allocation of the first year
of funds in April 2005. Four categories of funding will be recommended: Youth and Young
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 61
Adults on Probation or on Parole ($2.5 million); Youth Who Are Truant, Out-of-School, or
Suspended for Violence ($2.1 million); Youth and Young Children Exposed to Violence and
Sexually Exploited Youth ($950,000); and In-School Youth, Pre-School Through Middle
School ($520,000).100 This substantial new funding stream for focused prevention programs
may result in shifts in how OFCY and other funders prioritize violence prevention and other
youth development projects.
State funding available for youth programs throughout the East Bay

21st Century Community Learning Centers. This state-administered, federally funded
program provides five-year grant funding to eligible schools on a competitive basis to
establish or expand before-and after-school programs that provide disadvantaged K-12
students academic enrichment opportunities and supportive services to help the students meet
state and local standards in core content areas. In addition, 21st Century programs provide
family literacy, youth development activities, drug and violence prevention programs,
technology education programs, art, music and recreation programs, and counseling to
enhance the academic component of the program. More than 100 East Bay school sites have
received 21st Century funding in Hayward, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Richmond,
Concord and Antioch. In 2002, Oakland was awarded $3.5 million for 30 school sites. OFCY
provided a match of $3.5 million. Four additional sites, including 2 high schools, have been
funded in subsequent years. Most of Oakland’s 21st Century grant will expire at the end of
the 2007 school year. California awards new 21st century grants annually, contingent upon
continued federal funding.

State After School Education and Safety Program (Proposition 49). In November 2002,
California voters approved Proposition 49, creating the State After School Education and
Safety Program (ASESP). Proposition 49 will increase funding for after-school programs for
elementary and middle schools from its current level of $121 million to a total of $550
million. However, these increased funds are not available until the measure’s financing
mechanism goes into effect, which is based on when state general fund spending reaches a
specified level. This is currently estimated to occur in the 2006-07 fiscal year. The resources
available through this program will significantly increase the availability of after-school
programs, but will require new programs to open and new staff to be hired and trained within
a short time frame.

Juvenile Justice and Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA)—Alameda and Contra Costa
counties. This federal funding stream, which has given California more than $100 million
annually for the past five years, has been the most significant source of funding for
community based youth crime prevention. County probation departments allocate these funds
to programs that offer services ranging from pre-offense prevention to recidivism reduction
to enforcement and suppression. According to a study by the United Way of the Bay Area,
Alameda County allocates 100% of its JJCPA funds to prevention activities, while Contra
Costa County allocates 89% to prevention.101 The governor’s proposed state budget calls for
the elimination of $75 million of this fund.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 62

Families. By far and away, fees paid by individual families constitute the largest source of
revenues for youth development programs and after school care facilities. Estimates
compiled by the California School-Age Consortium indicate that of the $5.9 billion dollars
spent annually in California for after school care for children in grades K-8, about $4.7
billion (80%) comes from parent fees for non-subsidized care.102
Data Highlights—East Bay Youth

Of the nearly 2.4 million people who live in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, over
270,000 (11%) are 10 to 17 years old.103 The following chart shows the race/ethnicity of East
Bay youth:
.
Race/Ethnicity of East Bay Youth
60%
50%
40%
Alameda
Youth
30%
Contra Costa
Youth
20%
10%
0%
White
Asian/Pacific
Islander
African
American
Native
American
Latino
Tw o or More
Races
Other
Source: Keeping Youth Safe: A Report on Violence Prevention in the Bay Area, United Way of
the Bay Area, 2005

In Alameda County, 14.2% of 5 to 17 year olds lived in poverty in 2002. In Contra Costa
County, 12% of youth lived in poverty. 104 Bay Area-wide, 15% 5 to 17 years old lived in
families with incomes below federal poverty level.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 63

The fast- growing communities of East Contra Costa have proportionally larger youth
populations. While the urbanized areas in the western part of the two counties have the
largest youth population in absolute numbers, young people represent a greater proportion of
East Contra Costa cities. Nearly one-third of the population of Antioch, Pittsburg and
Brentwood is under 18 year of age. There are currently very few organizations providing
youth programs in East County, and the need for high quality youth development programs
in these communities will increase as these cities continue their rapid growth. After Oakland,
the city of Fremont in Southern Alameda County has the largest youth population in
Alameda County. The following Table shows the number and percentage of youth under 18
years old in selected East Bay cities.
Table 15: Number and Percentage of Youth Under 18, Selected East Bay Cities
Area
Alameda County
Hayward
Fremont
Livermore
Oakland
Union City
Contra Costa County
Antioch
Brentwood
Concord
Pittsburg
Richmond
San Pablo
Source: Census 2000
Number
345,572
37,528
52,480
20,610
99,759
18,590
251,794
29,218
7,643
30,843
17,485
27,482
9,578
Percentage
24.5
26.8
25.8
28.1
25.0
27.8
26.5
32.2
32.8
25.3
30.8
27.7
31.7

Youth employment is a major concern for Oakland’s young people. While local data for
youth employment rates are not available, national data on youth labor force participation
indicates that youth ages 16 to 19 have an unemployment rate nearly double the rate for the
overall population. Locally, the need for youth jobs and job training was underscored in
youth focus groups conducted by Oakland Fund For Children and Youth as part of a soon-tobe-published needs assessment. 105 Although the overall jobs picture in the East Bay has
improved recently, job-training resources for young people are scarce. The number of high
schools offering work experience education courses fell by 13% in Alameda County from
2000 to 2004.106

Alameda County youth are more likely to be victims of assault and self-inflicted injury
than Bay Area youth overall. In 2002, the hospitalization rate for assault for Alameda
County youth ages 10-17 was 6 per 10,000, twice the Bay Area average of 3 per 10,000. The
rate for Contra Costa youth was 2 per 10,000. The rate of Alameda County youth who
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 64
committed suicide or were hospitalized for a self-inflicted injury was 11 per 10,000, as
compared with 6 per 10,000 for both Contra Costa County and the Bay Area as a whole.107

East Bay youth incarceration rates are higher than the Bay Area average. Alameda
County’s youth incarceration rate—the average daily population in juvenile facilities—was
31 per 10,000 young people in 2003; in Contra Costa County the rate was 32 per 10,000
young people. The average rate for the Bay Area was 29 per 10,000 young people. 108

Youth of color are over-represented in the juvenile justice system in both Alameda and
Contra Costa counties. In Alameda County in 2002, African American youth were 18% of
the overall youth population, but 63% of youth in detention. In Contra Costa County in
2003, African American youth were 12.7% of the overall youth population, but 46.9% of
youth in detention.109 Even when similar offences by those with a similar history are
compared—e.g. juvenile drug offender with no prior admissions—African American youth
were 48 times more likely than white youth to be admitted to state facilities. For juvenile
property offenders with no prior admissions, the statistics were similar: African American
youth were more than three times as likely and Latino/a youth and nearly twice as likely as
white youth—to be confined.110 Youth of color are increasingly over-represented the further
they progress in the criminal justice system.111

Asian and Pacific Islander youth are convicted at higher rates within the juvenile
justice system. In Oakland, Samoan, Vietnamese and Laotian youth have among the highest
juvenile arrest rates after African American youth. Overall, however, Asian and Pacific
Islander youth are arrested at lower rates than other minorities, but convicted at higher rates
and then placed into institutions at higher rates.112
Opportunities
Youth Development: Best Practices and Grantmaking/Leadership
Opportunities
Safety and violence prevention
The Safe Passages initiative has performed groundbreaking work in Oakland over the past seven
years, developing policies and specific intervention strategies that have been demonstrated to
reduce the causes and incidence of youth violence. Safe Passages is at an important juncture in
the coming year as it transitions from its principal funding source (Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation) to a broader base of philanthropic and public support. Additionally, the Safe
Passages board has voted to expand the initiative beyond Oakland to other parts of Alameda
County. This will create an opportunity for the Foundation to work with Safe Passages to
disseminate best practices in violence prevention, and to align with existing countywide systems
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 65
(such as Interagency Children’s Policy Council) to bring Safe Passages strategies to other
communities in Alameda County.
Capacity building and technical assistance for youth development programs
While public funding streams such as OFCY and 21st Century grants provide resources for direct
services for youth, they do not generally support the kinds of technical assistance and capacity
building that small and mid-size youth development organizations need to become more
effective. EBCF funding and leadership can continue to play an important role in helping these
organizations enhance their management capabilities as well as improve the quality of their
programs to reflect best practices in the youth development field. Some specific capacity
building opportunities include:

Help East Bay communities with rapidly growing youth populations (especially East Contra
Costa) assess the availability of existing programs and plan for expansion to address unmet
needs. Also, support technical assistance for youth programs within these communities to
improve the quality of programs and to incorporate youth development best practices.

Fund technical assistance to help these communities access public funding for youth
programming, such as 21st Century and state after school program funds.

Support East Bay youth development programs to plan for the expansion of services that will
become possible with the implementation of Proposition 49 in several years. Proposition 49
provides rich opportunities for creating and expanding after school programs. EBCF funding
and leadership can help ensure that communities with large numbers of immigrant families
are positioned to access these funds, and that the programs funded are culturally and
linguistically appropriate to meet the needs of immigrant families.

Continue to fund technical assistance for small and mid-size youth development programs
around critical management and organizational issues. In particular, youth development
organizations need assistance in managing collaborations and partnerships, as well as the
range of issue common to all nonprofits, such as board development, fund raising, and
financial management
Juvenile justice and disproportionate minority confinement
With increased attention being paid to inequities in the juvenile justice system and the
disproportionate involvement of minority youth in that system, EBCF has an opportunity for
leadership and funding to address these issues in the East Bay.
Explore ways to support youth in the juvenile justice system, as well as to support diversionary
programs that work to reduce the disproportionate confinement of minority and immigrant youth.

Support and promote existing programs and help develop new programs that provide creative
alternatives to the juvenile justice system.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 66

Promote awareness among judges, police, families and community organizations of
alternatives to the traditional juvenile justice system and incarceration.

Help parents to understand the juvenile justice system and to become more effective
advocates for their children. Immigrant families with limited English skills and little
familiarity with the juvenile justice system in this country are at particular disadvantage.
Youth development programs

Support high quality after school activities such as arts, sports, and outdoor education that
engage a wide range of youth in positive developmental activities.

Promote the development of young people as leaders and advocates on issues such as
education reform, alternatives to the juvenile justice system, environmental justice, economic
justice, racial equality, LGBTQ rights, immigrant rights and other issues affecting youth in
low-income East Bay communities.
Youth from immigrant families

Support culturally specific youth programs that help youth from immigrant families navigate
the confusing divide between their culture and language of origin, current youth culture and
the culture of the broader society.

Support programs that develop the leadership skills of minority and immigrant youth to give
these young people an authentic voice in shaping the policies and institutions that affect their
lives.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning (LGBTQ) youth
LGBTQ youth are often subject to harassment, ridicule and violence in their homes,
neighborhoods and schools.

Support programs that provide a safe space for youth who would otherwise have no such
space in their lives, and that help LGBTQ youth and their allies connect in a positive and
supportive environment that helps affirms their identity.

Support programs that reduce LGBTQ youth isolation by increasing access to local support
services.

Support programs that reduce the incidence of bullying, harassment and violence based on
actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender nonconformity.
Youth in transition to adulthood

Support programs that promote the successful transition to adulthood of former foster care
youth, high school dropouts, teen mothers and other disconnected youth.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 67
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Best Practices--A Snapshot of Proven Violence Prevention and Intervention Strategies, Safe
Passages, 2004 www.safepassages.org/reports/best_practices.pdf
Keeping Youth Safe: A Report on Violence Prevention in the Bay Area, United Way of the Bay
Area, 2005 www.safepassages.org/reports/best_practices.pdf
Under the Microscope: Asian and Pacific Islander Youth in Oakland, Asian and Pacific Islander
Youth Violence Prevention Center (API Center) and National Council on Crime and
Delinquency www.api-center.org/documents/microscope_summary.pdf
W. Haywood Burns Institute, State Data Web Site: www.burnsinstitute.org/dmc
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 68
COMMUNITY HEALTH
Overview
This section looks at community health issues in the East Bay through the lens of access to
health care and disparities in health status. It provides an overview of funding changes in the
governor’s proposed budget that would have an impact on health and health care in the East Bay.
It then examines the issue of persistent health disparities among different population groups and
the underlying causes of these disparities. The Data Highlights section summarizes county data
on health status and health disparities and highlights data on asthma, oral health and childhood
obesity in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The Opportunities and Best Practices section
discusses prevention-based approaches to health disparities based on improving community
conditions that lead to poor health.
State Health Care Funding113
Despite ongoing state budget deficits, funding for health care has remained relatively stable
because the Legislature has consistently rejected proposed cuts. This year, the governor has not
proposed any deep cuts in the health care budget, and in fact, slightly increased the Department
of Health Services’ budget. The administration is proposing to restructure Medi-Cal for a savings
of $183 million over the next five years. The savings would result from, among other thing,
limiting adult dental services and establishing monthly premiums of up to $27 per month for
families above the federal poverty level. Enrollees would be dropped if they did not pay
premiums for two consecutive months. The DHS estimates that in the first year 20% of the
individuals will fail to pay and thus become disenrolled. The proposed budget includes increased
funding for Healthy Families (children’s access to care) by 11%, and would re-instate funds for
community groups to provide application assistance to families eligible for Healthy Families and
Medi-Cal.
The budget proposes $6 million to support the California Obesity Initiative, which is designed to
improve access to nutritious foods and physical fitness. Sixty percent of the funding would be
allocated for existing and new community action projects, which would address nutrition and
physical activity issues in local communities.
In other areas, the budget would increase funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program,
reflecting increasing drug prices and caseload growth. The budget proposes to suspend the 4.6%
cost of living increase for the SSI/SSP program, which provides cash grants for persons who are
elderly, blind or disabled.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 69
Health Disparities
A review of countywide and local health indicators data for Alameda and Contra Costa counties
reveals that the East Bay continues to experience persistent and often worsening disparities in
health status, with low-income residents, people of color and immigrants bearing a greater
burden of poor health across a wide range of health indicators. Extensive health indicator data for
both counties document the prevalence and geographic distribution of a number of specific
chronic and acute conditions—coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer, unintentional injury,
tuberculosis, asthma, etc. Overall this data clearly indicates that the overarching health issue for
East Bay communities is inequity caused by large disparities in health status among different
groups.
A 2002 report by the national Institute of Medicine, entitled Unequal Treatment: Confronting
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, found that U.S. racial and ethnic minorities,
regardless of income, insurance status, age and medical condition, are less likely to receive even
routine medical procedures and experience a lower quality of health services.114 Lack of health
insurance and affordable care further exacerbates disparities, as do other barriers to access
including language, cultural issues and transportation.
But beyond disparities in treatment, and even access to health care, a large body of evidence
suggests that underlying social, economic and environmental factors are responsible for racial
and ethnic health disparities.115 These causes include poverty, income disparities, racism and
discrimination, unsafe neighborhoods, stress, poor housing, inadequate education, lack of
transportation, pollution, and lack of social support and community cohesion. 116 A review of the
literature on the underlying causes of health disparities conducted by the Alameda County Public
Health Department revealed that: 117

People have the best health when they feel connected to family, neighborhood, community
and work.

Neighborhood living conditions influence a broad array of health outcomes and contribute to
health disparities. Residential segregation, poor air quality, crumbling school buildings,
unsafe sidewalks and parks, and a lack of well-stocked grocery stores are all typical of
environments that discourage healthy living and perpetuate poor health.

High housing costs create stress and homelessness and leave fewer family resources to be
spent on other needs. Lack of access to transportation increases social isolation and reduces
opportunities for education, employment and access to health care services. Convenient and
affordable grocery stores encourage eating nutritious food. The concentration of liquor stores
in low-income communities encourages alcohol abuse.

Structural racism and discrimination impact health by limiting socioeconomic opportunities,
restricting access to education and employment, limiting access to and differential treatment
in medical care and residential segregation (which can restrict access to public goods and
services). Racism and discrimination also produce chronic stress and promote distrust and
decrease community cohesion and connectedness.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 70

Income is a major factor determining health status. Between the top and bottom incomes,
there is a continuous gradient such that with each step down on the income ladder there is a
corresponding deterioration in health status.
Data Highlights—Community Health
Health Care Access

In 2003, 22% of non-elderly adults and 8% of children in Alameda County were without
health insurance coverage for all or part of the year. This represents approximately 210,000
adults and 27,000 children without insurance.118 In Contra Costa County, nearly 10% of
non-elderly adults and 9% of children lack health insurance. This represents approximately
43,000 adults and 24,000 children.119 Many more do not have dental insurance.2

In both counties Latino adults and children are least likely to have health insurance.120
Health Disparities
The findings of recent surveys of health status conducted by the Alameda County Public Health
Department demonstrate the persistence of large racial and ethnic health disparities in Alameda
County:121





2
African-Americans, and African American males in particular, bear a larger burden of
disease and death than other racial/ethnic groups for almost all the indicators examined.
They have the highest rates of infant mortality, low birth weight, unintentional injury death,
homicide, assault, AIDS, chlamydia, asthma, diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, lung
cancer, and prostate cancer, as well as the lowest rates of immunization.
The Latino population has the highest teen birth rate and a high rate of diabetes. It has the
lowest rate of stroke and breast cancer incidence.
Asians in Alameda County fare better than other racial/ethnic groups in almost all of the
indicators examined with the exception of tuberculosis where they have the highest
incidence rate by far.
The White population in Alameda County has the highest rate of breast cancer incidence,
suicide, unintentional injury hospitalizations, and self-inflicted injury hospitalizations.122
For most health indicators, the city of Oakland bears the greatest burden of poor health
outcomes in the county. Oakland has the highest rates of teen births; mortality due to stroke,
prostate cancer, homicide, asthma hospitalizations, and alcohol and drug related
hospitalizations. Poor health outcomes for a number of indicators, including high teen births,
are also concentrated in the cities of Ashland and Cherryland. San Lorenzo and Newark have
poor outcomes for diabetes and lung cancer mortality.123
Community Health Assessment, Planning, and Evaluation Unit, Contra Costa Health Services
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 71

In Contra Costa County, a survey of health indicators found similar health disparities based
on ethnicity, race and income. Heart disease, cancer and stroke are the leading causes of
death in each of Contra Costa’s race/ethnic groups. However, African Americans have higher
death rates from each of these causes. Latinos are more likely to die from diabetes compared
to the county as a whole. Latinos have lower death rates from heart disease, cancer, stroke
and unintentional injuries. Asians have death rates similar to the county as a whole from
influenza and pneumonia, and lower death rates from cancer, heart disease, stroke and
chronic lower respiratory disease.124
Asthma

Alameda County has the highest rates of hospitalization for asthma of all Bay Area counties.
For 1999, the asthma hospitalization rate for children and for people of all ages were nearly
double the Bay Area rate.125

A recent study of asthma hospitalizations in Oakland and Berkeley found that hospitalization
rates for Oakland children are four times higher than for all California children; for Berkeley
children they are 2.5 times higher. African-American hospitalization rates are about four
times higher than that of the general population. 126

Between 1994-96 and 1999-01, decreases in asthma hospitalization rates were seen in several
areas: Berkeley’s south campus area, West Berkeley, San Antonio, and Oakland Coliseum
area. Significant increases were seen in West Oakland and the Eastmont/Oakland Zoo
area.127

A recent study identified 11 communities at risk for asthma within Contra Costa County,
which represented 63% of the county’s people of color and 44% of its low-income
households.128

Rates of asthma hospitalization among children living in Richmond and San Pablo range
from 41.8 - 23.2 per 10,000. Countywide, there are 21.1 asthma hospitalizations per 10,000
children. Rates in other areas range from a high of 21.7 per 10,000 in parts of Concord to a
low of 6.6 per 10,000 in Walnut Creek.129
Oral Health
Dental disease, including untreated cavities, is the most common chronic disease affecting
children in the United States. Poor oral health can be dangerous to children, severely affecting
their ability to learn, speak, eat and play.

As many as 44,500 children 2 to 8 years of age in Alameda County may have untreated
tooth decay. The highest prevalence of untreated tooth decay is found among ethnic
minorities.130 The first ever Oral Health Needs Assessment in Alameda County yielded new
data on the dental status of the county's children. Untreated decay was found in 33% of the
kindergarten children and 31% of the 3rd graders screened. Low-income kindergarteners
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 72

were found to have double the rate of untreated decay (48%) as high-income children
(23%).131
Oral disease is one of the most common health problems affecting low-income children in
Contra Costa County. Based on data gathered from Head Start programs and Contra Costa
Health Services, approximately 50% of low-income school-age children in the county need
basic dental care. Dental care is consistently mentioned in resident surveys as a critical need
of low-income families. Nearly 30% of low-income school-aged children need urgent or
emergency dental care. Of the 653 dentists practicing in Contra Costa County, only 31
specialize in pediatric dentistry. Of these, only 2 pediatric dentists accept Denti-Cal. 132
Obesity/Nutrition
Californians have gained 180,000 tons, or an average of 10.7 pounds each, in the past decade
alone. Among California's children ages 9 to 11, more than one out of three is overweight or at
risk of being overweight. Obesity has become a serious epidemic. Environmental forces and
individual choices that lead to unhealthy eating and physical inactivity, as well as other social,
economic, and policy forces, have pushed our population into obesity, and, ultimately, fatal
diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease, and others. 133

Approximately 33% of Alameda county seventh graders are overweight; 38% did not pass
the Aerobic Capacity Test, a basic physical fitness indicator.134

Approximately 29% of Contra Costa seventh graders are overweight; 35% did not pass the
Aerobic Capacity Test.135 Students in the Byron Unified, Pittsburg Unified and West Contra
Costa Unified school districts are most likely to be overweight compared to the county
overall. The greatest number of overweight students can be found in the Mt. Diablo Unified,
West Contra Costa Unified, San Ramon Valley Unified and Antioch Unified school
districts.136

Eighty percent of eligible students are not receiving free or reduced-price school breakfast in
Alameda County. In Contra Costa County, 73% percent of eligible students do not receive
free or reduced price school breakfast. (This represents a loss of federal dollars totaling $12.1
million in Alameda County and $6.4 million in Contra Costa County.)
Opportunities
Community Health: Best Practices
Many efforts by public health agencies and community groups to eliminate health disparities in
the East Bay have focused on creating better access to health care and improving the quality of
treatment within health care settings. Programs to increase enrollment in Medi-Cal and Healthy
Families, support for community clinics and primary care outreach programs, programs to train a
more diverse health care workforce and to increase the cultural and language competence of
health care providers have all had a significant impact on community health in the East Bay.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 73
These efforts are ongoing and may receive a boost from new state funds for enrolling lowincome individuals and families in state-sponsored health insurance plans.
More recently, a second approach to health disparities has emerged, which focuses on
community-based prevention and efforts to improve the underlying conditions in low-income
neighborhoods that lead to health disparities. According to the Prevention Institute, a national
health policy and technical assistance provider based in Oakland:
“Focusing attention and resources on primary prevention could significantly reduce
inequities in health outcomes. In particular, policy and action aimed at improving the
environments in which people live, work and go to school represents a tremendous
opportunity. While improving healthcare and medical treatment is a necessary
component of addressing health disparities, taking action before the onset of illness
and injury and looking beyond the individual to factors in the environment that
influence the health of populations is also critical.”137
According to Policy Link, another Oakland-based institution that is a national leader in
developing new thinking and research on health disparities, these two approaches are not
mutually exclusive—increasing access and quality of care will be absolutely necessary, but will
not be sufficient to eliminate persistent health disparities in low-income, minority and immigrant
communities.138
The Alameda County Public Health Department has identified promising strategies for reducing
health disparities, including strategies for improving community conditions that lead to poor
health. Some promising practices include: 139

Support existing policies and programs that promote health (such as those governing
affordable housing, transportation, environmental pollution, economic development, access
to food, education, labor, and child development)

Improve access to nutritious food. Strategies include analyzing grocery store distribution,
developing community centers that grow and sell produce, providing shuttles to
supermarkets, and supporting neighborhood based farmers markets.

Improve neighborhood conditions that encourage physical activity. Strategies supporting
land use and transportation planning, public safety, environmental health and economic
development efforts that promote accessible open spaces, safe walkways, trails or bike paths.

Improve neighborhood safety. Strategies include mobilizing community residents around
safety concerns, supporting community policing initiatives, supporting youth development
and after school activities, and developing alternatives to incarceration.

Improve access to safe, affordable housing. Strategies include affordable housing bonds,
commercial/industrial impact fees, inclusionary zoning and coordination of social services
with housing.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 74

Enhance existing community capacity. Strategies include increasing social connectedness
and inclusion, supporting community-driven health assessments and prioritization of health
issues, supporting residents and community organizations in addressing health priorities,
training local leaders in public health issues, and developing the board and staff capacity of
community-based organizations.
Community Health: Grantmaking/Leadership Opportunities
Given EBCF’s commitment to equity and inclusion, the issue of health disparities in the East
Bay is of critical importance. Reducing or eliminating these disparities, along with disparities in
the educational system, will be essential to creating a truly equitable and inclusive region.
However, as is the case with the educational system, the resources required to have an impact
within the health care system are generally beyond the scope of EBCF’s grantmaking.
For example, strategies to increase cancer and diabetes screenings, improve treatment for high
blood pressure, diabetes, and asthma are all important to reducing health disparities, but are
beyond the scope of what EBCF can fund. These strategies fall within the purview of public
health agencies, and are included in the current and future strategic goals for the public health
departments of both Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Similarly, efforts to develop a
multicultural health care work force and ensure linguistic access and cultural competency within
mainstream health care institutions are usually regional or statewide in scope and are beyond the
Foundation’s grantmaking capacity. Large health foundations such as The California
Endowment and The California Wellness Foundation support major initiatives in these areas.
From the standpoint of EBCF grantmaking, however, the community prevention approach
provides an opportunity to combine a concern for reducing health disparities with other
Foundation grantmaking strategies that strengthen families, enabling the Foundation to focus its
limited resources. Grantmaking strategies discussed elsewhere in this report, particularly in the
areas of Strengthening Families and Environment help address the underlying conditions that
lead to poor health. Many of the grants the Foundation makes in the areas of Youth
Development, Education, even Arts and Cultural also have components that prevent illness,
promote wellness and improve unhealthy conditions in East Bay communities.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 75
For More Information
Alameda County Health Status Report 2003, Alameda County Public Health Department
http://www.acphd.org/user/data/DataRep_ListbyCat.asp?DataRepdivId=2&DataRepdivcatid=35
Oakland Health Profile 2004, Alameda County Public Health Department
http://www.acphd.org/AXBYCZ/Admin/DataReports/ohp2004_complete.pdf
Community Health Indicators for Selected Cities and Places in Contra Costa County, Contra
Costa Health Service Department/Hospital Council of Northern California, 2004
http://www.cchealth.org/health_data/hospital_council/pdf/community_health_indicators_report.pdf
A Framework for Change—Reducing Health Disparities in Alameda County, Alameda County
Public Health Department, 2002
http://www.acphd.org/AXBYCZ/Admin/Publications/healthdisparities_112002.pdf
Reducing Health Disparities Through a Focus on Communities, Policy Link, 2002
http://www.policylink.org/Research/HealthDisparities
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 76
ENVIRONMENT
OVERVIEW
The East Bay is located in one of the most desirable places to live and work in the nation and has
many important assets. But the East Bay also faces major challenges to its prosperous economy,
quality environment, and social equity. These challenges are interconnected and must be
addressed comprehensively.140 They include suburban sprawl, urban divestment, rising housing
costs, chronic traffic congestion, disappearing agricultural lands and open space, environmental
pollution and growing inequity.
Suburban Sprawl and Urban Divestment
At the root of these problems are dysfunctional patterns of land use, development and
transportation. Since World War II there has been a steady process of decentralization in the
region, as jobs, population, investment capital and opportunities have moved from older cities
like Oakland and Berkeley and from older suburbs out to the fringes of the metropolitan area.
This pattern of decentralization is commonly referred to as sprawl. It is characterized by lowdensity development, which produces significant distance between jobs, schools, housing and
services and heavy dependence on automobile transportation.141
For the last half-century, this pattern of suburban growth has concentrated resources and wealth
in the outlying areas of the East Bay while draining them from the central cities and older
suburbs. The older cities and suburbs have lost businesses and investment, their tax revenues
have fallen, crime has risen, services and schools have declined, and infrastructure has
deteriorated. Lacking the resources for reinvestment and infill development, many older
downtowns and neighborhoods are now dotted with vacant lots, vacant storefronts, abandoned
brownfields, decaying strip malls, older commercial corridors and closed military bases.142
This pattern of urban decay, has exacerbated the inequalities faced by many urban residents,
particularly low-income people of color, by further concentrating poverty in low-income urban
neighborhoods, and by denying the residents equal access to good jobs, adequate transportation,
decent and affordable housing, quality schools, and important social services.143
On the other hand, urban residents that move from the older cities have found that they have to
go further and further out to find affordable housing. More affordable housing is usually found
50 miles out, in low-density developments, oriented around freeways, at a great distance from
people’s jobs. This in turn is forcing many workers to spend hours commuting to their jobs,
increasing traffic congestion, energy use and air pollution, and preventing them from spending
more time with their families and communities.
In short, the problems faced by inner city residents are connected to the problems faced by
suburban residents, and therefore demand solutions that reflect a regional perspective. These
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 77
inequitable development patterns are the result of public planning and development policies that
have provided powerful incentives for suburban growth.144
How economic development takes place in the East Bay will have significant, long-term
consequences for the residents and communities of the East Bay, and will affect the environment,
the economy, public health and social equity in the region for years to come. Because poverty
and injustice are exacerbated by structural patterns of development, the issues of land use,
development and transportation intersect with all of the East Bay Community Foundation’s
efforts to improve the quality of life for the region’s most disadvantaged residents, including its
efforts to promote environmental justice for low-income communities.
Housing
In the East Bay, for more than two decades the production of new housing units has not kept
pace with the increase in population and new jobs, creating a deficit of 78,000 units in the East
Bay and driving up housing prices. While residential housing construction has continued at a
vigorous pace, particularly in Contra Costa County, the majority of new housing units are singlefamily homes, which are unaffordable to the majority of East Bay residents. There is a
particularly acute shortage of housing for low-income and very low-income individuals and
families.
Reasons for the lack of new housing include zoning codes that require low-density, sprawling
types of development, the inherently greater challenge to developers of creating well-designed
higher-density or infill neighborhoods, and NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) opposition from
neighbors. Many cities also resist zoning for affordable housing since this often increases
demand for city services (schools, parks, libraries, etc.) without contributing a corresponding
amount of tax revenue (since property taxes are limited by Proposition 13). 145
Under state law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has established housing
production targets for each city in the region. These goals are further broken down by income—
cities are expected to change zoning and other regulations to ensure that housing is available to
those making at least 120 percent, 80-120 percent, 50-80 percent, and below 50 percent of area
median income. But according to a 2002 report by Greenbelt Alliance and the Non-Profit
Housing Association of Northern California, 89 percent of the Bay Area cities and counties were
not complying with this state-mandated “fair share” housing process. 146
This regional failure to construct sufficient housing, especially affordable housing, has
contributed to skyrocketing housing prices and rents in the East Bay. In the East Bay, median
housing prices have increased more than any other region in the Bay Area, increasing 34% in
Alameda County and 47% in Contra Costa County between 2001-2004. Despite the high median
incomes in the region, less than a quarter of residents can afford to purchase a home.147 Median
rents have also increased sharply, rising 18% in Alameda and 16% in Contra Costa between
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 78
2001-2003.148 The rise in rents has made it increasingly difficult for low-income individuals and
families to pay for housing and other necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and
medical care.
Transportation
Not only is there an overall lack of housing, but the balance between jobs and housing within
various parts of the Bay Area has become seriously skewed and leads to increased traffic
congestion as people have to commute long distances to work. This “jobs/housing imbalance” is
becoming especially acute in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and the western East Bay.149 By
allowing rapid economic development without ensuring sufficient housing for workers, cities in
these locations have increased development pressure on other places such as northern and eastern
Contra Costa County, which have been the place of least resistance to new housing.150
This jobs/housing imbalance and the rise in housing prices have driven low- and middle-income
families to search for more affordable housing in the eastern part of Contra Costa and further
outlying areas such as the Central Valley and Vacaville, worsening the structural imbalance
between the location of jobs and housing. In particular, more families are moving to the eastern
parts of the East Bay, and are commuting in to San Francisco, Santa Clara and Alameda for
work. In the East Bay, Alameda County actually experienced the largest percentage increase
between 1990 and 2000 in the number of workers commuting into the county, and Contra Costa
has the highest percentage of workers commuting out. 151
Table 16 East Bay Commuting Patterns 1990-2000
Census Data Comparisons
% East Bay Workforce commuting into Alameda County
% Resident Alameda County workers commuting out
% East Bay Workforce commuting into Contra Costa County
% Resident Contra Costa County workers commuting out
% East Bay Workforce commuting into Santa Clara County
1990
29%
30%
28%
40%
18%
2000
34%
33%
25%
42%
23%
Source: Economic Development Alliance for Business 152
These patterns of low-density suburban development create significant distances between jobs,
schools, housing and services and therefore increase people’s dependence on the automobile.153
In the Bay Area, the average number of miles driven per trip has increased.154 Bay Area residents
traveled in a car an average of 11.6 miles daily in 1970 and 18.7 in 2000, but are expected to
travel 21.5 miles daily in 2020.155 In 2000, people traveled an average of 20.87 miles daily in
Alameda County and 16.6 miles daily in Contra Costa County.156
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 79
In the Bay Area, the automobile is the most prevalent mode of commuting to work. Reliance on
single occupancy automobile travel is a major contributor to traffic congestion, air pollution, and
water pollution.157 Most Bay Area commuters drive their own cars rather than carpool or use
public transportation – 69 percent of them in 2001, up from 65 percent in 1993. Although the
absolute number of people using public transit in the region is growing, the percentage of
commuters taking public transit has decreased over the 1990’s to 10 percent in 2001.158
As more people are driving in their own cars over greater distances, the East Bay’s roadways
have become increasingly congested.
Table 17 – Miles of Congestion by County
Alameda
Contra Costa
Santa Clara
San Francisco
1993
59
52
60
22
1994
57
54
51
17
1995
53
52
41
16
1996
76
51
61
23
1998
85
51
70
20
1999
83
56
93
20
2000
79
50
92
26
2001
85
52
110
31
Source: Economic Development Alliance for Business 159
In Alameda County, freeway congestion has worsened considerably, and some areas, like the
Altamont Pass on I580 in Eastern Alameda County are not projected to improve. 160 In Contra
Costa County, freeway congestion grew by 50 percent between 1996 and 2001. Congestion on
many of the county’s arterial streets is also worsening, in part because of the lack of connecting
through-streets within suburban development.161 Highway 4 has become Contra Costa County’s
worst congestion problem.162
Throughout the Bay Area as a whole, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission expects
congestion (measured as “vehicle hours of delay”) to increase 152 percent between 1998 and
2025. The duration of the average work trip is expected to increase by 25 percent over this
period.163
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 80
Source: Economic Development Alliance for Business164
The Transportation and Land Use Coalition reports that while population in Contra Costa will
increase roughly 28% by 2025, the number of hours Contra Costa residents spend in traffic will
increase 140%.165 Not surprisingly, traffic is the leading concern of 25% of residents in
Alameda and 33% of residents in Contra Costa. 166
Transportation and Low-income Families
In the East Bay, suburban sprawl also disproportionately affects low-income families who have
little or no access to private automobiles. Low-density development makes access to a car a
virtual necessity because it separates homes, jobs and services over a wide geographic area. In
addition, public amenities such as parks, grocery stores, hospitals and banks tend to be located
outside of low-income neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, suburban communities are hard to serve effectively with public transit because
they are so spatially dispersed. In Contra Costa, only 6% of homes and 12% of jobs are located
within 1/3 mile of a rail station, or 1/4 mile of a bus stop.167 In addition, public transit systems
throughout the Bay Area are not sufficiently coordinated and do not provide adequate service in
both suburban and urban areas. And yet, many low-income families cannot afford cars, and must
rely on public transit to get to their jobs and to access health care and public services. Many
low-income communities are underserved by public transit.
Without a car or adequate public transit, low-income families have a harder time finding and
holding jobs and accessing essential businesses and services. In 2000, the Transportation and
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 81
Land Use Coalition reported that 85-90% of Alameda participants in CalWORKS did not use a
car to get to work or to job interviews, while 69% of households without a car had household
incomes below $17,000. Twenty-seven percent of welfare recipients who missed job-training
classes listed lack of transportation as a primary reason.168
Farmland
The East Bay has some of the best farmland in the world, with topsoil 30 feet deep in places. In
addition to rich soil, the area enjoys a mild Mediterranean climate, availability of water and close
proximity to urban markets. Unfortunately, much of this ideal farming and grazing land is being
converted for non-agricultural purposes, primarily residential development.169 Both counties still
have a significant amount of land area devoted to agriculture. In 2002, agricultural lands
accounted 59% of the total land area of Contra Costa County and for 54% of the total land area
of Alameda County.170
However, strong development pressures, particularly in eastern Contra Costa and Alameda
counties, are leading to a loss of these valuable agricultural lands. Ten percent of Contra Costa
County’s prime farmland has been lost since 1990, and 70 percent of its orchards have been
chopped down since 1950.171 Between 2000 and 2002, Contra Costa had a net loss of 1,354 acres
(0.5%) of important agricultural lands (including prime farmland, farmland of statewide
importance, unique farmland and farmland of local importance).172 During this period, Alameda
County lost 433 acres of important agricultural lands and 1490 acres of grazing land. In other
words, Alameda County lost 0.75% of its remaining agricultural lands in only two years.173 Not
surprisingly, the total number of individual farms has also decreased. 174
As suburban development spreads, agriculture becomes less viable. Farmers face pressures from
rising land values and increased taxes. When farmers sell their lands, valuable arable land
becomes paved over and is converted to other uses. To help sustain agriculture and preserve the
unique character of rural areas, farmers need substantial financial incentives to continue farming
and effective land-use regulations to keep their land in agricultural production.175
Open Space
In the East Bay, the prevailing patterns of low-density development are destroying open space
and wildlife habitat, threatening the region’s biodiversity and degrading water quality.
One of the most prized assets of the East Bay is the amount of open space that it has. Over 23%
of the East Bay’s land is protected open space, while urban areas occupy only 30% of the East
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 82
Bay’s acreage. The East Bay Regional Park District, a key protector of open space, is responsible
for over 95,000 acres, 65 regional parklands and 1,100 miles of trails.176
However, there is still a significant amount of open space in both counties, which is
environmentally significant, but is vulnerable to development. These unprotected lands are
important because they help to ensure the integrity of critical ecosystems, protect wildlife habitat
and the survival of threatened species, and provide valuable environmental services such as
drinking water capture and filtration.
Contra Costa County has 23% of its land area at risk of development – the highest percentage
among the nine Bay Area counties.177 Thirty percent of the county is already urbanized, 24% is
“secure greenbelt” - permanently protected lands and waters, and 23% is considered at low risk
for development. In contrast, Alameda County has only 8.6% of its land area at risk of
development. Twenty-nine percent of the county is secure greenbelt, and 39% is considered to
be at low risk of development.178
Recent rates of urbanization in Contra Costa County and Alameda County have been high by
Bay Area standards. Between 1992 and 2000, 2.23% of Contra Costa’s land and 1.13% of
Alameda’s land were converted from open space to developed land. In contrast, only 0.88% of
the Bay Area’s land was urbanized over the same time period.179 In Contra Costa County, loss
of open space has been most rapid in the eastern part of the county, around Antioch, Pittsburg
and Brentwood, and to a lesser extent in the central part of the county. In Alameda County, the
main hotspots for loss of open space are in the Tri-Valley area near Dublin, Pleasanton and
Livermore.
Biodiversity
Besides the loss of open space and wildlife habitat, the impacts of sprawl in the East Bay include
fragmentation of the remaining habitat as wildlife corridors are cut by new roads and
developments, water pollution (from road, yard, and construction runoff), and the introduction of
often-invasive nonnative species used in landscaping into local watersheds.180 Together, these
trends are threatening the survival of 112 important plant and animal species in Contra Costa
County and 101 species in Alameda County, and are also threatening a number of plant
communities of special conservation value.181
The East Bay has an unusually high degree of biodiversity compared to the rest of the continental
U.S., and is part of a global biodiversity hotspot. Many of the at risk species can be found in rare
plant communities in the agricultural lands of the Central Valley, the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta, the Tri-Valley area and eastern Alameda. Others are wide ranging species requiring large
expanses of largely undisturbed habitat. Loss of habitat, especially due to urban sprawl, is the
most significant threat to the region’s species of special concern.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 83
An innovative effort is underway in Contra Costa County to develop a comprehensive approach
to biodiversity protection called the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The
HCP is an ecosystem-based approach to biodiversity protection, which combines land use
planning and creative approaches for funding land acquisition. While its long-term significance
remains to be determined, the HCP is already having effects on land development planning.
Similar efforts are underway around the nation to find more comprehensive approaches to
biodiversity protection that avoid catastrophic conflict between biodiversity protection and the
aspirations of local communities. Nevertheless, as land use changes consume increasing
amounts of open space in the East Bay, conflicts with biodiversity protection will become
increasingly acute.182
Air Pollution
In the East Bay, historical patterns of industrial development, land use and transportation are
taking a toll on public health by exposing people to particulate auto emissions, toxic air
contaminants and other pollutants.183 Although rarely talked about, poor air quality poses one of
the greatest threats to public health and is particularly burdensome to children, the elderly, and
those with lower incomes. The health effects include growing rates of asthma, cancer and
premature deaths. Environmental impacts of air pollutants include climate change, smog, acid
rain and ozone depletion.184
In general, the East Bay enjoys good air quality185 when compared to most urban and suburban
regions in the state due in part to its geography and ocean breezes. However, the most
significant sources of air pollution in the East Bay, automobiles and trucks and petroleum
refineries, have a disproportionate effect on the health of children, the elderly, and the lowincome communities who live near major highways and near the refineries. In addition, the
amount of emissions from these and other sources is very high when compared to other regions
in the U.S.
Alameda and Contra Costa counties have higher emissions of “criteria air pollutants” – carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) – than eighty to ninety percent of all counties in the U.S. In Alameda
County, the majority of criteria air pollutants are emitted from mobile sources like cars and
trucks. In Contra Costa County, petroleum refineries, power plants and other industrial sources
are responsible for a larger share of the emissions.186
Cars and trucks are also a major source of particulates (tiny particles of dirt, dust and diesel
exhaust), and conventional cleanup technologies are unlikely to significantly improve the
situation, as 89% of particulates from cars and trucks come not from the tailpipe, but simply
from road dust lofted into the air by them.187 In the East Bay, particulates in the air are
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 84
increasing (though they are still generally below EPA standards).188 These fine particles have
been linked to a variety of respiratory problems including asthma.189 Since large increases in
vehicle miles traveled are expected for the East Bay in coming decades, particulate pollution
may become a greater public health problem in the future,190 especially for the low-income
communities that live along the 580, 880 and 80 corridors and in West Oakland, since tens of
thousands of trucks pass through there each year to service the Port of Oakland.
Air Pollution from Refineries
A major source of toxic emissions into the air and water of the East Bay are the petroleum
refineries in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa has the third highest levels of toxic releases of
all counties in California. Over 4 million pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the air
and water in 2002 (compared to less than 700,000 pounds in Alameda County). The four
facilities with the largest emissions are refineries in Martinez, Richmond and Rodeo, although
facilities with high toxic releases are also located in Crockett, Pittsburg and Antioch. 191
Since 1996, the ChevronTexaco refinery in Richmond has reported releasing roughly a million
pounds of toxics a year into the environment. While the majority of environmental releases are
into the air, the plant has discharged nearly ½ million pounds of toxics into the Bay,192 making it
one of the states top five chemical polluters.193 Two other refineries in the county, the Shell Oil
and Tesoro refineries in Martinez, also release on the order of one million pounds annually. In
2002, these three refineries accounted for nearly ¾ of all reported toxic releases in the county.194
Because the toxicity of the compounds released by the refineries varies, its difficult to assess the
actual public health risk. However, it is clear that these toxic releases are a significant problem
for the county, and more importantly for the low-income communities that are located near their
sources.195Accidental or episodic releases are the events that typically trigger complaints from
nearby communities. In their February 2005 issue, Common Ground magazine reports that
between 1989 and 1997, 55 “major industrial accidents” occurred in Contra Costa County that
resulted in the release of toxic chemicals into the environment. Between 1991 and 1999, the
ChevronTexaco refinery alone had 10 serious chemical releases.196 The Contra Costa County
HAZMAT incident database197 lists 16 “incidents” at the plant since 1993–including activations
of the community warning system, minor spills and equipment malfunctions. While it is difficult
to be certain from the limited data on each event available on this database, it appears that most
of these incidents posed no direct health threat to the community. However, activation of the
community warning system itself imposes significant psychological stresses on the low-income
communities living near the plant.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 85
Water Pollution
The patterns of development in the East Bay have degraded water quality in the region’s streams,
rivers, lakes, as well as in the three major bays which border Alameda and Contra Costa: San
Francisco Bay, San Paulo Bay and Suisun Bay. These waters are polluted by a range of toxic
chemicals including pesticides, mercury, other metals, dioxins and PCBs. The primary sources
of pollution are urban runoff, resource extraction, agriculture, municipalities, industrial
operations, and atmospheric deposition. More than a quarter of the waters in Alameda County
and almost half of the waters in Contra Costa County were considered impaired in 1998.198
Water pollution can lead to significant risk to public health when it results in dangerous
concentrations of toxic chemicals in marine life. Toxics in fish and shellfish may
disproportionately affect low-income residents who consume fish caught in the region’s lakes,
reservoirs and bays. The state has issued public advisories advising people to limit consumption
of fish caught in San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta region, Richmond
Harbor Channel, and many of the region’s reservoirs. Elevated levels of mercury, PCBs and
other chemicals have been found in the tissue of the fish. Low-income families are particularly at
risk of exposure since for them wild-caught fish and shellfish may represent an important, low
cost food source. This is particularly true for immigrants who come from countries with a
tradition of consuming large amounts of seafood. 199
Lack of Physical Activity and Unhealthy Lifestyle
Suburban sprawl also takes its toll on public health, by reducing opportunities to integrate
physical activity into daily routines. As work and home move farther apart, a car is increasingly
necessary to reach stores, school, and other day-to-day activities. Automobile dependency is
increasing the sedentary nature of people’s lives, respiratory ailments, environmental pollution,
and accompanying health impacts and trauma associated with automobile accidents. A growing
number of public health practitioners and researchers understand these connections and the
importance of incorporating land use planning, transportation planning and community design
into public health strategies.200
The evidence is mounting that sprawl has also begun to take a toll on middle class children and
families. While conventional suburban design has been marketed, and largely perceived, as an
environment created especially for families, concern is growing that its extensive focus on the
dictates of the automobile and neglect of some basic human needs may actually come at the
expense of children. Growing commute distances among two-worker families are stealing
parental time (and supervision) from children. The combination of unwalkable neighborhoods,
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 86
sedentary lifestyle, and drive-through diet means one in four of today’s kids will suffer from
diabetes as an adult if trends continue.201
Environmental Justice
Environmental justice issues are pervasive in the East Bay. Each of the East Bay’s major
environmental issues has a social justice dimension. Pollution from refineries disproportionately
affects the poor and communities of color because refineries tend to be located in or near lowincome communities with a preponderance of African American and Latino residents such as
Richmond, Martinez and Pittsburg. Sprawl hurts low-income individuals because they often lack
access to inexpensive transportation necessary to get to work, hospitals, even banks and grocery
stores. Loss of open space affects the poor because remaining open space, especially public
parks, tends to be located in and near wealthier communities, relatively inaccessible to people
without access to transportation. The poor also often lack the resources to reduce their exposure
to pollution, to ameliorate the health impacts of pollution, or to resist efforts to site hazardous
industrial facilities near their communities.
Interestingly, in Alameda County, exposure to air pollution is not consistently linked to poverty.
People of color and low-income families are more likely to live near stationary sources of criteria
air pollutants than wealthy whites.202 For example, in Oakland, sites emitting toxic chemicals
are more highly concentrated in poor than in rich neighborhoods.203 However, pollution from
cars and trucks is more equitably distributed throughout the county. In addition, families not
living in poverty are more likely than the poor to live near industrial sources of toxic
chemicals.204
However, in Contra Costa it is very clear that pollution disproportionately affects low-income
people. People of color, the poor, and the poorly educated all bear a higher than expected share
of environmental risk. Disadvantaged families are more likely to live near superfund sites,
industrial facilities that emit toxic pollutants, and stationary sources that emit criteria air
pollutants. 205
Lack of access to medical care also has a profound effect on how environmental quality
problems affect people’s lives. For example, one potential measure of the severity of the effects
of air pollution is the prevalence of asthma, since asthma is exacerbated by poor indoor and
ambient air quality. A recent study by researchers from the California Environmental Health
Tracking Program 206 of the geographic distribution of measures of asthma prevalence show a
strong pattern – hospitalizations and emergency room visits for asthma tend to be concentrated in
the poorer parts of Alameda County, while other measures of asthma prevalence (doctors visits
and prescriptions for asthma medication) are concentrated in wealthier communities. In other
words, with limited access to medical care, and generally poorer health than their more
privileged neighbors, low-income families and people of color may be more likely to suffer
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 87
health consequences from poor air quality and are less likely to get medical care to manage such
effects - short of an emergency room visit.
In West Oakland, Richmond and other low-income communities in Contra Costa, the clear
disparities in exposure to toxics have lead to the development of strong local voices on
environmental justice, environmental health and toxic chemicals. They have also lead to
significant efforts on the part of state, local and county and local governments to address the
disparities, with mixed success to date. These low-income communities suffer from marked
disparities in environmental risk, and the victims of these disparities know it.
In response to local concerns in Contra Costa and throughout the Bay Area, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District has initiated an effort to evaluate the risk to local communities
from toxic emissions from refineries, power plants, and other industrial sources.207 The program
was begun in July 2004, and the study is expected to be completed in two to three years. The
program’s central goals are to evaluate health risk for airborne toxins, to communicate risk
information to the public, and to tackle risk reduction efforts.
Opportunities
To address the economic, environmental and social issues described above, there are two
interconnected levels of activity that the East Bay Community Foundation (EBCF) can work
on: the regional, state or county level, which involves shifting the laws, regulations and
incentives that have propelled suburban sprawl along with its attendant consequences; and placebased projects at the city or neighborhood level that involves building local leadership and
community capacity to address these issues, particularly as they affect low-income communities
and communities of color. Increasingly, advocates of smart growth (through comprehensive land
use and transportation planning) are recognizing that they need to work with organizations that
fight for greater social justice and equity at the local level, and, conversely, community based
environmental justice groups are realizing that they can benefit by working in coalitions with
other groups to effect change on the regional and state level.
Because of this, the environmental strategies that the foundation has supported in the past are in
fact closely interrelated and complementary:
1. Supporting sustainable development and smart growth policies,
2. Supporting low-income communities in their efforts to work for environmental justice,
and
3. Encouraging K-12 school children to become responsible stewards of the environment,
Within these three broad areas, the Foundation has a wide range of options for using its
leadership, convening and grantmaking capabilities to make a difference. The following section
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 88
describes those opportunities that currently are the most promising or offer the greatest leverage
for the Foundation.
1. Promoting Smart Growth and Livable Communities
Smart Growth: Best Practices
The Bay Area is one of the leading regions in the country in terms of promoting “smart,”
equitable growth. Smart growth meets the key goals of sustainable development – a prosperous
economy, a quality environment and social equity – through community design and
comprehensive planning. Smart growth is development that revitalizes central cities and older
suburbs, encourages the construction of affordable housing, supports and enhances public transit,
promotes walking and bicycling, and preserves open spaces and agricultural lands. Smart growth
is not anti-growth; rather, it seeks to revitalize the already-built environment and, to the extent
necessary, to foster efficient development at the edges of the region, in the process create more
equitable and livable communities.208
The Association of Bay Area Governments has led a comprehensive regional planning process
called the Smart Growth Strategy: Regional Livability Footprint Project. This multi-year
planning process identified six promising strategies for promoting smart growth in the Bay
Area.209 A brief description of each of these strategies follows:
Design Better New Communities. New suburban developments and urban infill projects can be
designed and built to improve the three “E’s” of economy, environment and equity, and to help
improve people’s quality of life. Leading strategies include: creating mixed-use development
connected street networks, pedestrian-scale design and transit-oriented development at
appropriate densities. Creating transit villages by clustering higher intensity development –
including housing – around transit stations increases the convenience of public transit while
reducing the number of automobile trips made by residents in the area.210 In low-income urban
areas such as the Fruitvale district of Oakland, mixed-use, transit oriented development around
the BART station has proven to be the cornerstone of community revitalization. Pittsburg, Bay
Point and Antioch also have exciting potential sites for a mix of housing types in new transitoriented development around existing and future BART stations.
Revitalize Central Cities and Older Suburbs. Revitalization of central cities and older suburbs
is a priority of smart growth. Techniques to increase the livability of these older communities
and to create new opportunities on neglected urban lands include infill development, downtown
redevelopment and revitalization, brownfield reclamation, restoration of urban creeks, historic
preservation and reuse of existing structures, improved public schools, and crime reduction.211
Older downtowns and commercial corridors throughout Alameda County present important
opportunities for infill development that also can offer new housing and amenities for local
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 89
residents. Cities such as Hayward, San Leandro, Fremont, Dublin, Livermore and Oakland are
focusing planning efforts in this direction.
Create Affordable Housing. Constructing a wide range of housing in every community is
crucial for achieving the economic diversity needed to maintain a healthy region. In most cases,
specific policies are needed to create housing affordable to very low-income households.
Communities can intentionally encourage the development of a diversity of housing types –
small lot single-family homes, second units, townhouses and apartments. For example,
communities can enact inclusionary zoning, which requires new housing development to include
a certain percentage (usually 10 percent to 20 percent) that is affordable to very low, low and
moderate-income residents. Local governments can also work with nonprofit and for-profit
developers to create permanently affordable housing. Many such developers are active in the Bay
Area, which leads the nation in affordable housing innovation and design.212
Manage Growth and Protect Open Space. The natural beauty of the East Bay is highly prized
by those who live here and is a major attraction to future residents. Focusing development in the
currently urbanized parts of the region, coupled with policies to protect agricultural land and
other open space, can contribute to the region’s overall health. Urban growth boundaries
(UGBs), also known as urban limit lines, concentrate development within a defined area. When
coupled with policies to encourage infill development, UGBs promote compact growth by
encouraging new construction – particularly of housing – in areas where infrastructure has been
established.213Contra Costa County has a UGB.
Offer Transportation Alternatives. Smart development patterns alone cannot encourage East
Bay residents to get out of their cars, and most will continue to use their single-occupant vehicle
for trips that cannot conveniently be made on foot or on public transit. Nonetheless, providing
plentiful, convenient alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle is a key component of smart
transportation planning. A region-wide system of express buses (currently in the planning phase)
would take advantage of the East Bay’s network of high occupancy vehicle lanes. Companion
programs and policies that encourage ridesharing, vanpooling, telecommuting and buses are also
needed. A new system of express buses is currently being planned for parts of Alameda and
Contra Costa counties. Smarter growth patterns can also lead to better air quality.214Land use
planning and infill projects that bring housing and residents closer to their place of work, the use
of more low-emission mass transit vehicles, and the reduction of traffic congestion can all make
important contributions to lowering pollution levels.215
Change Incentives and Regulations. There are many ways that regional agencies and state and
federal governments can support local smart growth land use decisions through incentives and
regulatory changes. Some examples include:

Fiscal Reform - Local governments are largely dependent on sales tax revenue to support
local services, since the property tax rate is capped by the state’s Proposition 13. The
resulting emphasis on sales taxes and limits on residential taxation lead jurisdictions to
compete for retail development over housing construction. Fiscal reforms at the state level
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 90
might help to reverse these trends. Some of the more promising reforms include reallocation
of property tax to local governments and tax sharing.

Monetary Incentives to Local Governments - Smart growth could be supported with new
state and federal funding specifically targeted for smart growth projects, and by tying some
existing funding sources to smart growth principles. These include housing funding
incentives, state financial support for local planning, housing funding linkages, and getting
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to link transportation funding for cities to smart
growth developments.

Transportation Improvements and Policies - Improvements to the regional transportation
system could spur smart growth in specific areas. These include new rail extensions, rapid
bus corridors, congestion pricing and new roadway-connections.

Monetary Incentives for Individuals - Monetary incentives can encourage individuals to use
transit and live close to their workplaces. These include employee housing subsidies, transit
passes and parking pricing.216
Smart Growth: Grantmaking/Leadership Opportunities
The East Bay Community Foundation has the opportunity to promote smart growth and livable
communities through all of its grantmaking areas. In addition, the Foundation can:

Continue to support the Foundation’s Livable Communities Initiative (LCI), a cross cutting
program that promotes smart growth in the East Bay. The Initiative and its partners seek to
reduce the negative effects of unplanned development such as high housing costs, the loss of
agricultural land, transportation problems, environmental damage and economic inequity. It
works closely with other foundations, elected officials, business people, city and county staff
and the public. Because of LCI, EBCF is recognized as a national leader among community
foundations and private foundations in the promotion of smart growth.

Continue to support the creation of the Bay Area Livable Communities Initiative (BALCI),
which will be a collaboration of local community foundations (including EBCF) committed
to making the Bay Area environmentally healthy, economically strong, and socially
equitable. The BALCI will support place-based work and will address policy reforms at the
regional and state level that are necessary to support the place-based efforts. The seed capital
for the Initiative will come from unrestricted foundation dollars, which will be used to
leverage additional resources from private foundations and donor-directed funds.

Continue to use the Foundation’s leadership abilities and “knowledge capital” – its in depth
knowledge of smart growth issues in the region – to leverage funding from other sources to
support smart growth projects in the East Bay.

Support nonprofits to carry out a Bay Area-wide campaign to help cities and counties
accelerate the adoption of inclusionary housing policies.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 91

Support nonprofits to carry out a region-wide public education campaign on the benefits of
increasing housing density, in order to counter NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition to
multi-family housing, affordable housing and supportive housing.

Support nonprofits helping to improve low-income communities’ gain access to public
transit.
2. Promoting Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice: Best Practices
The Bay Area is home to a large number of organizations working on environmental justice (EJ)
and environmental health. They range from sophisticated nonprofits working on research and
advocacy to small grassroots groups formed around a kitchen table in response to toxic emissions
from a nearby plant. One of the primary needs in the environmental justice movement is to build
relationships between different types of nonprofits, which have complementary skills and
resources, and which often act within different spheres of influence. For example, a small
grassroots group in Richmond could benefit by partnering with the Contra Costa County Health
Department, scientists at U.C. Berkeley and policy advocates working for the Center for
Environmental Health. And yet because of different cultural perspectives, economic
backgrounds and strategic perspectives, this cooperation is often challenging. Bay Area
environmental justice groups have been the most successful at shutting down toxic sites or
effecting legislative and regulatory change when they have worked in coalition.
These local efforts have focused on two critical aspects of environmental justice:
1) Protecting human health and the environment in places where people live, work, and
play; and
2) Developing grassroots leadership and community-based planning and policy approaches
that meet community needs.217
Through work at the local level, environmental justice organizations have learned important
lessons about policies and decision-making that affect conditions in their neighborhoods. EJ
efforts have won significant advances in protecting the overall health of communities by
preventing the siting of polluting industries and unwanted land uses, ensuring equal regulatory
protection, and demanding that communities be involved in the policy-making that affects them.
Through this experience, EJ groups recognize the necessity of engaging at the state level to effect
change in policies, programs, and decision-making that largely determine the economic,
environmental and social conditions facing neighborhoods. Land use and planning policy
determined at the state level, for example, sets the framework for neighborhood and local issues
of toxics and siting, housing, economic development and transportation.218 The challenge is to
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 92
build on the accomplishments and work at the local level and harness the strength of
environmental justice organizations to organize across the state and strategically intervene in
state policy and decision-making.219
Environmental justice groups in California recommend several key policy goals: address
existing environmental health risks and prevent future ones; ensure safe, decent and affordable
housing; protect and ensure workers’ rights and safety; promote and ensure community-based
land use planning and economic development; ensure that transportation planning, investments,
and operations support and strengthen, not destroy communities; and ensure safe and healthy
schools and quality education. They are also committed to building state-level advocacy
capacity, increasing their access to philanthropic resources, and building solidarity with social
and economic justice movements. 220 From this it is clear that supporting environmental justice
organizations is an effective way to build local community capacity to advocate for equitable,
just and smart growth.
Environmental Justice: Grantmaking and Leadership Opportunities
To promote environmental justice, the Foundation has a wide variety of options:

Support efforts to build the capacity of environmental justice nonprofits.

Support nonprofits to bring together environmental justice and environmental health
organizations to work on a specific issue, build working relationships, strategize, plan
concerted action and receive training.

Fund coalitions to work together on specific environmental justice issues.

Support nonprofits and coalitions to do advocacy work on public health and environmental
justice issues at the municipal, county and state levels.

Support nonprofits to organize around environmental justice issues in East Contra Costa
County, particularly in Martinez, Antioch and Pittsburg, and to begin to monitor the
refineries for toxic emissions. Support the building of indigenous organizing capacity in
these low-income communities, and help bring nonprofits with regional expertise to partner
with them and to partner with local health clinics.
 Support nonprofits to work on the public health effects of diesel emissions (particulates),
and combine it with efforts to decrease the incidence of asthma in low-income communities.
 Support community based organizations in West Oakland to work with the EPA to clean up a
recently identified Super Fund site in the community.

Support community leaders in Alameda to advocate around the decommissioning and
redevelopment of the west end of Alameda where the Naval base was located.

Support nonprofits to conduct public education campaigns to educate low-income and
immigrant communities about the dangers of eating contaminated fish caught in local waters.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 93
3. Supporting Environmental Education
Environmental Education: Best Practices
Environmental education (EE) is designed to create a well-educated public, which knows how to
be wise stewards of the environment that sustains them, their families and communities, and
future generations. It is environmental education which can best help individuals make the
complex, conceptual connections between economic prosperity, benefits to society,
environmental health and their own well being. Ultimately, environmental education is a tool
designed to promote civic responsibility and engagement in caring for the environment.
In the Bay Area, environmental education is carried out by a rich array of over 200
environmental education providers. They address a wide range of topics, including recycling,
solid waste, gardens and watershed studies, and are active primarily in elementary, charter
schools, private schools, and environmental academies.
However, the environmental education movement in the Bay Area has some limitations. EE
organizations typically operate independently of each other in a fragmented and piecemeal
manner. Environmental education is seen as a supplement to classroom curricula and is
implemented as a onetime club/class activity. As a result, environmental education is
underutilized because teachers are unaware of how to integrate environmental education into
their curriculum and into science testing requirements. Teachers are not trained in environmental
teaching methods or environmental science/studies and are not supported in carrying out
environmental education.221Rarely are efforts undertaken to network environmental education
providers in order to develop partnerships, leverage resources and avoid duplication. The
environmental education community has also not been that successful at working with groups
from different ethnic backgrounds. In sum, the EE providers do not coordinate or align their
delivery of programs, program exposure across the population is sporadic, and program impact is
uneven.222
Last year, four community foundations (including EBCF) and 18 environmental education
providers (many of whom were from the East Bay) created a learning community to improve the
effectiveness of Bay Area EE providers. The group developed a regional evaluation framework,
which will help local EE providers align their efforts more readily and evaluate the impact of
their programs more effectively. The participants included six key strategies in the framework:
implement best EE practices, target specific behaviors, disseminate core EE messages, increase
cultural competence, promote collaboration/partnerships and increase evaluation capacity.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 94
Environmental Education: Grantmaking and Leadership Opportunities
To educate K-12 school children to become stewards of the environment, the Foundation has a
wide variety of options:

Use its grantmaking and leadership capabilities to convene the environmental education
providers in the East Bay, and to encourage them:
1. To review and consider adopting the regional impact evaluation framework
developed last year by the Bay Area Environmental Education Learning Community;
and
2. To look for additional ways to collaborate, which could include dividing up the
service area geographically or by demographic characteristics, coordinating service
delivery, and/or addressing environmental issues that are important to the East Bay.

Support follow-up activities to the Learning Community, including the dissemination of the
regional framework; the development of an evaluation tool kit; and building the evaluation
capacity of EE providers in the East Bay.

Support the organizational strengthening of East Bay environmental education providers.

Support nonprofits to carry out place-based environmental education programs, which link
young people to the natural environs in or near their own communities.

Support improved integration between environmental education and the schools and help tie
environmental education to science education standards. Support nonprofits which educate
teachers about environmental education methodology and goals and which educate EE
providers about teachers’ needs and testing requirements.

Support a group of EE providers to create an environmental education initiative, which
focuses on a specific environmental indicator or issue, seeks to produce a change in
individual behavior and seeks to have an impact on that issue or indicator.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 95
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Smart Growth Strategy: Regional Livability
Footprint Project, web site: http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/
Bay Area Alliance For Sustainable Communities, Bay Area Indicators:
Measuring Progress Toward Sustainability, January 2003 (revised May 2004)
http://www.bayareaalliance.org/indicators.html
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, web site:
http://www.fundersnetwork.org/
Martha Matsuoka, Building Healthy Communities from the Ground Up: Environmental Justice
in California, September 2003, http://www.environmentalhealth.org/EJReport.pdf
The Women’s Foundation of California, Confronting Toxic Contamination in Our Communities,
Women’s Health and California’s Future, 2003
http://www.womensfoundca.org/publications.html
Funders Forum for Environmental Education, web site: http://www.f2e2.org
Jack Chin, Bay Area Environmental Education: How Do We Know We’re Making a Difference?
Final Report of the Bay Area Environmental Education Evaluation Learning Community, July
2004 http://www.blueprintrd.com/text/baeeelc.pdf
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 96
ARTS AND CULTURE
Overview
East Bay arts organizations and artists operate in a rich cultural environment that is known
internationally for the diversity of cultural expressions that flourish here. As the region becomes
increasingly diverse, with established and new immigrant groups constituting an growing
proportion of residents, the potential for expansion of arts and culture in the East Bay is high.
However, economic and funding realities place serious constraints and pose complex challenges
for the East Bay arts community. This section explores some of the challenges and opportunities
facing East Bay artists and arts organizations.
Arts Funding

Nationally, private arts funding rose steadily throughout the 1990s and peaked in 2001.With
the Dot Com bubble, arts funding declined 3. 5 percent (an estimated $147 million) in 2002,
which exceeded the 0.7 percent decrease in giving overall, suggesting that arts funding is
more sensitive to sharp reductions in foundation resources. The Foundation Center projects
that over the next few years, foundation giving for the arts and other fields will likely
continue to decrease, although newly established foundations and other factors will help to
moderate reductions.223

The grant budget of the National Endowment for the Arts has been increasing for the past 6
years. From a high of $176 million in 1993, NEA funding dropped to low point of $97.6
million in 1999, and has climbed steadily to $121.3 million for 2005.

The state fiscal crisis led to major reduction in California Arts Council funding for local arts
organizations in 2002, followed by the virtual elimination of CAC funding in 2003. (The
CAC budget dropped from nearly $18 million to less than $1 million.) This was a great blow
to many East Bay arts groups. Smaller organizations and ethnic arts groups were particularly
hard hit because the CAC provided a larger proportion of the budgets of these groups, which
typically have a smaller base of philanthropic and individual donor support.

There is currently no state funding for arts education. Until 2004, the Arts Work Visual and
Performing Arts Education Grant Program was the only source of state arts education
funding. Funded under Proposition 98, this program received $6 million in 2003-04, but was
eliminated in 2004-05.

The Alameda County Arts Council has a small grants program that awards $1,000 general
support grants on a two-year cycle to eligible organizations in the county. Contra Costa
County currently has no countywide grants program. Few East Bay cities have cultural
funding programs, although some provide non-monetary support and services to local arts
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 97
groups.* In Oakland and Berkeley, tight budgets have cut into funding and staff for arts grant
programs, and current budget deficits are likely to further reduce arts funding next year in
these cities.
Data from the Foundation Search database on philanthropic giving shows some interesting
patterns for Alameda and Contra Costa counties. It is not clear how complete or reliable these
data are for overall levels of giving, but they do provide a useful comparison between the two
East Bay counties. 224
Relative funding levels in Alameda and Contra Costa counties

From 1999-2003, 105 organizations received 486 grants totaling $19.7 million. The range
was $4,000 to $750,000 and the average grant was $40,847. Arts and culture grants represent
7.4% of total number of grants and 3.8% of the total amount awarded in Alameda County
during that period.

During the same period, 21 Contra Costa organizations received 163 grants totaling $3.63
million. The range of grants was $3,000 to $200,000 Arts and culture grants represent 15.5%
of total number of grants and 9.2% of the total amount awarded in the county during that
period.
Challenges and Opportunities for East Bay Arts Organizations
In mid-2003, as the impact of CAC funding cuts and declining funding from Bay Area arts
funders was being felt, EBCF convened an informal conversation with East Bay arts groups and
other funders to take measure of the issues facing the East Bay arts community. That meeting, as
well as subsequent discussion with arts organizations and funders, revealed that East Bay arts
organizations are operating in a complex, changing and often perilous environment, but also that
this environment presents some exciting opportunities for the arts community.
The primary challenge has been adapting to the contraction of resources for the arts. Funding
cutbacks have led to increased competition for foundation and public grants. Smaller groups and
those in outlying areas have a difficult time being seen by funders and many smaller
organizations are going out of business. Other challenges include:

*
The East Bay’s high cost of living and rising insurance costs make it increasingly difficult for
East Bay arts organizations to offer competitive salaries and benefits, attract and retain highly
qualified staff and prevent staff burnout.
In addition to Oakland and Berkeley, Richmond, Antioch, Hayward, Livermore, Fremont and Dublin are among
the East Bay cities with active arts councils that coordinate cultural planning, support public art, provide services
to local arts groups and sponsor performance and exhibition opportunities for local artists.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 98

A shortage of suitable and affordable performance, rehearsal and exhibit space is a perennial
challenge. This is particularly true in Oakland and Berkeley where a large number of groups
are vying for a very limited space and rising rents make affordability a major issue.

Arts organizations in the East Bay and elsewhere have experienced a drop off in season ticket
and series purchase and a sharp rise in last minute ticket buying. Among other impacts, this
trend has caused some organizations to become less risk-taking in the types of art they
present.
Participants in EBCF’s in the 2003 roundtable also identified a number of opportunities for arts
organizations:

Many organizations are viewing the crisis as an opportunity to do things differently, to get
board and staff members to think and act in new ways, and to undertake needed restructuring.

Organizations are becoming more entrepreneurial in their business and marketing planning.
(Participants expressed a need for quality technical assistance in this area)

The need to correct for over-expansion of late ‘90s—“right-sizing”--is an opportunity for
organizations to re-commit to their core mission and create more efficient organizations.

Arts organizations are using the current situation as an opportunity to re-energize their
boards, as well as recruit new types of board members who have the skills and backgrounds
to deal with the challenges.

Organizations are becoming more serious about turning their audience into donors. Many
small organizations have a strong and loyal audience base, but have not been systematic
about communicating with audience members and asking for support. Many organizations
are also using the situation as an opportunity to re-connect with their existing donor base.
Support for Individual Artists
A study of Bay Area artists commissioned by Leveraging Investments in Creativity (LINC)** has
surveyed artists in the Bay Area over a fifteen-year period, providing insight into their progress
and challenges. The results of the 2003 survey showed that:225

63% of artists earn less than $7,000 from their art. 78% of artists work more than one job,
with all artists surveyed having a median gross income from all sources of $35,000. While
84% percent have health coverage, 31% obtain it themselves, and 13% do not obtain routine
health care.
**
Lead funding for LINC comes from the Ford Foundation with additional funding from the Paul G. Allen
Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Nathan Cummings Foundation.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 99

The percentage of artists earning money from their art is on the decline (from a high of 86%
in 1988 to 77% in 2003). Only 43% of these find that this income covers their art-related
expenses.

In 2003, artists have less time to spend on their art than they did 15 years ago.
EBCF and many other funders have traditionally supported the arts by making grants to arts
organizations. There has been a growing trend in arts philanthropy to look at ways to support
individual artists, who form the backbone of the arts ecosystem. This goes beyond providing
direct support for artists’ work; it requires an examination of the supportive infrastructures and
policies that enable artists to create their art. In 2003 the Urban Institute conducted a study
entitled “Investing in Creativity: A Study of the Support Structure for U.S. Artists.”226 This
unprecedented national study documents and analyzes the environment of support for artists in
the United States. The study identified crucial needs in three specific areas:
Expanding financial supports for artists' work
 Most cash grants to artists are under $2,000. In addition to increasing access to financial
support, access to health benefits is a critical need for many artists.
Improving artists' access to essential supports such as space, materials, and training
 Lack of affordable living and working space is a critical issue for artists in many cities (this
is certainly the case for East Bay artists). Artist-focused organizations play a central role in
providing artists with spaces to work, yet these organizations tend to be fragile. Generally,
artists’ capacity to advocate on space issues has been weak.

Access to equipment and materials influence artists’ careers and the health of artistic
disciplines. Equipment needs and barriers to access vary by artistic discipline. Media artists
and folk-traditional artists appear to have the most acute unmet needs.

Artists want and need training and professional development that helps them make shifts
throughout their careers—in artistic level, in business skills, and in skills relevant to a variety
of arts-related employment. Important sources of training include academic institutions,
local arts agencies, artist-focused organizations and networks, and community-based
organizations.
Building knowledge, networks and public policies that enhance artists' work and their
contributions to communities.
 Communities and networks are vital to an artist’s career. Artist-focused organizations play a
particularly important role as hubs for formal and informal networks, and the fragility of
many of these organizations undercuts artists’ ability to connect with each other and the
resources they need. Strengthening artists’ networks within the arts community and their
connections with networks outside the cultural sector are important to improving conditions
for artists as a whole.

Validation of artists’ contributions to society takes many forms, both formal and informal –
some tied to money, others not; some direct, others indirect. For a variety of reasons, the
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 100
public has little sense of what artists’ time and their products are worth, often viewing the
making of art generally as a frivolous or recreational pursuit. The most prominent forms of
validation for many artists include peer recognition, public recognition, arts criticism, media
coverage, and awards, grants and similar prizes.

Alternative mechanisms for validation are important to many artists working in new media,
artists of color, immigrant artists, and artists working at the intersection of the arts and other
fields (such as community development or health). Alternative validation mechanisms
include: ethnic-specific or community-based newspapers; public radio and television; webbased and community-based commentary, and various local and regional festivals.
Opportunities
Arts and Culture: Grantmaking and Leadership Opportunities
EBCF can continue to play a strong role in strengthening East Bay arts organizations and artists
through grants, technical support and partnership with other funders:
Support for arts organizations

Provide general operating support for well-managed arts organizations. For many
organizations it is easier to get funding for new projects, productions and outreach programs,
but more difficult to find funding to pay for heating, lighting and the core administrative staff
that keep the organization running.

Provide easy-to-access small grants to grassroots arts and cultural organizations, especially
groups in East Contra Costa, Southern Alameda and other areas that do not have a well
developed cultural infrastructure.

Provide grants and help connect small and mid-size arts organizations with technical
assistance, especially those organizations with strong ties to minority and immigrant
communities in the East Bay.

Support programs that give young people artistic voice and foster the expression of youth
culture.

Convene East Bay arts organizations periodically to discuss topics of critical importance to
the arts community in the East Bay.

Continue to encourage and provide support for established arts organizations to increase the
diversity of their boards and staffs.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 101
Support for artists

In partnership with EBCF donors and other funders, provide support for the creation of new
work by individual artists.

Support and strengthen artist-focused organizations and networks that work with communitybased ethnic artists who do not have institutional backing for their work as artists.

Convene artists and artist-support organizations to discuss strategies for collectively meeting
the needs of individual artists as well as joint advocacy for policies to improve conditions for
artists in the East Bay.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Investing in Creativity: Study of the Support Structure for U.S. Artists (Urban Institute)
http://www.usartistsreport.org/standardpage.asp?SectionID=1
Cultural Policy and the Arts National Data Archive http://www.cpanda.org/index.html
Arts Funding IV (2003) http://fdncenter.org/research/trends_analysis/pdf/artupdt.pdf
Information on Artists III: A study of artists’ work-related human and social service needs in the
Bay Area. http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/rcac/
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 102
NONPROFITS AND PHILANTHROPY
Overview
Nonprofits in the East Bay
Despite the recent economic downturn in the East Bay, the number of nonprofits actually
increased 19% from 7,242 to 8,606 between 1999 and 2002, while total income for all nonprofits
remained largely unchanged at $26.6 billion.227 In other words, more nonprofits are now doing
work in the region without a commensurate increase in income. Alameda County has a larger
nonprofit sector than Contra Costa County with twice the number of nonprofits and more than
twice the total revenue in the nonprofit sector.

Data Highlight - From 1999 to 2002, the total number of nonprofits in Alameda County
increased 19% from 4,849 to 5,773, while the total income for these nonprofits decreased
slightly from $25.2 billion in 1999 to $25.1 billion. The total income level in Alameda is
greatly influenced by the inclusion of Kaiser Permanente, a nonprofit health care provider. If
the total income attributed to Kaiser is subtracted from these totals, then the total income for
nonprofits in Alameda decreased slightly from $4.2 billion in 1999 to $4.1 billion in 2002.
In Contra Costa County, the number of nonprofits increased 18% from 2,393 in 1999 to
2,833 in 2002, while total income for these nonprofits increased from $1.4 billion to $1.5
billion.228
Human service nonprofits are the largest group of nonprofits in both counties, and represent
close to a quarter of all nonprofits in the East Bay. More than three quarters of the total revenue
for all nonprofits in both counties is concentrated in health and human services.

Data Highlight - In 2002, in both counties approximately 70% of all nonprofits were
concentrated in four areas: human services (24%): religious organizations (18%); education
organizations (18%); and arts, culture and humanities organizations (10%). In Alameda
County, 94.5% of the total revenue for all nonprofits (including Kaiser) was concentrated in
health and human services. In Contra Costa County, 74% of total revenue for all nonprofits
was concentrated in health and human services. 229
While most types of nonprofits saw an increase in their numbers and total incomes between 1999
and 2002, a few types of nonprofits saw declines.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 103

Data Highlight - Between 1999 and 2002, there was a small decline in the number of
hospitals and the number of higher education organizations in both counties. In Alameda,
there was a decline in total income for health care and higher education organizations, and in
Contra Costa, there was a decline in total revenue for environment and animal groups, human
service organizations and foundations.230
Alameda County has about twice as many human services (safety net) nonprofits as Contra Costa
County. Both counties saw an increase in the number of human service nonprofits between 1999
and 2002, but in Alameda their total revenue increased, while in Contra Costa, their total revenue
declined. It is important to remember that these aggregate figures for total revenue may disguise
the challenges faced by individual human service nonprofits.

Data Highlight - Between 1999 and 2002, in Contra Costa County human service
organizations, which are considered an approximate gauge of the safety net, increased in
number from 499 to 669, but declined in total revenue from $335 million to $327 million. A
closer look at the data reveals that much of this decline occurred for organizations providing
recreation and sports. In contrast, in Alameda County, human service organizations
increased in number from 1,059 to 1,368, and increased in total revenue from $895 million to
$1.1 billion.231
Between 2000 and 2003, foundation giving to nonprofits in the East Bay followed national
trends and declined in both the number of grants and the total amount of grant dollars. In 2003,
nonprofits in Alameda County received five times as many grants as nonprofits in Contra Costa
County, and six times the dollar amount.232
Foundations contribute only a small percent of total revenue for nonprofits. A landmark study
conducted by the Bridgespan Group analyzed the flow of funds within the nonprofit sector in the
U.S. They found that funds totaling approximately $900 billion flow to nonprofit organizations
annually, based on 1998 data. Of these funds, more than 60% come from fees and payments
made directly in exchange for services. Despite their high profile, private foundations provide
less than 2% of the funds flowing into the nonprofit sector each year. Combined with community
foundations, corporate foundations, and supporting public charities (for example, United Way),
they still provide less than 3%.233
Foundations in the East Bay
In 2002, there were 558 foundations in the East Bay, with a total income of $510 million.234
There were more foundations in Alameda County than in Contra Costa County, and Alameda
County foundations had six times the amount of total income as foundations in Contra Costa.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 104
While the number of foundations increased in both counties between 1999 and 2002, the total
income for Contra Costa foundations declined 35%.

Data Highlight - In Alameda County, between 1999 and 2002, the number of foundations
increased from 250 to 339, and total income for these foundations more than doubled from
$176 million to $439 million. In Contra Costa County, between 1999 and 2002 the number
of foundations increased from 171 to 219, yet total income for these foundations declined
from $110 million to $71 million.235
Foundations in Alameda County gave away more grants than foundations in Contra Costa
County, and gave away three times the dollar amount of grants as foundations in Contra Costa.
In 2003, in both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, foundations gave the largest share of their
grants to education, social and human services and health. 236
In 2003, the East Bay Community Foundation (EBCF) and its donors made grants to the East
Bay and beyond totaling $19.4 million. Of this total amount of grants, 42% were given to
organizations in Alameda, 23% to organizations in Contra Costa County, 25% to organizations
in both counties and 10% to organizations outside of the East Bay.237 EBCF mirrored the giving
trends of other foundations in the East Bay by giving 31% of the grants to education and youth,
30% to community needs, 15% to health and wellness, 8% to arts and culture, 8% to civic
engagement, 6% to environment and 2% to organizational effectiveness.
Major Issues and Trends
According to the Foundation Center, “for U.S. nonprofits 2003 represented the toughest
fundraising year in recent memory. Cutbacks in government funding, combined with slower
overall growth in private contributions, forced many organizations to cut back on staffing and
services and, in some cases, to close their doors entirely. Most organizations, however, had
anticipated continuing fundraising difficulties and prepared accordingly by, for example,
postponing capital campaigns and program expansion and identifying ways to reduce costs with
the least impact on programs.”238
Nonprofits in the Bay Area are experiencing similar challenges. According to a survey of
nonprofits conducted last year by the United Way of the Bay Area, nonprofits in the region are
struggling to meet an increased demand for their services in the wake of continued declines in
individual and institutional giving.239 Following are some of the survey’s key findings:

For the second year in a row, the majority of nonprofits surveyed cited an increased demand
for their services (56% this year compared to 65% last year).
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 105

However, 53% reported a decline in institutional gifts in 2003, while 44% reported a decline
in individual giving. In 2004, more than 60% of nonprofits reported that both institutional
and individual giving were down. (Institutional giving refers to donations from corporations
or foundations.) Fortunately, nearly nine out of ten, or 87%, reported that volunteer and inkind support has either increased or stayed the same.

About 40% of nonprofit respondents said their budgets would be further reduced by state or
local budget cuts. Nearly one out of every three respondents said they had not yet determined
the potential impact on their programs, services or operations due to reductions in
government funding.

Forty percent said they have tapped their reserve funds or plan to do so to help bridge the gap
in charitable giving. Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported they do not have a
financial reserve, compared to 30% in 2002.

Despite the increased demand for services, 42% of nonprofits said they reduced staffing
levels and 20% said they reduced programs and services. A year ago, 30% of respondents
reported staff reductions while 17% reported reductions in programs and services.

While overall giving continues to be down, more than 60% of the nonprofits surveyed
reported that they are feeling optimistic given current economic news and trends.
Cuts in Government Funding. Federal and state budget cuts are taking a toll on both county
agencies and nonprofit service providers in East Bay. Health and human services programs in
Alameda and Contra Costa counties have experienced direct reductions in funding, and have also
been squeezed by more general pressures on county budgets, such as the deferral of state
payments owed to county and local governments for the provision of state-mandated programs
and services. So far, few programs have been eliminated outright; instead, the state has failed to
provide funding increases to cover rising costs and increased demand for services. As a
consequence, public and nonprofit service providers have had to do more with less. Providers in
Alameda and Contra Costa counties are reporting cuts in staff, reduced quality of services,
diminished access to services, and longer waiting periods to receive services.240 In the East Bay,
the cut backs in government funding are particularly significant for larger nonprofits who have
contracts with county agencies to provide services.
In addition to current state and federal funding cuts, proposed federal budget cuts threaten many
basic safety net programs such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grant and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Cuts
are also proposed for federal childcare block grants; children and family services, including Head
Start and programs for abused and neglected children; nutrition for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC); Section 8 housing vouchers; and the Community Development Block Grant
Program.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 106
Holes in the Safety Net. These state and federal budget cuts are leaving large holes in the safety
net, which nonprofits are struggling to fill. Last year, the California Association of Nonprofits
conducted a study of safety net nonprofits in California (including health, human and social
service providers) to learn about the consequences of recent cutbacks in funding on the
nonprofits.241 The respondents serve a variety of constituents, including infants and toddlers,
the elderly, the poor and economically disadvantaged, people with disabilities, gays and lesbians,
immigrants, people with HIV/AIDS, the terminally ill, runaway youth and domestic violence
survivors.
The study’s major findings include:

-net nonprofits in California, total revenues are down, though some also
have had funding increases.

The most common response to reduced funding was postponing new hires, followed by
salary freezes and layoffs.

Not all types of safety-net nonprofits are affected equally. The safety-net organizations that
are hardest hit by staffing and program cuts are those that offer substance abuse treatment,
crisis intervention, mental health care, job training and shelters.

Almost half of the respondents have reduced or eliminated aspects of programs. Others have
slowed program innovation, reduced program hours or eliminated outreach efforts.

For virtually all types of safety-net groups, the number of people needing services has
increased significantly. Some of the most frequent changes include:
 Increased number of homeless people, increasing the need for shelter.
 More people with mental health problems.
 Increased homelessness of families with two or three kids.
 Two and three generations of one family becoming homeless.
 More working poor families seeking services and food.
 Increased requests for food, clothing and rent assistance.
 Seniors unable to afford medications coming to shelters and food banks.
 More children needing mental health services.
 More clients with multiple physical and mental health and income problems.

Nonprofits are coping by using a number of traditional strategies for making up funding
gaps. Over 70% of respondents reported increased efforts to raise funds from individuals and
foundations. About 32% reported that they are dipping into reserve or endowment funds, and
25% have increased fees for service. A few are borrowing funds or have launched or
expanded a business venture.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 107

Nonprofits are also employing nontraditional coping strategies, such as collaborating with
another nonprofit, increasing advocacy for funding, increasing advocacy for clients, joining
an advocacy coalition, and renting out or sharing space with others.

Overall, 50% of respondents see their greatest challenge as increasing or maintaining
financial self-sufficiency. Close behind is maintaining program quality, retaining quality staff
and getting boards more involved in fundraising. Only 22% are worried about just staying in
business.

financial accountability requirements, and trying to pay livable wages are further challenging
the financial self-sufficiency of safety-net groups.
Nonprofit Accountability. One of the most important issues affecting nonprofits in the East Bay
is the demand for greater nonprofit accountability by government agencies and foundations. Last
year, California enacted new legislation (SB 1262), which requires independent audits of any
nonprofit that has $2 million in revenues from non-governmental sources; stronger controls over
fundraising; and more stringent requirements for financial oversight and accounting. In addition,
the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (starting April 5, 2005) is considering even more stringent
and costly regulations. 242
If enacted, some of the proposals now being considered by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee
could result in significant reductions in donations and greater administrative costs for nonprofits.
For example, a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that after the value of car
donations was reduced last year, these donations fell by 30-40%. As the National Council of
Nonprofit Associations said, “this legislation may be the most significant overhaul of nonprofit
regulation since 1969.” 243
For many nonprofits in the East Bay, compliance with the new regulations will be costly. In
California, 77% of nonprofits have budgets under $100,000, and cannot afford higher
administrative costs. The costs for compliance (each new regulation takes time to implement)
will add to the very administrative costs that government, donors and funders are reluctant to
cover (and that is often cited as a sign that the nonprofit is wasteful and management-heavy).244
Most nonprofits in the East Bay have budgets under $2 million and are not required to do audits.
However, the new state law has set a new standard of accountability, which these smaller
nonprofits are being pressured to meet by donors and the public. Unfortunately, few small
nonprofits can afford to pay for an audit, and most donors are unwilling to pay for the added
administrative costs of an audit.
East Bay nonprofits are also feeling burdened by escalating reporting requirements. Complex
reporting requirements and cumbersome restrictions on how programs can be delivered make it
increasingly onerous to be a provider of government-funded services. In addition, government
agencies and foundations all have different reporting requirements, audit requirements and
standards that must be met by the nonprofits.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 108
Nonprofits in the East Bay are also finding that the state law’s financial oversight requirements
are burdensome. The legislation requires a nonprofit to have an audit committee and requires
more work by the treasurer and the executive director. East Bay nonprofits are having a hard
time finding people with financial management experience to serve on their boards. On balance,
the trend toward greater nonprofit accountability and transparency is positive, but it will have
negative consequences for many nonprofits unless public and private donors are willing to pay
for the increased costs it entails.
Nonprofit Capacity Building. As they struggle to adjust to funding cuts, increased demands for
services, and more demanding accounting standards, many East Bay nonprofits are facing
organizational and financial management challenges, and need high quality technical assistance
and training.
Unfortunately, in the East Bay, the infrastructure of organizations dedicated to nonprofit capacity
building has been weakened by a number of recent events. Most important among these are the
closing of the Volunteer Center in Alameda County and the closing of the East Bay Resource
Center in Oakland. In particular, the latter has left a critical gap in capacity-building services for
nonprofits that are small, emerging or in financial trouble. These are the nonprofits that cannot
afford to pay for consulting services, and relied instead on the Resource Center’s free workshops
and programs. Fortunately to fill these gaps, the Volunteer Center of Contra Costa has agreed to
step in and serve nonprofits in Alameda, and the Center for Community Based Organizations in
Contra Costa is in conversations to become the Center for Community Based Organizations of
the East Bay.
Those East Bay nonprofits that can afford to pay for training, workshops and consulting services
are well served by Compass Point. Approximately 21% of all nonprofits in the East Bay have
taken a workshop from Compass Point at some point. About a third of Compass Point’s San
Francisco workshop participants come from organizations with East Bay addresses, and about a
third of Compass Point’s consulting clients are organizations located in the East Bay. That being
said, in Contra Costa it is often a challenge to get organizations to participate in workshops,
because the organizations are very lean, management is thin, and it is difficult to let staff go to an
all day workshops.
Opportunities
The trends outlined above affect all East Bay nonprofits, from small community based
organizations to large international nonprofits. The nonprofits in greatest need of organizational
strengthening are the small, emerging and financially troubled nonprofits; the “safety net”
nonprofits that provide basic support services to families in hardship or crisis; and the family
support nonprofits that are struggling to meet the growing demands being placed on them by the
counties. As the counties continue to reduce their role in providing health and human services to
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 109
low-income families, nonprofits will increasingly become the safety net of last resort for these
families. It will therefore become increasingly important to ensure that the nonprofits stay
financially self-sufficient and effective.
Nonprofits and Philanthropy: Grantmaking and Leadership Opportunities
For many years, the East Bay Community Foundation has supported the organizational
strengthening of nonprofits in the East Bay. Current opportunities for the foundation include the
following:

Support the Center for Community Based Organizations in Contra Costa, and support its
efforts to evaluate whether or not it should expand its mission to work with nonprofits
throughout the East Bay.

Convene East Bay funders to discuss how to fill the critical gap in services for small,
emerging and financially troubled nonprofits, which need free or very low cost management
assistance services.

Support longer-term management assistance consulting for nonprofits that enables a
consultant to work with an organization through assessment, implementation and evaluation
of a change process.

Support executive coaching and peer-to-peer learning experiences.

Support convening of family services nonprofits and safety net nonprofits to learn and
exchange best practices, and to discuss how best to accommodate the new demands being
placed on them by government funding cuts, child welfare redesign and the aging baby
boomer population.

Support nonprofits to conduct policy research and advocacy in Sacramento to resist further
cuts to safety net programs.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
California Association of Nonprofits and Human Interaction Research, 2004, Holes in the Safetynet: Study of Funding Cutbacks and Safety-net Nonprofits in California
www.canonprofits.org/CANAlert/may.june.02/national.html
United Way of the Bay Area, Nonprofit Pulse Survey 2004 www.uwba.org/news/304_PulseResults.pdf
USF Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management: www.inom.org/research/database.html
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 110
PART V: APPENDICES
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Appendix 1: East Bay Nonprofit Organizations by Activity (501c3 organizations)
Data Analysis by USF Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management, www.usfca.edu/inom
Major
Group
Alameda County
NTEE Classification
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
10
10
9
10
10
10
11
12
13
1999
Number
Percent of
Total Number
Total Income
(2002 dollars)
Percent of
Total Income
2002
Number
Percent of
Total Number
Total Income
(2002 dollars)
Percent of
Total Income
Arts, culture, and humanities
501
10.3%
$94,602,141
0.4%
611
10.6%
$119,376,180
0.5%
Education
853
17.6%
$294,958,206
1.2%
973
16.8%
$323,539,953
1.3%
Higher education
25
0.5%
$130,778,364
0.5%
24
0.4%
$82,163,890
0.3%
Environment
78
1.6%
$21,904,834
0.1%
102
1.8%
$42,507,255
0.2%
Animal Related
22
0.5%
$11,121,585
0.0%
33
0.6%
$18,917,425
0.1%
Health – General
121
2.5%
$17,241,895,002
68.4%
147
2.5%
$15,903,765,459
63.6%
Hospitals
13
0.3%
$5,977,611,891
23.7%
11
0.2%
$6,504,740,212
26.0%
Mental Health
65
1.3%
$78,934,106
0.3%
81
1.4%
$114,619,621
0.5%
Health – Disease Specific (general)
27
0.6%
$43,704,962
0.2%
40
0.7%
$52,284,913
0.2%
Health – Disease Specific (research)
24
0.5%
$7,187,180
0.0%
27
0.5%
$8,631,456
0.0%
Crime, Legal Related
61
1.3%
$40,329,034
0.2%
78
1.3%
$44,353,921
0.2%
Employment, Job Related
37
0.8%
$45,273,330
0.2%
57
1.0%
$49,370,387
0.2%
Food, Agriculture, Nutrition
22
0.5%
$27,859,667
0.1%
28
0.5%
$25,897,880
0.1%
Housing, Shelter
185
3.8%
$113,477,612
0.5%
223
3.9%
$141,835,762
0.6%
Public Safety, Disaster Preparedness
7
0.1%
$1,915,642
0.0%
13
0.2%
$834,565
0.0%
Recreation and Sports
133
2.7%
$22,453,767
0.1%
189
3.3%
$50,054,547
0.2%
Youth Development
246
5.1%
$64,406,351
0.3%
277
4.8%
$67,557,042
0.3%
Human Services, Multipurpose and Other
368
7.6%
$578,946,534
2.3%
503
8.7%
$748,781,357
3.0%
International, Foreign Affairs
59
1.2%
$30,596,741
0.1%
86
1.5%
$33,987,331
0.1%
Civil Rights/Advocacy
50
1.0%
$10,225,901
0.0%
53
0.9%
$14,386,990
0.1%
Community Improvement
168
3.5%
$61,560,189
0.2%
182
3.1%
$111,709,189
0.4%
Philanthropy, Voluntarism
250
1.0%
$176,427,437
0.7%
339
5.9%
$438,517,760
1.8%
Science and Technology
48
0.3%
$33,146,827
0.1%
55
1.0%
$29,300,578
0.1%
Social Science
13
0.9%
$32,803,043
0.1%
15
0.3%
$27,787,654
0.1%
Public, Society Benefit
40
0.8%
$10,305,124
0.0%
43
0.7%
$10,797,257
0.0%
Religion Related
836
17.2%
$43,643,506
0.2%
1,012
17.5%
$54,541,625
0.2%
Mutual/Membership Benefit
8
0.2%
$3,417,320
0.0%
16
0.3%
$101,750
0.0%
Unknown, Unclassified
589
12.1%
$4,714,347
0.0%
562
9.7%
$3,865,124
0.0%
Total
4,849
100.0%
$25,204,200,643
100.0%
5,780
100.0%
$25,024,227,083
100.0%
Data: Internal Revenue Service, Business Master Files, downloaded from www.irs.gov/eo; National Center for Charitable Statistics, Core Files
Inflation adjusted using the Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Kasier Foundation Hosptials and affiliated corporations accounted for approximately 90% of the revenue in the Health group and approximately 80% of the revenue in the
Hospitals group in Alameda County.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 112
Appendix 1 (Continued)
Major
Group
Contra Costa County
NTEE Classification
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
10
10
9
10
10
10
11
12
13
1999
Number
Percent of
Total Number
Total Income
(2002 dollars)
Percent of
Total Income
2002
Number
Percent of
Total Number
Total Income
(2002 dollars)
Percent of
Total Income
Arts, culture, and humanities
234
9.9%
$20,308,331
1.5%
286
10.1%
$34,544,910
2.3%
Education
488
20.6%
$86,214,198
6.2%
531
18.7%
$105,513,257
7.2%
Higher education
4
0.2%
$92,387,162
6.7%
2
0.1%
$116,080,524
7.9%
Environment
32
1.4%
$5,410,410
0.4%
40
1.4%
$4,803,099
0.3%
Animal Related
17
0.7%
$9,152,585
0.7%
30
1.1%
$8,380,306
0.6%
Health - General
53
2.2%
$82,405,532
6.0%
59
2.1%
$134,306,207
9.1%
Hospitals
6
0.3%
$560,719,876
40.6%
5
0.2%
$559,870,450
38.1%
Mental Health
34
1.4%
$38,256,199
2.8%
41
1.4%
$55,003,216
3.7%
Health - Disease Specific (general)
12
0.5%
$10,456,247
0.8%
19
0.7%
$13,097,637
0.9%
Health - Disease Specific (research)
7
0.3%
$2,617,729
0.2%
8
0.3%
$3,395,233
0.2%
Crime, Legal Related
22
0.9%
$5,563,799
0.4%
46
1.6%
$5,508,785
0.4%
Employment, Job Related
18
0.8%
$9,068,230
0.7%
23
0.8%
$14,562,244
1.0%
Food, Agriculture, Nutrition
16
0.7%
$23,633,662
1.7%
17
0.6%
$22,172,425
1.5%
Housing, Shelter
45
1.9%
$25,571,509
1.9%
60
2.1%
$37,753,012
2.6%
Public Safety, Disaster Preparedness
3
0.1%
$1,647,048
0.1%
9
0.3%
$2,018,536
0.1%
Recreation and Sports
108
4.6%
$78,802,637
5.7%
149
5.2%
$27,453,158
1.9%
Youth Development
119
5.0%
$6,944,560
0.5%
135
4.8%
$6,617,391
0.5%
Human Services, Multipurpose and Other
168
7.1%
$183,975,870
13.3%
230
8.1%
$211,856,192
14.4%
International, Foreign Affairs
16
0.7%
$2,589,763
0.2%
23
0.8%
$2,693,451
0.2%
Civil Rights/Advocacy
15
0.6%
$1,210,457
0.1%
11
0.4%
$726,307
0.0%
Community Improvement
65
2.7%
$3,895,129
0.3%
72
2.5%
$9,512,491
0.6%
Philanthropy, Voluntarism
133
0.6%
$110,075,865
8.0%
219
7.7%
$71,423,008
4.9%
Science and Technology
15
0.1%
$1,885,167
0.1%
18
0.6%
$1,582,385
0.1%
Social Science
3
0.5%
$1,975,272
0.1%
3
0.1%
$1,616,273
0.1%
Public, Society Benefit
11
0.5%
$368,857
0.0%
10
0.4%
$2,570,108
0.2%
Religion Related
456
19.3%
$12,412,097
0.9%
542
19.1%
$12,968,859
0.9%
Mutual/Membership Benefit
2
0.1%
$58,111
0.0%
6
0.2%
$0
0.0%
Unknown, Unclassified
263
11.1%
$2,632,802
0.2%
246
8.7%
$4,029,254
0.3%
Total
2,365
100.0%
$1,380,239,103
100.0%
2,840
100.0%
$1,470,058,718
100.0%
Data: Internal Revenue Service, Business Master Files, downloaded from www.irs.gov/eo
National Center for Charitable Statistics, Core Files
Inflation adjusted using the Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Kasier Foundation Hosptials and affiliated corporations accounted for approximately 90% of the revenue in the Health group and approximately 80% of the revenue in the
Hospitals group in Alameda County.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 113
Appendix 2: Number of East Bay nonprofits by type, 1999 and 2002
Data Analysis by USF Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management, www.usfca.edu/inom
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
Alameda 1999
Alameda 2002
800
Contra Costa 1999
Contra Costa 2002
600
400
200
R
el
ig
io
n
ua
R
l/M
el
at
em
ed
be
rs
hi
p
U
Be
nk
ne
no
fit
w
n,
U
nc
la
ss
ifi
ed
ila
nt
hr
op
y
M
ut
Pu
bl
ic
Ph
et
al
Be
ne
fit
Af
fa
irs
re
ig
n
Fo
,S
oc
i
rv
ic
es
Se
io
na
l,
H
um
an
H
os
pi
ta
ls
In
te
rn
at
En
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
H
ea
lth
du
vi
ro
ca
nm
tio
en
n
ta
nd
An
im
al
s
Ed
uc
at
io
n
H
ig
he
rE
Ar
ts
,C
ul
tu
re
,a
nd
H
um
an
iti
es
0
Page 114
Appendix 3: Key Informants
The following individuals were interviewed in person or by telephone, provided written responses to interview
questions, or contributed research information for the 2005 EBCF Needs Assessment.
Josefina Alvarado Mena
Director
Safe Passages, Oakland
Diane Aranda
Program Director
Prevention Institute, Oakland
Lina Avidan
Program Executive
Zellerbach Family Foundation
Janice Berger
Deputy Director
Every Child Counts, Alameda
Brenda Blasingame
Executive Director
Contra Costa County Children and Families
Commission
Grace Caliendo
President and CEO
John Muir/Mt. Diablo Community Health Fund
Liz Callahan
Interim Director
Center for Community-based Organizations
Cathy Cha
Program Officer
Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
Joan Cosper
Vice President for Community Investment
East Bay Community Foundation
John Cullen
Director
Contra Costa County Department of
Employment and Human Services
Raissa De La Rosa
Cultural Funding Coordinator
Oakland Cultural Arts Department
Jeff Hobson
Policy Director
Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC)
Nina Goldman
Director, Services Integration Program
Contra Costa Department of Employment and
Human Services
Maya Hart
Program Manager
Oakland Fund for Children and Youth
John Kilacky
Program Executive, Art and Culture
San Francisco Foundation
John Chapman
Former EBCF Trustee and Board President
Linda Kretz
Assistant Agency Director
Adult and Aging Services Department
Alameda County Social Services Agency
Hedy Chang
Former Senior Program Officer, Family Support
Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
Brendan Leung
Family Economic Success Coach
Making Connections, Oakland
Jack Chin
Senior Analyst, Vice President of Organizational
Learning
Blueprint R & D, San Francisco
Jan Masaoka
Executive Director
Compass Point Nonprofit Services, San
Francisco
Carol Collins
Assistant Agency Director
Children and Family Services Department
Alameda County Social Services Agency
Anuja Mendiratta
Program Officer, Community Development
Marin Community Foundation
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 115
Sandra Meucci
Senior Research Associate
Gibson and Associates, Oakland
Judy Murphy
CEO
Y & H Soda Foundation
Kathleen Odne
Executive Director
Dean and Margaret Lesher Foundation
Jan Pinney
Social Worker, Area Agency on Aging
Alameda County Social Services Agency
Kevin Rafter
Research Associate
USF Institute for Nonprofit Organization
Management
David Reid
Director of East Bay Office
Greenbelt Alliance
Vince Reyes
Special Assistant to the Agency Director
Alameda County Social Services Agency
Diane Sanchez
Program Officer
East Bay Community Foundation
Mickey Sherman
Program Manager, Area Agency on Aging
Contra Costa County Department of
Employment and Human Services
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Dianne J. Spaulding
Executive Director
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern
California
Bob Uyeki, Senior Program Officer
Y & H Soda Foundation
Carole M. Watson
Chief Investment Officer, Health & SelfSufficiency
United Way of the Bay Area
Andrea Youngdahl
Director
City of Oakland Department of Human Services
Group interview, LGBTQ issues:
Judy Kriege
Technical Assistant to Child Care Facilities
Bananas, Inc. Oakland
Liz Flemming
Lambda Youth Project, Project Eden
Horizon Services, Hayward
Judith Appel, Executive Director
Aimee Fisher, Program Manager
Gwendolyn Morgan, East Bay Coordinator
Our Family Coalition
Jennifer Raider
Teacher and community health project director
El Cerrito High School
Deborah Wald, Attorney
Page 116
ENDNOTES
1
Christopher Thornberg, East Bay Economic Outlook, January 2005, East Bay Development Alliance for Business,
pp. 4-5
2
PPR Fundamentals, Q3 2004, East Bay, 2004, Property & Portfolio Research, Inc., Sample Report, p. 2
3
Economic Development Alliance for Business (EDAB), 2004, The East Bay: 2004 Indicators, p. 24
4
The California Budget Project, 2005, Stretched Thin: State Budget Cuts Threaten California’s Health and Human
Services Programs, 2004; and What Would the President’s Proposed Budget Mean for California?
5
Data for this section from Census 2000 except where noted
6
Data for this section from Census 2000 except where noted
7
California Department of Finance, State Census Data Center
8
Contra Costa Partnership, 2003, 2003 Performance Index Highlights
9
Census 2000
10
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2004 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh03.html
11 Northern California Council for the Community, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report, Pathway to Results,
Measuring Progress Toward Healthy and Self-Sufficient Families and Communities Pathways, United Way Bay
Area, March 2003, p. 14
12
In 2003, two working parents with two school age children had to earn $45,032 per year to meet the family’s basic
needs in Alameda County, and had to earn $46,482 a year to meet the family’s basic needs in Contra Costa County.
Northern California Council for the Community, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Alameda County, CA, 2003,
Oakland, CA PMSA, Data Central, table available on web site:
http://www.ncccsf.org/datacentral/SSS/downloads/SSS_Alameda.pdf, and Northern California Council for the
Community, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Contra Costa County, CA, 2003 Oakland, CA PMSA, Data Central,
table available on web site: http://www.ncccsf.org/DataCentral/SSS/downloads/SSS_Contra_Costa.pdf
13
In 2003 a single parent with an infant and a preschooler had to earn $56,932 a year to meet the family’s basic needs
in Alameda County and had to earn $55,162 a year to meet the family’s basic needs in Contra Costa County.
Northern California Council for the Community, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Alameda County, CA, 2003,
Oakland, CA PMSA, Data Central, table available on web site:
http://www.ncccsf.org/datacentral/SSS/downloads/SSS_Alameda.pdf, and Northern California Council for the
Community, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Contra Costa County, CA, 2003 Oakland, CA PMSA, Data Central,
table available on web site: http://www.ncccsf.org/DataCentral/SSS/downloads/SSS_Contra_Costa.pdf
14
United Way of the Bay Area, The Bottom Line: Setting the Real Standard for Bay Area Working Families,
September 2004, pp. 7 and 9
15
Ibid., p. 7
16
Ibid., p. 9
17
Ibid., p. 6
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 117
In 2003, two working parents with two school age children had to earn $45,032 per year to meet the family’s basic
needs in Alameda County, and had to earn $46,482 a year to meet the family’s basic needs in Contra Costa County.
Northern California Council for the Community, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Alameda County, CA, 2003,
Oakland, CA PMSA, Data Central, table available on web site:
http://www.ncccsf.org/datacentral/SSS/downloads/SSS_Alameda.pdf, and Northern California Council for the
Community, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Contra Costa County, CA, 2003 Oakland, CA PMSA, Data Central,
table available on web site: http://www.ncccsf.org/DataCentral/SSS/downloads/SSS_Contra_Costa.pdf
19 Northern California Council for the Community, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report, Pathway to Results,
Measuring Progress Toward Healthy and Self-Sufficient Families and Communities Pathways, United Way Bay
Area, March 2003, p. 14
20
County of Alameda, 2001 Housing Element Update, Assessment of Current and Projected Housing Need, 2002, p.
24, see web site: http://www.co.alameda.ca.us/cda/housing_element/toc.htm
21
East Bay Housing Nonprofits, web site http://www.ebho.org/stats.htm
22
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Multi-Year Profile, Alameda County, web site:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/05000US060014.htm
23
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Multi-Year Profile, Contra Costa County, web site:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/05000US060134.htm
24
Northern California Council for the Community, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report, Pathway to Results,
Measuring Progress Toward Healthy and Self-Sufficient Families and Communities Pathways, United Way Bay
Area, March 2003, pp. 1-44
25
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Multi-Year Profile, Alameda County, web site:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/05000US060014.htm, and U.S.
Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Multi-Year Profile, Contra Costa County, web site:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/05000US060134.htm
26
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Multi-Year Profile, Alameda County, web site:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/05000US060014.htm, and U.S.
Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Multi-Year Profile, Contra Costa County, web site:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/05000US060134.htm
27
U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 American Community Survey, Narrative Profile: Alameda County, California, web site
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2003/ACS/Narrative/050/NP05000US06001.htm
28
U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 American Community Survey, Narrative: Contra Costa County, California, web site:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2003/ACS/Narrative/050/NP05000US06013.htm
29
Christopher Thornberg, East Bay Development Alliance for Business, East Bay Economic Outlook, January 2005,
pp. 4-5
30
Property & Portfolio Research, Inc., PPR Fundamentals, Q3 2004, East Bay, Sample Report, 2004, p. 2
31
Economic Development Alliance for Business, EDAB, The East Bay: 2004 Indicators, p. 5
32
Economic Policy Institute, Minimum Wage: Facts at a Glance, last updated March 2005,
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts
33 Northern California Council for the Community, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report: Pathway to Results
18
Measuring Progress Toward Healthy and Self-Sufficient Families and Communities Pathways, sponsored by the United Way,
March 2003, p. 14
34
California Budget Project, Special Report: Boom, Bust and Beyond, The State of Working California. Working But
Poor, California’s Families Fail to Make Ends Meet, May 2003, pp. 1-8
35
California Budget Project, Working Hard, Falling Short. Investing in California’s Working Families, Executive
Summary, January 2005, p. 3
36
Ibid. p. 3
37
Ibid. p. 3
38
California Budget Project, Special Report: Boom, Bust and Beyond, The State of Working California. Working But
Poor, California’s Families Fail to Make Ends Meet, May 2003, pp. 1-8
39
Ibid.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 118
California Budget Project, Working Hard, Falling Short. Investing in California’s Working Families, Executive
Summary, January 2005, p. 3
41
U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 American Community Survey, Multi-year Profile: Alameda County, California, web site
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/05000US060013.htm
42
U.S. Census, 2003 American Community Survey, Multi-year Profile: Contra Costa County, California, web site
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/05000US060133.htm
43
California Budget Project, Special Report: Boom, Bust and Beyond, The State of Working California. Working But
Poor, California’s Families Fail to Make Ends Meet, May 2003, pp. 1-8
44
Ibid.
45
In 2003, in Alameda more than a quarter of all residents were foreign born, of these 42% had entered the US
between 1990 and 2000. Of these foreign born residents, 55% had come from Asian and 31% had come from Latin
America. In 2003, in Contra Costa almost one-fifth of all residents were foreign born, and of these 37% had entered
between 1990 and 2000. Of these foreign born residents, 41% had come from Asia and 41% had come from Latin
America. U.S. Census, DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000, Data Set: Census 2000 Summary
File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data
Geographic Area: Alameda County and Contra Costa County, California, see web site:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US06001&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP2&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on, and
web site http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US06013&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on
46
California Food Policy Advocates, 2004 County by County Profile
47
Public Health Institute, Alameda Countywide Shelter and Services Survey, County Report, May 2004. The document
was prepared for the Alameda County-wide Homeless Continuum of Care Council.
48
Ibid.
49
Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, WIA Planning Information Packet:
Alameda 2005, p. 1, and Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, WIA Planning
Information Packet: Contra Costa 2005, p. 1
50
Northern California Council for the Community, United Way State of Caring Index for The San Francisco Bay Area,
State of the Bay Area Report, interactive web site
http://national.unitedway.org/stateofcaring/local/index_nowrap.cfm?indexid=155&ms=73,
51
Northern California Council for the Community, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report: Pathway to Results
Measuring Progress Toward Healthy and Self-Sufficient Families and Communities Pathways, sponsored by the
United Way, March 2003, p. 16, citing CalWORKs Data and Statistics: The Impact of CalWORKs on SelfSufficiency and Keeping People Out of Poverty, 2002
52
Northern California Council for the Community, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report: Pathway to Results
Measuring Progress Toward Healthy and Self-Sufficient Families and Communities Pathways, sponsored by the
United Way, March 2003, p. 16
53
California Budget Project, Special Report: Boom, Bust and Beyond, The State of Working California. Working But
Poor, California’s Families Fail to Make Ends Meet, May 2003, pp. 1-8
54
Ibid.
55
In Alameda County, the number of food stamp recipients increased 28% from 51,441 in 2002 to 66,055 in 2004. In
Contra Costa County, the number of food stamp recipients increased 39% from 19,392 in 2002 to 27,023 in 2004.
Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, WIA Planning Information Packet:
Alameda 2005, p. 1, and Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, WIA Planning
Information Packet: Contra Costa 2005, p. 1
56
Community and Economic Development Agency, City of Oakland, Council Agenda Report, A Report on the Status
of the Hunger Safety Net in Oakland, October 1, 2002, pp. 1-13. See also the Alameda Community Food Bank,
Hunger: The Faces and Facts, A Study of Emergency Food Recipients in Alameda County, 2002, p. 2-3
57
California Food Policy Advocates, 2004 County by County Profile, 2004
58
Alameda Community Food Bank, Hunger: The Faces and Facts, A Study of Emergency Food Recipients in Alameda
County, 2002, p. 2
40
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 119
59
California Food Policy Advocates, 2004 County by County Profile, 2004
California Budget Project, Budget Brief, Thousands Of California’s Low-Income Families Would Lose Housing
Assistance Under The Bush Budget Plan, April 2004, 2
61
Northern California Council for the Community, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report, Pathway to Results,
Measuring Progress Toward Healthy and Self-Sufficient Families and Communities Pathways, United Way Bay
Area, March 2003, 18
62
Data from the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, April 2005
63
The Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California, memo, April 4, 2005, and the California Budget
Project, Budget Brief, Thousands of California’s Low-income Families Would Lose Housing Assistance Under the
Bush Budget Plan, p.1
64
The Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California, memo, April 4, 2005
65
The Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California, memo, April 4, 2005. In Alameda County, there are
currently 20,512 authorized Section 8 vouchers. Up to 800 low-income families in Alameda could lose their Federal
housing assistance in 2005 and 3,628 in 2009. In Contra Costa County, there are currently 9,479 authorized
vouchers. Up to 377 low-income families in Contra Costa could lose their Federal housing assistance in 2005 and
1,671 in 2009
66
The Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California, memo, April 4, 2005
67
The Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California, memo, April 4, 2005
68
John Cullen, Director of the Contra Costa County Department of Employment and Human Services, interview,
March 22, 2005
69
Brenda Blasingame, Executive Director, Contra Costa County Children and Families Commission, Interview, March
30, 2005
70
John Cullen, Director of the Contra Costa County Department of Employment and Human Services, interview,
March 22, 2005
71
Brandon Leung, working on the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Making Connections Initiative in Lower San Antonio,
Oakland, interview, March 22, 2005
72
Child Welfare Services, Stakeholders Group, CWS Redesign: The Future of California’s Child Welfare Services,
Final Report, September 2003, 5
73
John Cullen, Director of the Contra Costa County Department of Employment and Human Services, interview,
March 22, 2005
74
John Cullen, Director of the Contra Costa County Department of Employment and Human Services, interview,
March 22, 2005
75
John Cullen, Director of the Contra Costa County Department of Employment and Human Services, interview,
March 22, 2005
76
AdvantAge Initiative, Identifying Pathways To An Aging-Friendly Community: Report from the Survey of Seniors
in Contra Costa County Age 65 and Older, Commissioned by Contra Costa for Every Generation, March 2005
77
Ibid.
78
Jan Pinney, Social Worker, Alameda County Area Agency on Aging, interview, April 1, 2005
79
United Way of the Bay Area, “Earn it! Keep it! Safe it! Bay Area 2005 Goals,” Excel spreadsheet
80
This information on the needs of low-income families was taken from material developed by the Evelyn and Walter
Haas, Jr. Fund in San Francisco.
81
This information on the needs of low-income families was taken from material developed by the Evelyn and Walter
Haas, Jr. Fund in San Francisco.
82
Ibid.
83
Ibid.
84
Northern California Council for the Community, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report, Pathway to Results,
Measuring Progress Toward Healthy and Self-Sufficient Families and Communities Pathways, United Way Bay
Area, March 2003, p. 7
85
This information on the needs of low-income families was taken from material developed by the Evelyn and Walter
Haas, Jr. Fund in San Francisco.
60
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 120
Harlem Children’s Zone, Brief Summary of Business Plan, web site: http://www.hcz.org/aboutus/aboutusp1.html#plan
87
Zellerbach Family Fund, Overview of the Immigrant and Refugee Program, March 2005
88
California Department of Education, DataQuest
89
Bay Area Coalition for Equitable Schools, Small Autonomous Schools — An Affordable Alternative
90
Bay Area Coalition of Essential Schools, 2003, internal documents.
91
An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Oakland Unified School District’s New Small Autonomous Schools (NSAS)
Policy (2000-2003), 2003, commissioned by the NSAS Partnership.
92
The Civil Rights Project, Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis in California, 2005, Harvard University
93
Oakland Unified School District, California Healthy Kids Survey, 2003
94
Ibid.
95
California Safe Schools Coalition and the 4-H Center for Youth Development, University of California, Davis, Safe
Place to Learn, Consequences of Harassment Based on Actual or Perceived Sexual Orientation and Gender NonConformity and Steps for Making Schools Safer, 2004
96
National Association of State Boards of Education, NASBE Policy Update, Vol. 3, No. 11
97
Supporting the Needs of Youth in California on Charles & Helen Schwab Foundation website:
http://www.schwabfoundation.org/index.php/articles/c31+85/ March 31, 2005
98
Safe Passages, Out-of-School Activities: An Assessment of After-School Programs and Resources, 2002, p. 21.
99
United Way of the Bay Area, Keeping Youth Safe: A Report on Violence Prevention in the Bay Area, 2005
100
Oakland City Council Memo, April 1, 2005.
101
United Way Bay Area, Keeping Youth Safe: A Report on Violence Prevention in the Bay Area, 2005
102
California School-Age Consortium, California Afterschool At A Glance: A Statewide Snapshot of Kids and the
Programs that Serve Them, 2004
103
US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2002 and Keeping Youth Safe: A Report on Violence
Prevention in the Bay Area, United Way of the Bay Area, 2005
104
US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2003
105
Interview with Maya Hart, Program Manager, Oakland Fund for Children and Youth, April, 2005.
106
California Department of Education, Data Quest, as cited in Keeping Youth Safe: A Report on Violence Prevention
in the Bay Area, United Way of the Bay Area, 2005
107
United Way of the Bay Area, Keeping Youth Safe: A Report on Violence Prevention in the Bay Area, 2005
108
Ibid.
109
W. Haywood Burns Institute for Juvenile Justice Fairness and Equity, State Disproportionate Minority Confinement
Data, http://www.burnsinstitute.org/dmc/ca/alameda.html and
http://www.burnsinstitute.org/dmc/ca/contracosta.html, websites, visited March 2005
110
Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, National Center for Youth Law,
National Council on Crime and Delinquency and Youth Law Center, Alameda County at the Crossroads of Juvenile
Justice Reform: A National Disgrace—Or A National Model? 2002, p. 15.
111
Ibid. p.13
112
API Youth Violence Prevention Center, Under the Microscope: Asian & Pacific Islander Youth in Oakland, 2003
113
Information on health funding from California Department of Finance Budget Summary website:
http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/BUDGETSUMMARYOVERVIEW/section1_1.html, and from
California Wellness Foundation Board Memo, Ruth Holton Hodson, February 22, 2005
114
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in
Health Care, 2002
115
Policy Link Reducing Health Disparities, Through a Focus on Communities, 2002
116
Alameda County Public Health Department, A Framework for Change: Reducing Health Disparities in Alameda
County, 2002, p.1
117
Ibid. pp. 7-8
118
2003 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)
119
Contra Costa Health Services, 2004, Community Health Indicators for Selected Places in Contra Costa County p.
17; data from California Health Interview Survey
86
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 121
120
2003 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)
Alameda County Public Health Department, Alameda County Health Status Report, 2003
122
Ibid.
123
Alameda County Public Health Department, Select Health Indicators For Cities In Alameda County, 2004
124
Contra Costa Health Services, Community Health Indicators for Selected Places in Contra Costa County, 2004
125
California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, cited in Northern California Council for the
Community, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report, 2003
126
Oakland Berkeley Asthma Coalition, Oakland/Berkeley Asthma Hospitalization Report, Vol. 1, 2004,
127
Ibid.
128
Transportation and Land Use Coalition, Cleaning the Air, Growing Smarter: Transportation and Land Use
Changes to Improve Public Health in Contra Costa County, 2003
129
Contra Costa Health Services, Community Health Indicators for Selected Places in Contra Costa County, 2004
130
Alameda County Public Health Department, Alameda County Health Status Report, 2003
131
E-mail correspondence with Jo Kerner, Alameda County Public Health Dept., Office of Dental Health. The report
is now in draft form. The report will be released in May 2005.
132
Contra Costa County Health Services, An Update on Children’s Oral Health, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa
County Health Services, 2003
133
California Obesity Initiative, Department of Finance budget summary,
http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/MAJORPROGRAMAREAS/HealthandHumanServices/section2_4.html
134
California Food Policy Advocates, Alameda County Nutrition Profile, 2004
135
California Food Policy Advocates, Contra Costa Nutrition Profile, 2004
136
Contra Costa Health Services, Community Health Indicators for Selected Places in Contra Costa County, 2004, p.
31
137
Prevention Institute website: Health Disparities http://www.preventioninstitute.org/healthdis.html April 15, 2005
138
Policy Link, Reducing Health Disparities Through a Focus on Communities, 2002
139
Alameda County Public Health Department, A Framework for Change: Reducing Health Disparities in Alameda
County, 2002, pp. 50-55
140
Bay Area Alliance For Sustainable Communities, Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area: Economy, Environment,
Equity, November 2003, 8
141
East Bay Community Foundation, Bay Area Livable Communities Initiative: A Funders Collaborative in the San
Francisco Bay Area, Concept Paper/Preliminary Plans, February 2005
142
Ibid.
143
Ibid.
144
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, Translation Paper #1, 2nd Edition: Regional
Equity and Smart Growth, 2004
145
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
146
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
147
East Bay Housing Nonprofits, web site http://www.ebho.org/stats.htm
148
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Multi-Year Profile, Alameda County, web site:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/05000US060014.htm, and U.S.
Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Multi-Year Profile, Contra Costa County, web site:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/05000US060134.htm
149
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
150
Ibid.
151
Economic Development Alliance for Business, EDAB, The East Bay: 2004 Indicators, 11
152
Ibid.
153
East Bay Community Foundation, Bay Area Livable Communities Initiative: A Funders Collaborative in the San
Francisco Bay Area, Concept Paper/Preliminary Plans, February 2005
121
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 122
154
Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report, Pathways to Results:
Measuring Progress toward Sustainability, January 2003 (Revised May 2004), 36
155
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
156
Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report, Pathways to Results:
Measuring Progress toward Sustainability, January 2003 (Revised May 2004), 36
157
Ibid, 35
158
Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities, State of the Bay Area: A Regional Report, Pathways to Results:
Measuring Progress toward Sustainability, January 2003 (Revised May 2004), 35
159
Economic Development Alliance for Business, 2004-2005 Strategic Action Plan, 9
160
Economic Development Alliance for Business, EDAB, The East Bay: 2004 Indicators, 17
161
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
162
Economic Development Alliance for Business, EDAB, The East Bay:2004 Indicators, 17
163
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
164
Economic Development Alliance for Business, EDAB, The East Bay: 2004 Indicators, 17
165
Rob Guptill and Jeff Hobson, Cleaning the Air, Growing Smarter: Transportation and Land Use Changes to
Improve Public Health in Contra Costa County (Oakland: Transportation and Land Use Coalition, 2003), 21.
Available at http://www.transcoalition.org/reports/ccair/full_ccair_view.pdf. Based on statistics originally from
Association of Bay Area Government, Smart Growth Strategy: Round 1 Workshop Results, April 2002. Available at
www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/AltsTechApp/Contra%20Costa%20Alt%20Data.htm.
166
Bay Area Council, 2004 Bay Area Pol, Table 1, December 9, 2004, 1
167
Guptill and Hobson, 22.
168
Hobson, Jeff and Tom Hodges, Clearing the Road to Work: Developing a Transportation Lifeline for Low Income
Residents of Alameda County (Oakland, CA, Transportation Choices Forum, 2000), 4. Available at
http://www.transcoalition.org/archives/forum/clearing.pdf.
169
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
170
Based on data from Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program, Land Resource Protection – Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, State of California,
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/ (accessed March 2005).
171
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
172
This combined figure obscures the fact that Contra Costa County lost 1,669 acres of important farmland (including
prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland and farmland of local importance) over this
period, while it actually gained 305 acres of grazing land.
173
Based on data from Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program, Land Resource Protection – Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, State of California,
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/ (accessed March 2005).
174
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
175
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, A Getting Started Resource Guide for Community
Foundations, Fall 2004, 4
176
Economic Development Alliance for Business, EDAB, The East Bay: 2004 Indicators, 27
177
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
178
Greenbelt Alliance, At Risk: the Bay Area Greenbelt (San Francisco: Greenbelt Alliance, 2000), 4. Available (in
two parts) at http://www.greenbelt.org/resources/reports/index.html
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 123
179
Based on data presented in Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities, Bay Area Indicators: Measuring
Progress Toward Sustainability (Oakland California: Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities, January
2003; revised May 2004), 38. Available at http://www.bayareaalliance.org/indicators.pdf
180
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
181
According to the California Natural Diversity Database, Contra Costa has 112 endangered or threatened species and
species of special concern and identifies twelve community types of special conservation concern. Alameda County
has 101 endangered or threatened species and species of special concern in the county and identifies seven
community types of special conservation concern. California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural
Diversity Database, State of California, http://www.uga.edu/profile/pride.html
(accessed March 23, 2005; data downloaded via “Quick Viewer” link).
182
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Association, East Contra Costa County NCCP/HCP, East Contra
Costa County Habitat Conservation Association, http://www.cocohcp.org/ (accessed March 2005)
183
East Bay Community Foundation, Bay Area Livable Communities Initiative: A Funders Collaborative in the San
Francisco Bay Area, Concept Paper/Preliminary Plans, February 2005
184
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth, Translation Paper #16: Air Quality and Smart Growth: Planning for
Cleaner Air, 2005
185
Overall ambient air quality, as measured by the composite Air Quality Index in Alameda County is generally good,
with AQI values classified as good on 92% of days for which monitoring data were available in 2004. On the
remaining 8% of days, air quality was classified as moderate. Conditions were slightly worse in 2003, with 13% of
days with moderate air quality, and 2% with poor. Contra Costa’s ambient air quality is generally good. The
composite Air Quality Index showed Contra Costa County to have good air quality on 88% of days sampled, with
moderate air quality on 12% of days, and poor air quality on only a single day in 2004. Conditions were not quite as
good in 2003, with only 80% of days of good air quality, 18% moderate, and 1% poor. Ambient ground-level ozone
(smog) was the pollutant that leads to poor air quality scores most frequently. Data on air quality drawn from
Environmental Defense (ED), “Scorecard Home”, http://www.scorecard.org/, (accessed March 2005). United States
Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Air Data – Select Geographic Area”, US EPA,
http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html (accessed March 2005).
186
In Alameda County, a total of 138 industrial and other stationary sources for criteria pollutants were listed in EPA
emission data for 1999, the most recent year for which data are available. These facilities released slightly more than
5000 tons of criteria pollutants that year. Three of the four largest emitters of air pollution were sewage treatment
plants. In Contra Costa County, a total of 87 industrial and other stationary sources were listed in EPA’s facilities
emission reports for 1999, the most recent year for which data are available. Permitted sources released a total of
more than 40,000 tons of these pollutants that year. The ten facilities that released the largest quantities of criteria
air pollutants included four petroleum refineries and four power plants. See Environmental Defense (ED),
“Scorecard Home”, http://www.scorecard.org/, (accessed March 2005). United States Environmental Protection
Agency, “EPA Air Data – Select Geographic Area”, US EPA, http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html (accessed
March 2005).
187
Guptill and Hobson, 1.
188
Environmental Defense (ED), “Scorecard Home”, http://www.scorecard.org/, (accessed March 2005). United
States Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Air Data – Select Geographic Area”, US EPA,
http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html (accessed March 2005).
189
Greenbelt Alliance, Contra Costa County: Smart Growth Or Sprawl? An In-Depth Analysis Of The County’s
Sprawl Threats And Opportunities For Smarter Growth, June 2003
190
Guptill and Hobson, 1.
191
Environmental Defense (ED), “Scorecard Home”, http://www.scorecard.org/, (accessed March 2005). United
States Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Explorer: Chemical Report”,
http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/, (accessed March 2005).
192
Ibid.
193
Gar Smith, “Taking the Toxic Tour,” Common Ground Magazine, February 2005. Available at
http://www.commongroundmag.com/2005/cg3202/toxictour3202.html, (accessed March 2005).
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 124
Environmental Defense (ED), “Scorecard Home”, http://www.scorecard.org/, (accessed March 2005). United
States Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Explorer: Chemical Report”,
http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/, (accessed March 2005).
195
Craig Flournoy, “Refinery accidents, anxiety increase: Minorities face 'ticking time bombs,” Dallas Morning
News, October 1, 2000, 24a. Available online at
http://charlotte.utdallas.edu/mgis/news_items/TOXIC%20TRAP%20SERIES%20Refinery%20Accidents.htm
(accessed March 2005).
196
Gar Smith, “Taking the Toxic Tour,” Common Ground Magazine, February 2005. Available at
http://www.commongroundmag.com/2005/cg3202/toxictour3202.html, (accessed March 2005). .
197
Contra Costa Health Services, “Hazardous Materials Incident Search Application – Contra Costa Health Services,”
http://www.cchealth.org/z/app/incident_search/incident.php (accessed April 2005).
198
Data on water quality was derived from several sources including: the Environmental Defense website,
http://www.scorecard.org; the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), “SWRCB/303(d) List of Water
Quality Impaired Segments” State of California, http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_lists.html (accessed March
2005); the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “EPA - Total Maximum Daily Loads”,
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/ (accessed April 2005); and Charles N. Alpers and Michael P. Hunerlach, “Mercury
Contamination from Historic Gold Mining in California” U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-061-00
(Sacramento, CA, U.S. Geological Survey (2000).
199
Data on toxic chemicals in marine life derived from several sources: Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, “OEHHA: Fish - Site-Specific Advisory Information. State of California,
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/fish/so_cal/index.html (accessed April 2005); East Bay Regional Park District, “Interim
County Health Advisory, Chemicals in Reservoirs,” East Bay Regional Park District,
http://www.ebparks.org/fish/chem_advisory.htm, (accessed March 2005); and Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, “Chemicals is Fish from Ten Reservoirs in
Alameda, Contra, Santa Clara and Marin Counties: Interim County Health Advisories,” Fact Sheet, California
Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.cchealth.org/topics/warnings/pdf/fact_sheet_reservoirs.pdf (accessed
April 2005).
200
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, A Getting Started Resource Guide for Community
Foundations, Fall 2004, 5. Citing Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, Translation
Paper #11.
201
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, A Getting Started Resource Guide for Community
Foundations, Fall 2004, 5. Citing Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, Translation
Paper # 9
202
Environmental Defense, “Scorecard,” http://www.scorecard.org. See also United States Environmental Protection
Agency “EPA - Window to My Environment,” http://www.epa.gov/enviro/wme/, (accessed April 2005).
203
InfoOakland, “Median Income and Toxic Sites” (map) http://www.infooakland.org/media/pdf/Income_Toxic.pdf.
Info Oakland (accessed April 2005).
204
Environmental Defense, “Scorecard,” http://www.scorecard.org. See also United States Environmental Protection
Agency “EPA - Window to My Environment,” http://www.epa.gov/enviro/wme/, (accessed April 2005).
205
Environmental Defense, “Scorecard,” http://www.scorecard.org/
206
M. Wong, P. English, E. Roberts, C. Wolf, S. Valdez, S. van den Eden and G.T. Ray, “Improving Asthma
Information Through Tracking,” Undated Poster Presentation , no date, available at:
http://www.catracking.com/resources/pp1/Improving%20Asthma%20Through%20Tracking%20Poster%20SF%20CDC%20Oct%202004.pdf
207
Bay Area Air Quality Management District “BAAQMD – Community Air Risk Evaluation Program. BAAQMD,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/CARE/index.asp (accessed April 2005)
208
Association of Bay Area Governments, Smart Growth Strategy: Regional Livability Footprint Project, Briefing
Book for Public Workshop Participants and Other Bay Area Residents, August 2001, 3
209
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Smart Growth Strategy Regional Livability Footprint Project:
Shaping the Future of the Nine-County Bay Area Briefing Book for Public Workshop Participants and Other Bay
Area Residents, August 2001
194
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 125
210
Association of Bay Area Governments, Smart Growth Strategy: Regional Livability Footprint Project, Briefing
Book for Public Workshop Participants and Other Bay Area Residents, August 2001
211
Ibid.
212
Ibid.
213
Ibid.
214
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth, Translation Paper #16: Air Quality and Smart Growth: Planning for
Cleaner Air, 2005
215
Economic Development Alliance for Business (EDAB), The East Bay: 2004 Indicators, 26
216
Association of Bay Area Governments, Smart Growth Strategy: Regional Livability Footprint Project, Briefing
Book for Public Workshop Participants and Other Bay Area Residents, August 2001
217
Martha Matsuoka, Building Healthy Communities from the Ground Up: Environmental Justice in California,
September 2003, 10
218
Ibid, 1
219
Ibid, 2
220
Ibid.
221
Jack Chin, Bay Area Environmental Education: How Do We Know We’re Making a Difference? Final Report of the
Bay Area Environmental Education Evaluation Learning Community, July 2004
222
Ibid.
223
Art Funding IV, Foundation Center, 2003
224
US Grant Visualizer, Foundation Search online data: http://secure.foundationsearch.com/fshtml/search/gvisualizer/GrantVisualizer.asp April, 12, 2005
225
Joan, Jeffri, Information on Artist III: A study of artists’ work-related human and social service needs in the Bay
Area, Research Center for Arts and Culture, Columbia University Teachers College, 2004
226
Investing in Creativity: A Study of the Support Structure for U.S. Artists, 2003, Urban Institute
227
USF Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management, Alameda Contra Costa Analysis, Nonprofit
Organizations by Type of Activity, 1999-2002, based on data from the Internal Revenue Service, Business Master
Files, downloaded from www.irs.gov/eo, and the National Center for Charitable Statistics, Core Files.
228
Ibid.
229
Ibid.
230
Ibid.
231
Ibid.
232
Metasoft, FoundationSearch.com database, http://www.foundationsearch.com/, accessed April 12, 2005
233
Jed Emerson and Paul Carttar, Money Matters: The Structure, Operations and Challenges of Nonprofit Funding,
The Bridgespan Group, January 2003
234
USF Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management, Alameda Contra Costa Analysis, Nonprofit Organizations
by Type of Activity, 1999-2002, based on data from the Internal Revenue Service, Business Master Files,
downloaded from www.irs.gov/eo, and the National Center for Charitable Statistics, Core Files.
235
Ibid.
236
Metasoft, FoundationSearch.com database, http://www.foundationsearch.com/, accessed April 12, 2005
237
East Bay Community Foundation, East Bay Community Foundation 2002-2003 Annual Report, 2003
238
Foundation Center, The State of Foundation Giving, 2004, 2004, 1
239
United Way of the Bay Area, Nonprofit Pulse Survey 2004, 1-4
240
Stretched Thin: State Budget Cuts Threaten California’s Health and Human Services Programs (2004); and What
Would the President’s Proposed Budget Mean for California? (2005), The California Budget Project
http://www.cbp.org
241
Florence L. Green and Thomas E. Backer, Holes in the Safety-net: Study of Funding Cutbacks and Safety-net
Nonprofit sin California, May 2004, California Association of Nonprofits and Human Interaction Research Institute
242
Ann Lehman, Nonprofit Accountability: At What Price? ZimNotes, April 1, 2005
243
Ibid.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 126
244
Ibid.
EBCF Community Assessment
April 2005
Page 127