HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-06 City Council (13)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
1
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Community Services
DATE:MAY 6, 1996 CMR:254:96
SUBJECT: FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER BUSINESS PLAN
REQUEST
The purpose of this report is to transmit the Family Resource Center Task Force’s business
plan to the City Council. No Council action is requested at this time.
Since time did not permit staff to thoroughly review the plan before the Task Force’s
presentation to Council, a staff response does not accompany this plan. Based upon a
preliminary review, however, staff believes more work will be required to develop a
complete business plan and implementation recommendations. Staff will return with a time
line for the next steps.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are no recommendations for action at this time.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This report does not represent any change to existing policies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy
According to the Family Resource Center Task Force time line as stated in CMR: 125:96,
the Task Force was scheduled to complete its business plan by March 1996. With the
finalization and presentation of this plan to the City Council, the Task Force has successfully
completed its charge and, following its last meeting on April 18, 1996, has disbanded. The
staff from the Office of Human Services has also completed its support of this project. The
only outstanding item from the City staffs perspective is the recommendation for
implementation, which will be done once the budget process is completed.
CMR:254:96 Page 1 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT
The FRC Business Plan contains a funding request of $450,000 over a three-year period.
Staff will return to Council with an analysis of the plan’s funding request, its impacts on
fiscal and staff resources, and recommendations for action. The FRC Task Force also
expects to request continued financial support beyond the initial three-year start-up phase,
although the details of that request have not yet been formulated.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
There is no need for an environmental assessment.
ATTACHMENTS
Family Resource Center Task Force Letter to City Council
Family Resource Center Business Plan
PREPARED BY: Ilene Hertz, Manager of Child Care and Family Services
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
PAUL THILTI
Director of Community Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Cit~ Mahager
CMR:254:96 Page 2 of 2
Family Resource Center Task Force
Office of Human Services
May 1, 1996
Dear Council Members:
Two years ago former Mayor Liz Kniss pledged to create a partnership among government, the
community, and businesses to respond to the changing needs of families in our community. The
Family Resource Center (FRC) Task Force, consisting of service providers, community leaders,
and parents, was created to further develop the concept of a family resource center for Palo Alto.
At this time, the FRC Task Force is excited to present you with a plan for an innovative ww of
supporting the families of our city.
Over the course of the last two years, numerous community meetings were held which resulted in
some startling findings:
g" Families from al! socioeconomic levels expressed a sense of being overwhelmed by the
challenge of balancing work and family life.
,/ While there are many family-related services in the community, families feel isolated and lack
awareness of those services.
" The sense of neighborhood as we understand it from 20 years ago does not exist today.
The FRC, in addressing the above-identified needs, has developed a plan which does not create
another bureaucratic layer which would only add to the frustration families experience today.
Instead, the model created represents a collaborative, public/private parmership consisting of
"high-tech" and "high-touch" elements which aims to strengthen and empower families and the
community to achieve a seamless network of family support.
The report of the FRC Task Force consists of a comprehensive presentation which will be made
on May 6 and the attached FRC Business Plan. This Business Plan is not intended to be an
encompassing, stand-alone document, but rather a source of background information and
documentation. The Task Force felt that the full impact of the report could not be contained in the
nuts and bolts of a business plan. Rather, the sense of urgency expressed by families and the
commitment and collaboration of the FRC Task Force’s response is best conveyed in the
presentation and ensuing dialogue with Council members.
FRC Task Force
FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER
BUSINESS PLAN
Developed by the
Palo Alto Family Resource Center Task Force
April 1996
Family Resource Center Business Plan
Table of Contents
History
Mission, Values, Vision 2
Community Profile 3
Community Input 4
Statement of Challenge 5
Niche 7
Program Plan 9
Timeline 1 3
Evaluation 1 4
Budget 1 5
Funding Plan 1 8
page
1
Appendix A State of the City Address by Mayor Liz Kniss 5/9/94
Appendix B Family Resource Center Task Force Membership Roster
Appendix C Family Resource Center Demographics Subcommittee Report
Appendix D Family Resource Center Providers Survey Report
Appendix E Family Resource Center Focus Groups Report
FRC Business Plan
History
Since 1989, discussions have been held between representatives of various citizen advisory groups,
the Palo Alto Unified School District, and the City of Palo Alto concerning the challenges facing
families in the community. Over the past decade, there has been a growing sense of urgency in our
community about the health and well-being of our families and children. Some of the ideas from
these early discussions were included in the Palo Alto Child Care Task Force’s Child Care Master
Plan, which was approved by the City Council on December 18, 1989.
In 1993, community leaders responded to the continuing concerns of their neighbors and friends in
Palo Alto by elevating family issues to the level of public discourse. The Family Resource Center
concept was born when this informal group of citizens, School District representatives, and human
service providers again approached the City of Palo Alto in an effort to strengthen community
support for families. From the very beginning of the initiative, those involved knew that healthy
families are vital to the growth and health of the community and that the community needed to
actively support its families.
In her May 9, 1994, State of the City speech, former Mayor Liz Kniss brought the Family Resource
Center concept to the forefront by emphasizing the need for the City, School District and other
forces in the community to respond to the changing needs of families. The major focus of the
Family Resource Center initiative was to assist Palo Alto’s families in balancing their dual, and often
competing, roles of leading active and successful professional lives with the pressures inherent in
raising a healthy family in the 1990’s.
The Palo Alto City Council endorsed the process of developing a conceptual proposal for a Family
Resource Center for Palo Alto’s families on July 5, 1994. At that time, Council directed the City
Manager to assign staff resources to act as liaison and support to a Family Resource Center
volunteer planning group, which included parents, School District representatives, and family
service providers. This Ad Hoc Committee conducted a series of public meetings and a survey of
Palo Alto families in an effort to gather community input.
In November 1994, this committed group of volunteers was expanded into a 29-member Task
Force. This group set out to achieve several goals in preparation for writing the Family Resource
Center Master Plan: Hiring a coordinator, gathering additional community input, and designing a
program that would address issues raised by community families.
page 1
FRC Business Plan
Mission and Values
The Family Resource Center is founded on the belief that families and community are
interdependent and that the health of each depends on the strength of the other.
Mission
The Palo Alto Family Resource Center engages our.community to build on existing strengths to
promote the well-l~ing of our children and families.
Values
1.Promote quality family life
2.Honor and respond to diverse needs of families in our community
3.Enable families, neighborhoods, and service providers to make things work
4.Respect and support personal responsibility for self, family, and community
5.Encourage on-going community input and participation
6.Use collaborative model
7.Respond to family issues raised by community
8.Maintain proactive and preventive programming
Vision
Our initiative acknowledges both the strengths of community resources already supporting the
families in our community and the serious challenges confronting today’s families. Many
institutions and informal organizations currently provide a diverse army of family-supportive
services and activities, but our community’s families are often unable to access those resources due
to lack of information or lack of time. Even families with the most financially stable and well-
educated breadwinners are experiencing isolation, stress, and a lack of connection with their
community.
There are quality services in our community that are benefiting families, but many families are not
aware of those resources. The Family Resource Center (FRC) will help connect families to
resources which already exist. The success of the FRC depends upon its connection to and support
of our community’s neighborhood associations, human service providers, child care providers,
businesses, block clubs, local government, schools, residents, and others.
By concentrating on the strengths rather than the weaknesses of our families and our community,
the FRC can build a solid foundation of collaborative and non-duplicative family-supportive
programs. This initiative aims to strengthen and enable families, primary care givers and the
community to achieve a seamless network of support for our community’s families.
page 2
FRC Business Plan
Community Profile
The City of Palo Alto is a vibrant community .of approximately 57,000 residents, a high percentage
of whom are highly educated and many of whom have migrated from other parts of the country or
the world to live here. Palo Alto encompasses many communities within the larger municipal
community including religious, ethnic, language, and geographically-based groups.
Palo Alto culture is also strongly influenced by the technological and economic power of Silicon
Valley; expectations are high for community members and institutions alike. As expressed by one
local, "You can work any 90 hours (a week) you like" here in the fast-paced business world of
computers, biotechnology, and other thriving industries. The public school system in Palo Alto is
no less competitive, with 76 percent of high school graduates in the District planning to enter
four-year colleges.. For our young children and infants, child care is the issue. Parents find it
extremely difficult to obtain affordable child care; families also struggle with accessing information
about child care and local providers.
.Our residents have high expectations not only for themselves but. also for our community. Palo
Altans ensure a high level of performance by our municipality and other community institutions
through their outstanding level of civic and community involvement. Through city task forces,
community advisory boards, and countless other volunteer groups, Palo Alto residents have helped
to develop and maintain a solid foundation for the community: an exemplary public school district;
a myriad of family-focused non-profit agencies; an extensive system of public parks and open
space; and a sound infrastructure including well-planned and maintained residential and commercial
zones, utilities, telecommunications, and transportation systems.
In turn, the City of Palo Alto is progressive in recognizing the appropriate role for local government
in responding to community trends and citizen concerns. Over the past few decades, the City of
Palo Alto has initiated several innovative programs to address community concerns, including the
Senior Coordinating Council, Palo Alto Community Child Care, the Career Action Center, the Teen
Center, and the Palo Alto recycling program. Despite the obvious strengths of our residents and
community, there are serious challenges that our families need assistance in meeting.
page 3
FRC Business Plan
Community Input
The FRC Ad Hoc group laid the foundation for the FRC’s information-gathering projects by
reviewing existing community assessment documents, including the PAUSD November 1993
Student Health Survey, 1990 U.S. Census data for Palo Alto, Palo Alto Employee/Community
Child Care Needs Assessment 1989, The Palo Alto Child Care Provider Survey of 1993, and the
1993 U.S. Department of Labor - Women’s Bureau Survey.
The Ad Hoc group began the FRC’s outreach into the community by conducting a family survey
and holding two public meetings during 1994 and 1995J The family survey was distributed in
September 1994 to all PAUSD families attending Back-to-School Night and to a sampling of child
care centers. The results of the survey revealed that parents are interested in the following:¯Locally-based services
Library
Local school
Neighborhood center¯Community service opportunities¯Baby-sitting services and information about services¯Child care services and information about services¯Information on resources for families
The November 17, 1995 public meeting was attended primarily by service providers. Meeting
participants discussed a myriad of potential users of Family Resource Center services and
collaborative modes of serving Palo Alto families.
During 1995, the Family Resource Center Task Force conducted a survey of family service
providers and a series of focus groups for Palo Alto residents.2 The providers’ survey, sent to 127
agencies in Palo Alto and surrounding areas, yielded encouraging results. Most major types of
services are provided in Palo Alto and surrounding communities, and agencies are willing to
collaborate. This information supports the plan for an FRC that would help to strengthen existing
services and improve access by encouraging collaborative programming.
During October and November of 1995, the Task Force held a series of five community focus
groups and a telephone survey. The results of these two projects include several issues common
across geographical and cultural groups:
¯lack of accessible information
° a serious lack of quality child care, drop-in care, and baby-sitting
* a need for community building to develop connections among families
¯ a desire for a comfortable family resource center.
The focus groups and phone survey also yielded information unique to each of the five groups (this
information is detailed in the FRC document entitled "Family Resource Center Focus
Groups/Phone Surveys Summary Report"). For example, participants in the Japanese-American
focus group were particularly interested in culturally-specific activities and programs for their
American-born children.
The details of the needs assessment review and family survey are outlined in Appendix C, the 1995 FRC
"Demogaphics Subcommittee Report."
The methodology and results of the FRC Task Force’s community input projects are detailed in Appendices D and
page 4
FRC Business Plan
Statement of Challenge
Inherent in the mission, vision, and values of the Family Resource Center is a focu~ on the
strengths, not the problems, of our families and community. The goal of the FRC is to build on
existing strengths in order to address urgent concerns and on-going challenges expressed by Palo
Alto families and community agencies. Concerns and on-going challenges include:
Families
Coping with work and school
Overcoming isolation
Accessing information and services
Child care, baby-sitting, and drop-in care
Agencies
Maintaining high level of services
Collaborating
The Task Force defined three main themes that emerged from the data collection phase:
o Information dissemination (using various methods to get the information about existing
services to all Palo Alto families)°Facilitation of community building efforts (supporting community-based efforts to reduce
isolation among families)¯Advocacy for families (working with corporations and communities).
We learned one of the most important lessons from the people who DID NOT attend our focus
groups: Palo Alto is a diverse community with extremely busy residents. The strength of a highly
educated, highly-employed community leads to the challenge of overcoming the isolation that can
develop from a hectic lifestyle. Our families are missing the vital connections to community and
other families that form the basic foundation of a healthy life for parents, care givers, and children.
Many parents and care givers heard about the focus groups and were interested, but simply did not
have a free hour in the month to devote to yet another activity. Some are busy professionals and
others are working two or three jobs just to pay.the rent.
Despite the drop-in child care available during the focus groups, some parents with very young
children were reluctant to attend. They prefer to leave their infants and toddlers with people they
know, but do not have family or close friends nearby to help out with the children. Many Palo Alto
residents migrated from other cities and states to live here, but often their extended families did not.
The participants in the FRC focus groups revealed that our families, who are extremely involved in
work, school, and other activities, experience isolation within the smaller communities of
neighborhood and street. Families want connections with their neighbors, but are often so
overwhelmed by the demands of life that those connections are difficult to achieve and maintain.
For the same reasons, families struggle to access the resources which are currently available. In the
information age, people are overwhelmed by the abundance of information which exists. Unable to
navigate the maze of radio, television, printed, and other materials, parents want easy, clear access to
information important to their families. Focus group participants were especially interested in
referrals for child care, baby-sitters, and drop-in care. There simply is not enough affordable,
quality child care in Palo Alto to meet the needs of our families. Our working parents are
overwhelmed by this severe obstacle: How can parents work to support their families when there is
no one to take care of the children?
page 5
FRC Business Plan
The rich cultural and language diversity of our community also presents a challenge for the FRC
initiative. Despite our bilingual facilitators and translators (Spanish, Japanese, Russian, and
Cantonese), our focus group template was not appropriate for all groups. Not one person attended
our Russian and Chinese community focus groups; the diversity of our community challenged the
FRC to develop a multi-faceted approach to gathering input, the start of which was our telephone
survey project.
The institutions and community groups that support our families need support to maintain and
improve current levels of services and activities. Non-profit organizations surveyed by the FRC
want financial and fundraising technical assistance. They are willing to collaborate to better serve
our community, and are already doing so. The Palo Alto Unified School District provides vital
supportive services for families in addition to the quality education for which the District is known.
Nevertheless, the District, like non-profits and other community institutions, does not have the
resources to meet all of the needs of our families.
page 6
FRC Business Plan
Niche of FRC
(How is FRC different from other family resource programs?)
The FRC is built upon a unique set of values which sets it apart from traditional service providers:
Connections between people
Asset-based approach
Pmactive and preventive
Collaborative
Defined by community
Connections between people
During the entire FRC planning process, the Family Resource Center Task Force has emphasized
the connections between people and families as paramount to the well-being of our community.
This idea was supported by the FRC Family Survey, which revealed that most families prefer
activities and services in their own neighborhood. The most powerful support for this value came
from the FRC Focus Groups, in which parents from North, South, and West Palo Alto told us in
English, Spanish, and Japanese just how important human-to-human contact is for them and their
families.
Asset-based approaqh
Traditionally, service providers have focused on the deficits of the individual, family, and
community in an effort to remedy "problems."
Recent trends in community work have shifted toward an asset-based approach. With this approach,
the focus is on the unique characteristics and skills of the individual, strengths of the family, and
assets of the community. For example, a community is defined not by its dropout rates and level of
unemployment, but by its strong community organizations, local businesses, and cultural history.
Similarly, a young girl is characterized by her ability to understand math and not by her difficulty
with reading. The power of this approach is embodied by the difference between supporting /
building and fixing.
The FRC aims to build upon the strength of what already exists within our families and
community. We recognize that all families can benefit from Family Resource Center support and all
of our families have assets which can be shared and built upon. Similarly, the FRC Task Force
recognizes that the Palo Alto area is rich in family-focused services and aims to connect and build
upon those resources.
Proactive and preventive
The FRC aims to support families within our community so that crises are avoided and issues
addressed before they become "problems."
Collaborative
As a collaborative effort at both the planning and implementation levels, the FRC recognizes the
value and experience of existing groups and institutions currently supporting families. Instead of
competing with or duplicating the rich array of services in the Palo Alto area, the FRC supports and
links existing resources.
Although collaboration has become a buzzword and a requirement from funders, the FRC
recognizes the level of investment necessary to truly achieve collaboration. A goal of the FRC is to
move beyond communication and co-location to collaboration through its Membership Club, which
page 7
FRC Business Plan
includes sharing resources and providing services in a coordinated, connected manner. Specifically,
the FRC Membership Club will encourage and support staff sharing, joint fundraising efforts, and
joint ~’ainings.
Defined .bY community
The FRC initiative has been and will continue to be driven by the concerns of local families. During
planning, the Task Force emphasized community input through the Family Survey and focus
groups. For FRC implementation, the Task Force plan mandates on-going community involvement
through the Advisory Council, outreach by FRC staff, and neighborhood-defined projects. Possible
neighborhood projects might include organizing a baby-sitting co-op or developing a neighborhood
watch group. These projects will be determined and developed by Palo Alto residents with
assistance and support from the FRC.
page 8
FRC Business Plan
FRC Program Plan
The Task Force outlined a basic plan for FRC structure and programming that will address the
concerns and issues raised by Palo Alto residents and family-serving agencies.
Structure and Governance
Governance and Guidance during..Start-Up Phase (3 years)
Fiscal and administrative agency - City of Palo Alto
*Model of Senior Coordinating Council and other City of Palo Alto spin-offs is
appropriate for FRC.
o The FRC will benefit from the stability of operating under the City’s administrative
structure. This support will allow the Advisory Council to develop a strong plan by which
the FRC will become a separate entity.
Program and policy guidance - FRC Advisory Council
Council includes residents, including parents, and representatives of non-profits, the
School District, the City of Palo Alto, businesses, and other community institutions
* Provides programmatic and policy guidance for FRC
o Solicits community input
o Spearhead funding development efforts with support from FRC staff
o Monitors evaluation of FRC program
Governance and Guidance - Four Years and Beyond
Administrative and policy- FRC Non-profit agency
* FRC incorporates and forms Board of Directors
o Close ties maintained with City, School District,
institutions
non-profits, and other community
Facilities and Staffing
Facilities - FRC Administrative Hub and Resource Room
Provides families and the community with a physical site from which to leverage existing resources
and bring them back to the neighborhood.
Function of Hub:
Coordination of services
Promotion of FRC values
Storage and display of information
Physical meeting space
Characteristics of Hub:
Inviting
Warm
Comfortable
Convenient hours
page 9
FRCBusiness Plan
Staffing
FRC Director
Maximizes/leverages community resources
Works with Advisory Council
Coordinates membership club
Implements needs assessment and other information gathering projects
Fund development
Advocacy
Resource Manager
Facility management
Palo Alto Family Information program coordination
Collect and dispatch information
Coordinate hub volunteers
FRC Programs
The Family Resource Center programming plan has four components:
Information Dissemination
Neighborhood / Community building
Collaboration
Advocacy
During the Family Resource Center start-up phase, programming and initiative efforts will focus on
the needs of families with children ages birth to six. The FRC aims to concentrate on these children
for the following reasons:
¯Finding.affordable child care for this age group is a huge struggle for families.
¯ This age group is not yet connected with the School District and other institutions aimed at
older children, and their care givers have a more difficult time making connections with
resources and other families with children of the same age.
o Their care givers are often overwhelmed by the intensity of raising a young child,
especially when combined with a stressful work life.
Information Dissemination
The information component of FRC programming will include on-site written, audio, and video
materials; online access; and person-to-person contact.
The Family Resource Center library, located at the administrative hub, will contain books,
magazines, files, video tapes, and audio tapes for community use. Additionally, visitors may use a
public computer terminal to access online resources, including the World Wide Web and family
focused chat rooms. The FRC Resource Coordinator will develop a team of trained volunteers to
implement a personal Palo Alto Family Information program through which new Palo Alto
residents and new parents receive a personal visit. The Palo Alto Family Information program
volunteers will deliver informational materials, offer a friendly welcome to the community, and be
page 10
FRC Business Plan
ready with referrals to neighborhood services. Palo Alto Family Information program dissemination
will also include on-going coordination with the Chamber of Commerce, local realtors, and health
facilities.
The printed materials for the Palo Alto Family Information program will include the following
documents:
Letter introducing FRC
List of neighborhood associations
Guide to services for families - listings of services, "how-to’ s" (access services, choose
baby-sitters and child care, block parties)
Information on baby-sitting services
Information on child care in Palo Alto
General guide to Palo Alto- recreation, health, culture, arts, activities
Coupons for neighborhood businesses
Information on schools- map, enrollment information
Materials from local non-profit agencies
Neighborhood / Community Building
Purposes of the Neighborhood/Community Building¯To assist residents in assessing the assets of their community (residents, services,
facilities)
¯ To assist residents in defining mutual needs they want addressed
° To assist residents in developing solutions to their mutual needs
Each year, the FRC will focus on two neighborhood projects. Each project will be guided by
residents in planning, start-up, and implementation. Because projects are driven by each
neighborhood, types of projects might range from the installation of a stop sign at a difficult
intersection to the development of a neighborhood-run cooperative drop-in child care center.
~C. Membership Club (Collaboration)
The FRC providers’ survey revealed that human service agencies want support in order to
strengthen their services and maintain their collaborative efforts. The Family Resource Center
applauds the collaborative efforts currently in place in Palo Alto and acknowledges that
collaboration demands resources in the form of time, money, energy, and infrastructure.
Purposes of the Membership Club
¯ Coordination of community needs assessment projects
° Maximizing resources by encouraging sharing of:
Facilities
Training/expertise
Staff
Marketing and public relations efforts
° Collaborative services for community members
o Collaborative fundraising
-Dissemination of information
Person-to-person
Relationship building among service providers
page 11
FRC Business Plan
Benefits of the Membership Club
¯ Broad-based public relations campaign
¯ Enhanced referral system
¯ Networking opportunities for providers and businesses
¯ Personal knowledge of providers
Who will join the Membership Club?
¯Service providers (profit, non-profit, informal)
¯Supporters/sponsors (businesses)
¯ Partners- police, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, religious organizations,
businesses, Chamber of Commerce, cultural organizations
Members are expected to commit to the following:
¯ Philosophy of FRC
o Participation in FRC Club projects
° Payment of membership fees
° Share facility / staff
° Collaborate
Advocacy
Purpose: Promoting Quality Family Life
Quality family life includes the following elements:
¯ Basic human needs (food, shelter, clothing)
° Health promotion (emotional, mental, physical)
° Healthy child development
° Freedom from violence
° Healthy parental relationships/healthy families
° Work/life balance
° School/family balance
o Unhurried responsive time between family members
To Whom does FRC Advocate?
Businesses
Media
Schools
Families
Service providers
Government
With Whom does FRC Advocate?
City Boards and Commissions
Existing work/family/school organizations
Foundations
Service providers
Religious organizations
Government
page 12
FRC Business Plan
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4 +
FRC Timeline
Set up site Information Membership Neighborhood Advocacy Separate li’om
and hire staff Dissemination Club Building City structure
First year
Secure funding
Hire Staff
Secure physical site
Develop Advisory Council
Set up hub - offices, library resources
Information Dissemination - compile written materials for Palo Alto Family Information
program, begin to disseminate, start organizing person-to-person volunteers; set up Web
page; organize information and referral resources
Establish Membership Club - develop infrastructure and vision, work with potential provider
parmers, hold first meetings and events
Plan and initiate relationships- neighborhood building and advocacy
Plan for eventual spin-off of FRC as separate from City
Evaluate success of FRC programming
Second year
Secure funding
Continue developing Advisory Council
Continue Information Dissemination - on-going dissemination
person-to-person contact
Continue Membership Club - bring in more partners, support partners
projects and training
Neighborhood Building - start work on first neighborhood projects
Planning and initiating relationships - neighborhood building and advocacy
Continue planning for FRC spin-off
Evaluate success of FRC programming
of information packets,
in collaborative
Third year
Secure funding
Maintain advisory council
Continue Information Dissemination - on-going dissemination, person-to-person contact
Continue Membership Club - bring in more partners, support partners in collaborative
projects and training
Neighborhood Building- continue work on first neighborhood project and look at second
set of projects
Continue planning and initiating relationships - neighborhood building and advocacy
Advocacy - first advocacy projects (conference, public awareness campaign)
Evaluate success of FRC programming
Begin separation phase - FRC becomes independent agency
page 13
FRC Business Plan
Evaluation
During the first year, the FRC staff and Advisory Council will evaluate FRC progress according to
process goals. As the FRC develops and initial program statistics are gathered, such as the number
of hits per day on the FRC web page and the number of referrals for family services each week, the
staff and council will develop specific impact measures.
First Year Goals
Hire staff
Establish FRC facility, including information resources, within first 6 months
Develop Advisory Council within first 6 months
Compile and disseminate Palo Alto Family Information program packet within first year
Membership club has first meeting within 6 months
Implement public relations campaign that supports these steps and projects
Second Year
Continue all of above (first year projects)
Plan and implement first neighborhood building project
Third Year
Continue all of above (first and second year projects)
Plan and implement first Advocacy component projects
Examples of more detailed impact measures that might be developed
Number organizations involved in Membership Club
Number referrals per day (telephone and in person)
Number hits per day on FRC Web page
Number companies involved in advocacy projects
page 14
FRC Business Plan
FRC Budget
Years 1-3
FRC Total Budget
.Year#
2
Start-up
$50,000
Operating
$115,000
115,000
115,000
Programs
$50,00O
¯ Membership Club
¯ Information Dissemination
$50,000
¯ Membership Club
¯ Information Dissemination
¯ Neighborhood Building
$50,000
¯ Membership Club
¯ Information Dissemination
¯ Neighborhood Building
¯ Advocacy
$17,000
33,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
7,000
7,000
14,000
22,000
Total
$215,000
165,000
165,000
FRC Budget Breakdowns: Start-up, Operating, and Programs
Start-up
FACILITY $17,000
renovations, wiring
FURNITURE $9,000
for staff and visitors
COMPUTERS $13,000
including software and hardware
for staff and visitors
OTHER EQUIPMENT &$11,000
SUPPLIES
including library materials
TOTAL $50,000
Operating
STAFF $95,000
Director and Resource Manager
OPERATING $20,000
rent
utilities
program insurance
administration
TOTAL $115,000
page 15
FRC Business Plan
Programs
Membership Club Budget
The annual cost for this program is anticipated to decrease significantly after the start-up year. As
the collaborative structures and partnerships are developed, the need for outside consultants and
outside trainers will decrease.
Item
MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS
refreshments
meeting invitation mailings
printing- meeting materials
TRAININGS FOR MEMBER
AGENCIES
trainer fees
booksprinting workshop materials
facility rent
Cost Assumptions & Notes
$1,000 6 meetings/year with 30
participants each
$11,000
INFRASTRUCTURE $5,0O0DEVELOPMENT
technical assistance
12 trainings per year with
20 participants each
consultants to develop
collaborative structures
TOTAL per project year $17,000
Information Dissemination Budget
The annual cost for this program is anticipated to decrease significantly each year after the start-up
year. The dissemination of packets to 10,000 households will occur only in the first year, after
which a significantly smaller number of packets will be distributed each year.
Item Cost Assumptions
PALO ALTO INFORMATION PROJECT
PACKET
printing & collation
dissemination (mailing)
$22,000 10,000 initial household
recipients
PERSON TO PERSON VOLUNTEER
CORPS
$2,000 training for volunteers
ONLINE RESOURCES
Design & maintenance of web site
Development of online database
$9,000
maintenance by Resource
Manager
DEVELOPMENT OF LIBRARY
Coordinated by Resource Manager
Printed materials
$0
in operating budget
in start-up budget
TOTAL for start up and first year $33,000
page 16
FRCBusiness Plan
Neighborhood Building
The Family Resource Center Task Force decided not to develop a budget for Neighborhood
Building. The nature of the program, as described in the "Program Plan" section, prescribes that
each year’s Neighborhood Building budget by guided and determined by the community members
who are involved.
Advocacy Budget
The budget for advocacy will vary depending on the following questions, which will be answered by
the FRC Advisory Council and staff:
¯ Does the FRC sponsor a conference each year?.
o How extensive is the FRC media campaign?
Item Cost Assumptions
CONFERENCE
invitation mailing
printing-conference materials
facility rental
refreshments
speaker honorariums
on site child watch
$6,000 one conference
300 mailing recipients
100 conference attendees
MEDIA CAMPAIGN
newspaper ads
TV spots
radio spots
posters- design and printing
$16,000
in-kind
in-kind
TOTAL per project year $22,000
page 17
PRC Business Plan
Funding Plan
Start-up Phase - 3 years
Yearl
City of Palo Alto funding request
City or School District in-kind space donation request
Foundation ~ants (request continued support from current funders)
TOTAL funding requests
Year 2
City of Palo Alto funding request
City or School District in-kind space donation request
Foundation grants
Membership Club dues and FRC user fees
TOTAL funding requests
Year 3
City of Palo Alto funding request
City or School District in-kind space donation request
Foundation grants
Membership Club dues and FRC user fees
TOTAL funding requests
$150,000
15,000
50,000
265,000
$100,000
15,000
45,000
5,000
165,000
$100,000
15,000
45,000
5,000
165,000
Other sources of support to be explored by Advisory Council
In-kind donations of furniture and equipment
Corporations
Government grants
Special events
Individual donations
Long-term funding, (beyond 3 year start-up phase)
Corporate partnerships
Donors: individuals and corporations
.Foundations: new programming
Membership dues
Sponsors (businesses)
Fee for service contracts
page 18
State of the City
Page 1
The City of Palo Alto
State of the City Address by Mayor Liz Kniss
May 9, 1994
Good evening. I cannot imagine a more meaningful time to
reflect on the state of our city.., a time when the seeds planted
by our ancestors I00 years ago°.° carefully tended by generations
of Palo Altans... have grown and blossomed into the community we
cherish today.
I am proud and honored to serve as Mayor during this centennial
year. Like many of you, I have been a part of this community for
more than 25 years.
My children were born here. Rick and I bought our first
home here. And for 19 years, we had kids in Palo Alto’s
outstanding public schools°
Our roots in this community are deep...and they are mingled
with the roots of countless other families who came here seeking
a new life, a better life.., just as the first citizens of Palo
Alto did i00 years ago.
In celebrating our centennial, we honor the families of
yesterday whose hard work, commitment and vision enrich our lives
today° It is our trust, our responsibility, to think of
tomorrow’s families as well.
A philosopher wrote, "As my parents planted for me, so do I
plant for my children. Whatever is great and good in the
institutions and usages of humanity is an application of
sentiments that have drawn their first nourishment from the soil
of the family."
Tonight I want to focus on why and how we will continue to
till that soil, and to enrich it.
When I first spoke to you as Mayor in January, I set three
priorities for this year: i) Economic vitality; 2) Technological
advancement; and 3) Support for families and children°
¯Economic vitality - The need for housing and desire
to preserve the residential character of Palo Alto must be
balanced with a business environment that allows the city not
bust ’to maintain the quality of life we enjoy, but to flourish.
State of the City
Page 2
That delicate balance is like the melody and harmony of the
same song--creating a dance tune. The steps to this dance are
different in the 1990s than they were in the 1890s, or even in
the 1980s. We may be cautious .... trying not to trip over our own
feet as we danceoo.but the music goes on and we will keep trying
to find the right balance.
For the first time, Palo Alto is considering an Economic
Resources Plano It provides an economic framework for community
discussion and for city Council decision making. Second, and in
recent actions, the City Council has moved to retain major sales
tax providers. Third, a key element of the Comprehensive Plan
Advisory Committee’s vision statement includes maintaining
Business vitality.
¯Technological advancement - In the past few weeks, we
have seen both the promise and the pitfalls of technology...from
the creation of the city’s Internet access .... to the exciting
computer linkage between our schools and those of our sister city
in Sweden .... and of course, to the now infamous C-machine, which
created its own kind of history in our Centennial celebration.
The City hall lobby now has computerized link to a collection of
city-wide information. The City’s technology show scheduled for
May 23 will highlight the use of computers as staff at City Hall
uses technology for enhanced communication.
¯And, support for children and families -- This will
be the focus of the remainder of my Address. This is the one
that touches our hearts most deeply. Each of us was once a
child, and we are all part of a family.
Each of these three aspects of life in our community tell us
something about ourselves...something about our spirit and the
values we share as a community.
¯ I described Palo Alto spirit at the centennial
celebration, as manifested by its values.
¯ It’s not the climate, not the location, but the people who
make Palo Alto special
Palo Altans share a set of common values that they want to
keep alive in their community. This is demonstrated:
¯ through education (with schools that are the prime reason
many people want to live here)
¯ through the physical environment (green lawns, clean
streets, abundant and wel!-tended parks)
State of the City
Page 3
¯ through a work culture that values the garage more than
the high-rise office building
¯ a place where traffic jams are more likely to be composed
of bicyclists, roller bladders and joggers than of cars
¯ where every day is Earth Day, recycling is a way of life,
and bins filled with cans and bottles in front of your house are
a sign of being a good citizen
¯ where a Little League team roster includes Ishmael, Ram,
Marco, and Israel, as well as Johnny and Rickyo On this same
team a 12-year old i~ named Jackie who hit the only run, clear
out of the park, just last Saturday.
Diversity in Palo Alto is not a slogan, it is your next door
neighbor, both down the block and in the next town, your
colleague at work, your friends.
¯ and finally, (some would say most important of all!) Palo
Alto is a place where a good cup of cappucino is never more than
two blocks away!
The Palo Alto spirit leads people to action. When this
community identifies a problem it wants to address, dozens of
people are ready to step forward.
Examples:
¯ Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC)
¯Tree Task Force
.Centennial
¯ Urban Design Committee
This kind of spirit tells us something about who we are.
But in this year of celebration, we should take a closer look in
the mirror.., past the reflection we think we see to the one that
is really there.
Are we...
¯all affluent?
¯mostly living in nuclear families?
¯liberal in action, or only in philosophy?
Here is what the 1990 Census Report facts tell us:
¯ 56,000 people
¯average age is 38
¯15 percent of us are over 65
¯2/3 have four years of college
omedian family income is $70,000
Compared to the rest of America, Palo Altans are somewhat
State of the City
Page 4
older, much more educated and have significantly higher
incomes°.° but that does not mean we are immune from problems
that place significant pressure on families.
Some of these problems relate particularly to Palo Alto,
while others reflect changes in our society as a whole.
¯ In Palo Alto, the median home price is almost half a
million dollarsoo.which in most cases requires two full-time
careers to make ends meet.
¯ Often rent for a two-bedroom, one-bath apartment is $1200 a
month°°° enough to support a mortgage in most other places° For
a family needing three bedrooms, the rent on a house can be $2500
a month or higher°
¯ In addition to this economic pressure, there is the basic
reality that more than half of American mothers return to work
within one year of a child’s birth. 30 years ago, only 17
percent of women did this.
¯ In 1960, less than 20 percent of married women with
children under age six worked outside the home; today, three
times that, fully 60 percent, have jobs°
¯ Today, almost half of American children under 18 have
parents who are divorced, o.in 1960, that figure was dramatically
less!
Another source of pressure for Palo Alto families is the
high rate of turnover in our community today°
¯ In the 1990 census - 57 percent of households own their
homes, only half had lived in the same house for more than 5
years°
¯ Turnover is high - 30 percent every 5 years; 21 percent
nationally°°, our rate comparable to that of an urban area,
though we do not think of ourselves as having "urban" problems.
High housing costs, two parents working full-time,
single-parent households, and high turnover together create
pressures on families..° pressures that compel us to ask again
whether the values we share about children and families are
working for all members of our community.
¯ Are they working for single parent who has one child and
wants to share housing? This year, in a kindergarten class at
Walter Hays school half of the children have divorced parents.
State of the City
Page 5
¯ Are our values working for the parents who commute to San
Jose or San Francisco, leaving by 7:30 and returning at 6 o’clock
or later?
¯ for extended families, and households that compel us to re-
define the concept of family today? And what about the moms and
dads who may be 40 or even 50, (rather than 20 or 30) with very
young children at home?
¯ Are our values working for the family who has just moved
here and needs everything from childcare, to a pediatrician,
a summer program, after-school care, teenage activities.°°
all before mom and dad’s new jobs start on Monday?
¯ for the retired person whose children and grandchildren
have moved to another state, because they cannot afford to stay
here?
¯ for the immigrant families struggling not only with the
language but the economic hardship of trying to make a new life
in such a high-cost environment?
¯ A few week ago, I had the pleasure of helping to honor one
of Palo Alto’s outstanding citizens, Marge Collins, who received
the Tall Tree award in recognition for her dedicated service as a
teacher in Palo Alto for 30 years.
Marge’s first grade class at Palo Verde this year is a
microcosm of the challenges today’s community faces.
¯ nearly half of these children speak a language other than
English at home. Their families come from the Philippines,
Ethiopia, China, Japan, Israel and Korea.
¯ one-fourth of the class attends the school’s on-site child
care program after school. With an average just I0 percent of
mothersat home full-time today, the need for more after-school
programs is growing all the time.
Are the values we have about the children and families in
Marge’s class being shared with these parents?
It would be hard to answer "yes" to these questions today.
But now let’s imagine how it could be different. Picture a place
where...~
¯ a parent could go for information about everything from
childcare to health care for their kids
owhere support resources for children of all ages, from
infants to adolescents, are accessed with the help of caring
State of the City
Page 6
volunteers
¯ a place that does not duplicate existing efforts on behalf
of children and families, but coordinates them and serves as a
central clearinghouse for new ideas..° a resource center for
families, children and teens.
Based on our research thus far, we believe no other
community in America has such a place. Palo Alto can be the
first, and can create a mode! for others to follow°
Why? Because we have done it before.
For Seniors,
¯ Senior Coordinating Council
For Environmental Protection,
¯Peninsula Conservation Center
For Women’s Employment and Career Advancement,
¯the former Women’s Resource Center, now the Career Action
Center
...each started by committed citizens in the 1970s
...each becoming a model for other communities, just as our
new center for families, children and youth will be.
¯ My pledge to you tonight is to create the necessary
partnership among city government, the community, nonprofit
organizations, businesses, and grass-roots advocacy groups that
will make the Palo Alto Family Resource Center a reality.
¯ The impetus of this initiative has come from many sources
already working on behalf of families in our community, all
sensing the urgency of this need. They recognize the necessity of
working together to provide a coordinated network of information
sources. Our discussions have been evolving since last summer,
and they are all leading in the same direction.
Some of these sources are:
¯ Child Care Task Force
¯ Children’s Theatre Group
¯ Ad Hoc Children’s Group
¯ Tonight I am pleased to announce the formation of an ad hoc
committee to begin working toward this goal. It should have
representatives from many facets of our community, including:
¯ the Palo Alto Unified School District
¯ the Chamber of Commerce
¯Palo Alto Community Child Care
¯Adolescent Counseling Services
¯Family Service Mid-Peninsula
¯Child Care Task Force (CCTF)
¯Private care-givers
¯Packard Children’s Hospital
State of the City
Page 7
¯Palo Alto Medical Foundation
¯Stanford University
¯the Palo Alto Weekly
¯ representatives of children’s art and cultural groups
¯ and community advocates for children
¯To me, this is a partnership in which loca! government
fulfills its role in the deepest sense. What has made Palo Alto
unique is the commitment of city government to a level of
services and amenities for our families that is unmatched in
California.
That commitment is an expression of this community’s values°
¯ six libraries
¯4200 acres of parks and open space
¯bike lanes, playing fields, and more
¯schools, which are among the best in the nation
o.. all with a cost that our families say they will pay
because of the quality of life these things provide.
¯ The Palo Alto Family Resource Center will be an investment
in a capital improvement program that truly builds
community..because families are the most vital part of our
infrastructure. Without families, we have no economic base, nor
need for one. People and families are the reason that cities
exist.
¯ The Center’s major thrust will include opportunities for
advocacy, education, information, coordination, and visibility
for families and children.
Just as a "rising tide raises all boats", this Center will
spotlight all issues that involve families and children.
¯ At a basic level, city government must provide fire
protection, maintenance of streets and sidewalks, and police
services. But Palo Alto has always gone beyond the basics, and
that is what we will continue to do to preserve the quality of
life here.
We must make Palo Alto work for the families and children of
the 1990s as well as it worked for the young families of the 50s,
60s and 70s.
¯ not to bring back June Cleaver or Donna Reed
. but to create real support for today’s families living
with today’s challenges.
Only government and citizens together can do this.
learned this as a child by direct experience.
I
¯at New England town meetings with my father
State of the City
Page 8
¯taught me what makes a community "work"
¯showed me that personal involvement can make a real
difference
In the four months I have been Mayor, it has been a
pleasure of working with each of you on issues that will help
create economic vitality and technological advances in our
community.
Now I look forward to working with you to make this vision
a reality for children and families. So many dedicated people in
Palo Alto are already daily improving the lives of children and
families. And while I am not going to name them all tonight,
they include health care providers, cultural groups, and
educational resources.
Here in Palo Alto, we have creativity and expertise. We
have the vision that is one half of commitment made as the
watchword of our Centennial Celebration. Now we must focus on
the other half of that watchword..the legacy° What I am
supporting tonight is the proposal to create that legacy -- the
legacy that will leave a Palo Alto Family Resource Center for our
families and children of the future.
1994 is the United Nations International Year of the Family.
Let us make this a landmark year for families in our community,
too, by starting the Palo Alto Family Resource Center.
An old Greek proverb says, "When a person plants a tree
under which he will never sit, you know civilization has come to
that land." So many trees have been planted for us...
¯ by Anna Zschokke, who founded our first school and set the
standard for quality education in Palo Alto
¯ by Birge Clark, who designed so many of the buildings we
still admire today
¯by H. W. Simkins, who opened the first bookstore on
University Avenue. Wouldn’t he be pleased to know how much we
still care about the subject of bookstores on University
Avenue...and that one of the most crowded places in Palo Alto on
a Saturday night is likely to be a bookstore?
¯ by Leland and Jane Stanford, who built a great university
at our doorstep, bringing a wealth of talent and knowledge to
this community
¯ and on a personal note, by Mayor C. H. Christensen..o who
made the first direct-dial phone call in Palo Alto in 1929 to the
State of the City
Page 9
mayor of Mountain View.
about Shoreline!
I have a feeling he was calling to talk
At last Saturday’s May Fete parade, we promised our children
"roots to grow and wings to fly." Next Saturday’s Centennial
Symposium will emphasize "Building Successful Families,
Neighborhoods & Community". Let this evening be the start of
fulfilling our promise to create the Palo Alto Family Resource
Center -- and let that be a commitment to make this a reality
within the coming year°
It is my hope that i00 years from now, our descendants will
look back at us as we do at them.., treasuring the legacy of
commitment to families and children we leave behind, and the
vision that created the Palo Alto Family Resource Center° --
Address may end here...
Henry Thoreau wrote, "Though I do not believe that a plant
will spring up where no seed has been, I have great faith in a
seed. Convince me that you have a seed there, and I am prepared
to expect wonders."
Our Family Resource Center is today just a seed. But
because of you, I have great faith in it, and I believe the
children and families of Palo Alto can indeed expect wonders.
Thank you.
Members
Sue Barldmr~t
Adolescent Counseling Services
4(X)0 Middlefiekl Road, FH
Pale Alto, CA 94303
415 4240852
415 424-9853 Fax
Sandy Blovad
A.L.S. Jewish Community Ctr.
655 Axastradero Road
Pale Alto, CA 94306
415 493-9400 W
415 493-1187 Fax
766 Gailen Court
Pale Alto, CA 94303
415 856-4170
415 494--2778 Fax
I.m’ry Klein
1717 Embarcadero Road
Pale Alto, CA 94303
415 85%1717
Judy Kleinberg
Kids in Common
One Almaden Bird, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
415 325-8222 Hm
415 988-7965 Wk
Liz Kniss
City Council Member
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94301
415 329-2384 CPA
415 336-4609 VM
Alberto Colorado
Mayfield Community Clinic
270 Grant Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94306
415 617-9722
415 323-6830 Fax
Carolyn Compton
The Children’s Health Council
700 Sand Hill Road
Pale Alto, CA 94304
415 326-5530
Jeanne Labozetta
Family Service Mid-Peninsula
375 Cambridge Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94306
415 326-6576
Janet Lederer
Pale Alto Medical Foundation
300 Homer
Pale Alto, CA 94301
415 853-2077
415 853..4707 Fax
Margo Dutton
Pale Alto Comm. Child Care
3990 Ventura Court
Pale Alto, CA 94301
415 493-2361 Ext.ll W
415 493-0936 Fax
Maria Lines
173 Waverley Street
Pale Alto, CA 94301
415 323-9273 H
408 447-4985 W
408 447-0484 Fax
Ruth Dzau
PTA Council/PAUSD
12101 Dawn Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
415 941-5980
415 941-6519 Fax, call first
Sue Mace
Pale Alto Police Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94301
415 329-2685
415 329-2565 Fax
Tina Gutierrez
Human Relations Commission
2850 Middlefield Road ff224
Pale Alto, CA 94306
415 462-1686 H
415 424-43160 W
415 496-2731 Fax
Sharon Hofstedt
Stanford University Hospit~
Board of Directors
1137 Palomor Drive
Redwood City, CA 94062
415 366-6156
415 365-4393 Fax
Julie Jerome, PAUSD
726 Greer Road
pslo Alto, CA 94303
415 493-8645
415 856-7636 Fax
Mary McQuaid, PAAIRS
3990 Ventura Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
415 856-4062
415 493-3318 Fax
Sharon Murphy
JCC/FRC Coordinator
1540 College Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94306
415 857-1177
415 856.3655 Fax
John Northway
437 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
415 327-7070
415 327-9659 Fax
l~z xvxemDet-smp ~u,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.~-
Appendix B
_.enry Page, PAUSD
50 Embaxeadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
415 329-3869
415 329-8515 Fax
Kay Phillips, YWCA
4161 Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
415 494-0972
415 494-8307 Fax
Bernadette Plotnikoff
ChiJd Advocacy Council
350 Cambridge Ave. Suite 50
Pale Alto, CA 94306
415 327-8120
Irv Rollim, PAUSD
25 Churchill
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(415) 329-3717 W
(415) 326-7463 Fax
Rachel Samoff
The Children’s Preschool Ctr.
4000 Middlefield Road, Rm T1
Pale Alto, CA 94303
415 855-5770 W
415 855-5159 Fax
Mary Sause
20 Kent Place
Palo Alto, CA 94301
415 326.1271 H
Megan Swezey Fogarty
2421 Bryant St
Palo Alto, CA 94301
415 473-0428 H
Bam’y Taylor, YMCA
4151 Middlefield Rd, Suite 211
P~lo Alto, CA 94303
415 856.3955
415 856-4703 Fax
Ma.rgm’et Toor
1159 Lincoln Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
415 329-8899 H & Fax
Office of Human Services
4000 Middlefield Road, T2
Palo Alto, CA 94303
415 856.8756 Fax
415 329-2280 W
415 329-2639W
Natalie Seer
415 329-2375W
November 21, 1995
Appendix C
DEMOGRAPHICS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The charge to the demographics subcommittee wasto compare census data and any other source data to
the Family Resource Center (FRC) Survey done in late Fall 1994 via PAUSD parents night. The goal is to
determine to what extent we can create a picture of =family" for Palo Alto and identify gaps in our
knowledge base. This report contains a considerable amount of summary data and given time constraints,
the subcommittee was not able to comprehensively identify gaps.
The subcommittee used several information resources for this task:
o 1990 U.S. Census data 1or Palo Alto and Stanford census tracts
PAUSD Ethnic and Gender Distribution for 1994-95
Report on Demographic Analysis and Enrollment Forecasts for PAUSD - 1992
FRC Survey of eight PaJo Alto child care centers/preschools
Palo Alto Employee/Community Child Care Needs Assessment - 1989
¯ Palo Alto Youth Council Survey - 1991
PAUSD Health Survey
Working Women Count! Survey - Palo Alto data - 1994
COMPARISON OF FRC SURVEY TO U.S, CENSUS DATA
U.S. Census data was examined primarily in relation to comparing census information to the demographic
data collected via the FRC Survey. Additional iniormation was compiled if it appeared useful in assisting
the committee task of defining =family~.
Methodology
The subcommittee divided the Palo Alto and Stanford census tracts into the three groupings used by
PAUSD in the compilation of the FRC Survey: North, South and West. The data for each census tract
within each larger grouping was compiled to create a composite census data set for the North, South and
West areas. To create a composite picture, data 1TOm each tract wastallied numerically or by weighted
average depending on the information being compiled. For instance, to get a population count for North,
the population for each tract is added together. To get a median income for North, the median income for
each tract is weighted depending on the population proportion of each tract relative to the North grouping
and the weighted average derived.
The basic data set from the FRC Survey consists of 5 demographic measures:
Number of Parents in the Home
Grade Level
Family Ethnicity
page 1 Wed, April 12, 1995
Pdmary Language(s) Spoken in the Home
How Long the Family has Lived in Palo Alto
U.S. Census data can directly address 3 of the measures:
Number of Parentsin the Home
Family Ethnic’try
Pdmary Language(s) Spoken in the Home
The census data does provide age distribution but that information is now 6 years old so even though it is
reported below, it must be remembered that we do not really have a number for the 0-5 year old cohort, a
group that increased signifP..antly dudng the 1980-1990 decade. Exhibit 1 contains a copy of the FRC
survey instrument and Exhibit 2 contains additional detailed demographic data on North, South and West.
NORTH
There are four census tracts in the North area: Green Gables/Garland; Downtown North/University
Park/Professorville; Old Paio Alto/Seale Addition; and Crescent Park. Total 1990 population was 19,951,
13,934 (70%) of whom are defined as family members of 4,772 families. The census tract statistics do not
define "family" status but It does include families with children over 18 years (19%) in addition to those <18
years of age (66%). Of the total children within families, 95% are natural or adopted, 4% are stepchildren
and 1% are resident grandchildren. Interestingly,17% of the familtes reported themselves to have no
children over o_r under 18 years of age but the picture of those families cannot be ascertained from the
data. A possible explanation is that some are families with shared custody arrangements where children
reside for census purposes in another household.
Population by A~e Group: North experienced a 21.4% increase in the <5 year age group and a
decline of 25% in the 5-17 year group between 1980 and 1990. The other age groups remained faidy
stable. It is likely the case that the increase in the <5 year age group has continued given recent increases
in kindergarten enrollment.
Racial Identity: This category in the Census data most closely approximates the question from the
FRC Survey on "Family Ethniclty":
U.S. Census FRC Survey PAUSD Ethnic &
Racial Identity Family Ethnicity Gender Distribution
White 87,8%60%78.3%
Hispanic 3.3%4%4.0%
African Am.1.8 %4=/o 5.6%
Asian 6.4%9%11.7%
Other .6%23%.2%
page2 Wed, April 12, 1995
One possible explanation for the variation above is the open ended phrasing of the question on the FRC
Survey which provided respondents with the opportunity to enter either race related information or
cultural ethnicity. The PAUSD 1994 Ethnic and Gender Distribution more closely reflects the U.S. Census
data. some of the differences between the two may be explained by presence of Tinsley enrollees (360
district-wide currently) and/or Allen Bill students (77 district-wide). Also, given the overall composition of
population in Palo Alto it is not surprising that overall the percentage of Caucasians is as high as it is.
Primary Lanqua,qe Spoken in the,,Home. There is a faidy significant difference in data reported by
the U.S. Census and FRC Survey:
U.S. Census FRC Survey
English 86.8%95%
Spanish 2.8%2%
Asian Pacific 3.9%1%
Other 6.4%1%
A possible explanation for the discrepancy is that the Census question specified "English only spoken at
home°. It included data which stated that in addition to the pdmary language spoken at home, 93% of
Spanish speaking persons also spoke English well or very well, 82% of Asian Pacific language speakers
and 95% of other language speakers. Therefore it is possible that the data from the 2 sources are actually
a closer match than they appear.
Number of Parents in the Home: This category actually has a comparable data set between the
Census and the FRC Survey but does not provide the subcommittee with sufficient information about the
structure of families i.e. blended families versus 2-parent/own children families. The Census does include
additional information which is included in the next section.
U.S. Census FRC Survey
One Parent 13%13%
Two Parents 87%87%
Families with Children <18 Years of Aqe. In the Census data, 88% of families with their own
children under age 18 are two parent families, 12% are one parent families (with single mothers
representing 10% and single fathers 2%). When families are divided in those whose children and <6
years of age and 6-17 year of age, 95% are two parent families for the <6 year group. There is a higher
percentage of single mother families (14%) in the 6-17 year old group. Census data on work status
indicates that for families with children <18 years of age, in two parent families 61% have both parents
working (38% father only). In single parent families, 100% of single fathers work, 76% of single mothers
work.
page3 Wed, April 12, 1995
SOUTH
There are six census tracts in the South area: Monroe Park; Charleston Terrace/Ortega/Palo Verde;
Greenmeadow/Walnut Grove; Fair Meadows; Old South Palo Aito/Midtown West/El Carrnelo; and Midtown
East/West Bayshore. Total 1990 population was 19,362, 15,0374 (78%) of whom are defined as family
members. The census tract statistics do not define "family" status but it does include families with children
over 18 years (22%) in addition to those <18 years of age (62%). Of the total children within families, 97%
are natural or adopted, 3% are stepchildren andless than 1% are resident grandchildren. A lower
percentage of families in the South - 8.5% - reported themselves to have no children over or under 18
years of age but the picture of those families cannot be ascertained from the data. A possible explanation
is that some are families with shared custody arrangements where children reside for census purposes in
another household.
Population by A.qe Group: South exbedenced an 18°/= increase in the <5 year age group and a
decline of 27% in the 5-17 year group between 1980 and 1990. This change is somewhat similar to that
experienced in the North section. The 18-44 year and 45-65 year cohorts experienced some decline but
the biggest difference was in the >65 age group which had a 53% increase between 1980-1990. Again, it
is likely the case that the increase in the <5 year age group has continued and grown given recent
increases in kindergarten enrollment.
Racial Ident~: This category in the Census data most closely approximates the question from the
FRC Survey on =Family Ethnicity":
U.S. Census FRC Survey PAUSD Ethnic &
Racial Ident~Family Ethnicity Gender Distribution
Wl~ite 79.8%58%69.0%
Hispanic 4.3%5%7.0%
African Am.3.0%4°/o 5.4%
Asian 11.6%22%18.0%
Other 1.3%11%.3%
One possible explanation for the variation above is the open ended phrasing of the question on the FRC
Survey which provided respondents with the opportunity to enter either race related information or
cultural ethnicity. The PAUSD 1994 Ethnic and Gender Distribution information fall somewhere between
the other two. The most notable aspect is that the proportion of Caucasians is considerably lower and
minorities higher in the South section than the North. The West section, which will be discussed later,
more closely resembles the South section, particularly when Stanford data is excluded.
page4 Wed, April 12, 1995
Pdmary Languaqe Spoken in the Home. The data collected on the FRC Survey is largely
supported by U.S. Census data for the South section:
U.S. Census FRO Survey
English 81.7%86%
Spanish 3.3%3%
Asian Pacific 7.2%6%
Other 7.8%5%
A possible explanation for the discrepancy is that the Census question specified "English only spoken at
home". It included data which stated that in addition to the pdmary language spoken at home, 85% of
Spanish speaking persons also spoke English well or very well, 82% of Asian Pacific language speakers
and 96% of other language speakers. Therefore it is possible that the data from the 2 sources are actually
a closer match than they appear. In addition, under Asian Pacific, the Census captures all languages while
the FRC Survey specified Mandarin.
Number of Parents in the Home: This category actually has a comparable data set between the
Census and the FRC Survey but does not provide the subcommittee with sufficient information about the
structure of families i.e. blended families versus 2-parent]own children families. The Census does include
additional information which is included below.
U.S. Census FRC Survey
One Parent 16%11%
Two Parents 84%89%
In South, the census reveals a higher percentage on single-parent families than was detected on the FRC
Survey, which may reflect parent participation in back to school night events (i.e. single parents may be
less likely to be able to attend such an event.)
Families with Children <18 Years of Aqe. In the Census data, 87% of families with their own
children under age 18 are two parent families, 13% are one parent families (with sir-~le mothers
representing 11% and single fathers 2%). When families are divided in those whose children and <6
years of age and 6-17 year ol age, 95°/, are two parent families for the <6 year group. There is a higher
percentage of single mother families (14%) in the 6-17 year old group. Census data on work status
indicates that for families with children <18 years of age, in two parent families 63% have both parents
working (36% father only). In single parent families, 100% of single fathers work, 90% of single mothers
work.
page S Wed, April 12, 1995
WEST
The West section proved the most difficult to reduce to a composite picture. The West section contains
areas as diverse as the Ventura neighborhood and Stanford faculty housing. Since there are a significant
number of young people in the Stanford census tracts who undoubtedly use Palo Alto schools and other
services, those tracts cannot be ignored. However, because they are not part of Palo Alto, some data
measures, particularly pointing to differences between 1980 and 1990 were unavailable to the
subcommittee. Therefore, two groups of data are included in the report and noted in discussion: West
section including Stanford and West excluding Stanford. At no point are students residing in
undergraduate dorms included.
There are six census tracts in the West area including the two Stanford Census Designated Places (CDP):
Olive-West MeadowNentura; College Terrace/Evergreen Park/Southgate; Oak Creek Area; Barton
Park/Green Acres and the 2 Stanford CDPs which include married student housing and faculty housing.
Total 1990 population was 26,113 including the Stanford CDPs. W’rthout Stanford, the population
is14,959, West being the only section to have experienced population growth between 1980 and 1990.
Of the 26,113 population,15,112 (58%) of whom are defined as family members. The percentage
increases to 67% excluding Stanford data which is the lowest family concentration of the three sections.
The census tract statistics do not define =family" status but it does include families with children over 18
years (13.5%) in addition to those <18 years of age (62=/o). Of the total children wi~in families, 96% are
natural or adopted, 1.8% are stepchildren andtess than 2.4% are resident grandchildren. A high
percentage of families in the West - 24% - reported themselves to have no children over o_.[r under 18
years of age. Excluding the Stanford census data, the percentage drops to 18% which is close to that
percentage reported for North A possible explanation is that some are families with shared custody
¯ arrangements where children reside for census purposes in another household.
Population by Aqe Group: Since 1980 data for Stanford is unavailable, this section reports only
on the West section excluding Stanford. This section experienced a 43.6% increase in the <5 year age,
by far the highest percent increase for this age group in the city. However, the population numbers for
this age cohort are lower than in North or South so percentage increase can be misleading. As in North
and South, the.5-17 year group experienced a decrease between 1980 and 1990. The 18-44 year
cohort - the child beating years - experienced an increase of 13%, the only significant increase for this age
group in the city. Again, the >65 age group had an increase (14%) between 1980-1990. Again, it is
likely thecase that the increase in the <5 year age group has continued and grown given recent increases
in kindergarten enrollment
Racial Identity: This category in the Census data most closely approximates the question from the
FRC Survey on "Family Ethniclty":
page6 Wed, April 12, 1995
Wrth Stanford Without Stanford
U.S. Census U.S. Census FRC Survey PAUSD Ethnic &
Racial Id~Flaciat Iden,~Family Ethnicity Gender Distribution
White 71.7%76.5%58 %64.9%
Hispanic 7.2=/=7.2=/°5%7.9%
Afdcan Am.3.9%3.9%4%4,7%
Asian 15.8%11.2%22%22.2%
Other 1.4%1.2=/o 11%.3%
One possible explanation for the variation above is the open ended phrasing of the question on the FRC
Survey which provided respondents with the opportunity to enter either race related information or
cultural ethnicity. The PAUSD 1994 Ethnic and Gender Distribution information fall somewhere between
the other sets of data. All the data indicate that the West section is the most racially diverse section in the
city.
Primary Language Spoken in the Home. The data collected on the FRC Survey is largely
supported by U.S. Census data for the West section:
U.S. Census FRC Surv~
English 74%50o/=
Spanish 6.4%3%
Asian Pacific 10.2%4%
Other 9.7%36%
In the West section, 86% of Spanish speaking persons also spoke English well or very well, 86% of Asian
Pacific language speakers and 93% of other language speakers. Again, under As~an Pacific, the Census
captures all languages while the FRC Survey specified Mandarin. The FRC data points again to the ethnic
diversity in West; other languages, which are spoken by 36% of the population is significantly higher than
the rest of Palo Alto. Part of the difference between the census data and FRC data is probably due to time
the U.S. Census information dating to 1989.
Number of Parents in the Home: This category actually has a comparable data set between the
Census and the FRC Survey but does not provide the subcommittee with sufficient information about the
structure of families i.e. blended families versus 2-parent/own children families. The Census does include
additional information which is included below.
v%r~th Stanford Without Stanford
U.S. Census U.S. Census FRC Survey
One Parent 15%19%11%
Two Parents 85%81%88%
page7 Wed, April 12, 1995
The census data differs from FRC data significantly, particularly when examined without Stanford
information, showing a higher percentage of single parent families than the FRC Survey and in North or
South. Again, the FRC data may say more about who can and cannot attend parent night than reflect
parent composition in families in West.
Families with Children <18 Years of A,qe. In the Census data, 82°1o of families with their own
children under age 18 are two parent families when Stanford is included. The percentage drops to 77%
with Stanford data excluded, a full 10 percentage points lower than in North or South. Among families in
West excluding Stanford, 23% are single-parent families - 3% headed by a single father and 20% headed
by a single mother. This is the largest concentration of single mother families. The highest percentages
are found in College Terrace/Evergreen Park/Southgate and Barron Park/Green Acres census tracts.
When families are divided in those whose children and <6 years of age and 6-17 year of age, 93% (without
Stanford) to 95% (Stanford included) are two parent families for the <6 year group, a statistics which is
consistent throughout the city. There is a substantially higher percentage of single mother families (24-
27%) in the 6-17 year old group. Census data on work status indicates that for families with children <18
years of age, in two parent families 65% have both parents working (33% father only) excluding Stanford
(drops to 59’=/o and 31% if Stanford is included). In single parent families, 100% of single fathers work, 72-
73% of single mothers work.
SUMMARY OF CHILD CARE/PRESCHOOL INFORMATION
There is both recent and dated information available about the 0-5 year old age group. The FRC Child
Care Center/Preschool Survey was distributed to eight child care/preschool centers in the Fall of 1994 in
Palo Alto with no known return rate. It is also unknown whether duplication occurred due to exposure to
the survey in both preschool and PAUSD school settings or whether data about young child families was,
in fact, omitted since parents had completed the survey in the PAUSD setting. In the FRC Survey, 95% of
families are two-parent families which compares favorable with census results for families with children <6
years of age. A higher percentage of English as primary language appeared on the FRC (95%) data than
the census (77%-87%) which may be due to the economics of cost related to center-based care. Perhaps
the most notable information on the child care survey is the indication that these are young families:
outside the child care setting, 20% of respondents have children in K-5th grade, only 5% have children in
higher grades.
The Employee/community Child Care Needs Assessment Report conducted by the Palo Alto Child Care
Coordinator in 1989 provides information on the various settings used for child care. At that time, 48% of
the children represented in the survey were in licensed child care settings - 35% in centers/preschools
and 13% in family day care homes. Of the remaining 52%, 15% received care from parents, 12% from
other relatives, and 25% from "sitters", nannies, friends etc.
page 8 Wed, April 12, 1995
Current statistics show that the need for child care is still a big issue: There are 2,055 licensed
infant/toddler & preschool slots in centers in Paio Alto and 980 people on the wait lists for those slots.
PALO ALTO YOUTH COUNCIL SURVEY 1991
Exhibit 3 contains summary data collected from the Youth Council Survey of grades 7 through 12
completed in 1991. The exhibit contains some demographic data as well as information on issues of
importance to teens such as stress, substance abuse and sexuality issues.
PAUSD STUDENT HEALTH SURVEY
Exhibit 4 contains very brief information from the comprehensive survey conducted by the PAUSD of high
school students, parents, teachers and community physicians. The findings of this survey closely match
the results of the Youth Council Survey in terms of identifying teen concerns.
WORKING WOMEN COUNT! SURVEY
The subcommittee received a draft copy of the Working Women Count! Survey conducted in May 1994
by the Women’s Bureau of the U.S. Dept. of Labor. The draft report contains some very valuable
information in that Palo Alto survey results are reported in addition to national results In 1994, the
Women’s Bureau conducted this survey of working women and received 250,000 responses. The
national data contained in the report is dedved from a scientific sample of respondents. The Palo Alto
data~ however, is a popular sample, that is it comes from a voluntary group in this case women employed
by the City of Palo Alto. It is important to remember that the sample is comprised of employees in Palo Alto
who do not necessarily reside in the city. While a number of work-related issues are addressed in the
survey, family issues surfaced as well.
For the Paio Alto sample:
31.9% of respondents are single, divorced or widowed, 56.2% are mantled or living with someone
34.2% of respondents have children under the age of 18 living at home; 52% have children
under 5 years old, 22.7% have children in elementary school and about 120/= have children in
junior high or high school.
Of respondents with children under 18 living at home, 41.3% have one child, 40% have two
children, 120/o have 3 and 2.7% have four or more children.
In general, 20.9% of the sample surveyed indicated that =flexibility to meet family responsibilities" is a
serious problem but that increases to 26.3% for single mothers and 30.9% of married mothers. Child care
remains a problem: 52.5% of Paio Alto respondents with children under 5 years of age indicate "finding
quality child care" is a serious problem as well as 50% of women with children between 6-12 years of age.
More single mothers (47%) than married mothers (42%) report "finding quality care" as a serious problem.
Interestingly, only 34.3% of professional women cite "finding quality care" as a problem compared to 52^%
page9 Wed, April 12, 1995
of all other women.
Perhaps most significant to the committee’s task, 57.5% of mothers with children under 5 years old and
55.5% of mothers with children between 6-12 years of age indicate that "information about or support for
child and dependent care" is a high priority on their list for a better workplace. Further, 47.4% and 43.6%
of single and marded mothers respectively report this as a needed change. Similar to above, only 34.3%
of women professionals city "information and support for child and dependent care" as a high priority for
change, while over 60°/= of all other female employees c’~y this as a high priority.
Exhibit 5 contains some of the tables of compiled data from the Working Women Count! Survey,
including a considerable amount of demographic data about the Palo Alto sample and a national
comparison group. Again, while the Palo Alto sample does not necessarily reflect correct demographics
for city residents, it is important to acknowledge that people who work in the city may be as likely to benefit
from services available in Palo Alto.
page 1 0 Wed, April 12, 1995
ATTACHMENT I
FA2VI~Y SURVEY
1994
i. Number uf people in your home: P~s):__ Child(rein):__ O~er:
2. Please check e~ch grad~ l~vd th~ ~plies to your children: ~2 ~er
3.Family Etimidty (ies): ,,,Langtmge spoken in the home:
4.School nearest to your home:
5.How long have you lived in the Palo Alto area?, In U.S.A.?
6.What would help your family feed most welcome and comfortable m living in this area?
7. Whaz kinds of commumty resources would yore- f"amily use? Ple~se check ail that apply.
housing
parks
stress managemem
par~z educazion and s~o~
~o~
s~ able hdp
Which oft.he above resources do you need mfozmalion ~bout?
What would make it most likely that you would use ~he resources thaz you need? (Ple~se check all thin apply.)
Hom’sofope~rion: ~ weekday d~y ~ wedc~y~~ wedamd
CENSUS TRACT: NORTH
POPULATION
TOTAL POPULATION: 19,951
POP. BY AGE GROUP POP.1980 POP. 1990
< 5 707 858
5-17 3,242 2,427
18-44 8,372 8,455
45-64 4,344 4,606
65+3,623 3,605
1980:20,288
% CHANGE ’80 TO ’90
21.4%
1%
6%
(.5°/.)
RACIAL IDENTITY PERCENT
WHITE 87.8"/o
HISPANIC 3.3%
AFRICAN AM 1.8%
ASIAN 6.4%
OTHER .7%
MEDIAN INCOME: $64,385 Family: $81,535 Nonfamily: $41,872
HOUSING
TOTAL OCCUPIED UNITS: 8,888
OWNER OCCUPIED: . 5,218
RENTER OCCUPIED: 3,670
% OF TOTAL: 59%
% OF TOTAL: 41%
FAMILIES
TOTAL # FAMILIES:..4,772
MARRIED COUPLE: 4,151
MALE/NO WIFE: 127
FEMALE/NO HUSBAND: 494
% OF TOTAL
87%
3%
1 !3°/*
PERSONS PER FAMILY: 2.92
NORTH Census Tract Cont’d
LANGUAGE AT HOME(AGE 5~)."
ONLY ENGLISH:86.8%
SPANISH:2.8%
ASIAN PAC:3.9%
OTHER:6.4%
ENG. SPOKEN WELLNERY WELL
2.6%
3.2%
6.1%
FAMILIES W1TH CHLDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE
FAMILIES W/OWN CHILDREN UNDER 18:
MARRIED COUPLE W/OWN KIDS < 18:
MALE HEAD/NO WIFE: 54
FEMALE HEAD/NO HUSBAND: 327
3,164
2,783
% OF TOTAL:
88%
2%
10%
FAMILY STATUS
MARRIED COUPLE
OTHER FAMILY:
MALE HEAD/NO WIFE
FEMALE HEAD/NO HUSBAND
<6 YRS. AGE
95%
<1%
5%
6-17 YRS. AGE
84%
2%
14%
WORK STATUS FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN < 18 YEARS OF AGE
LIVING WITH TWO PARENTS: 87% OF FAMILES WITH CHLDREN<18
BOTH PARENTS WORK:61%
FATHER ONLY WORKS:38%
MOTHER ONLY WORKS:.3%
NEFrHER WORK:1.1%
LIVING WITH ONE PARENT: 13% OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN <18
LIVING WITH FATHER: 16% OF SINGLE PARENT FAMILES HEADED BY FATHER
WOR KS:100%
DOES NOT WORK:0%
LIVING WITH MOTHER: 64% OF SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES HEADED BY MOTHER
WORKS:76%
DOES NOT WORK:24%
EXHIBIT # 2B
CENSUS TRACT: SOUTH
POPULATION
TOTAL POPULATION: 19,362 1980: 19,856,
POP. BYAGEGROUP POP.1980 POP. 1990
< 5 891 1,053
5-17 3,787.2,744
18-44 8,566 ..8,348
45-64 4,891 4,583
65+.1,721...2,634
% CHANGE ’80 TO ’90
18.2%
(28O/o)
(2.5%
(6O/o)
53%)
RACIAL IDENTITY PERCENT
WHITE 79.8%
HISPANIC 4.3%
AFRICAN AM 3.0%
ASIAN 11.6%
OTHER 1.3%
MEDIAN INCOME: $58,635 Family: $67,092 Nonfamily: $40.,756
HOUSING
TOTAL OCCUPIED UNITS: 7,893
OWNER OCCUPIED: . 5,143
RENTER OCCUPIED: 2,750
% OF TOTAL: 65%
% OF TOTAL: 35%
FAMILIES
TOTAL# FAMILIES: 5,132
MARRIED COUPLE: 4,325
MALE/NO WIFE: 203
FEMALE/NO HUSBAND: 604
% OF TOTAL
84%
4%
12%
PERSONS PER FAMILY: 2.93
SOUTH Census Tract Cont’d
LANGUAGE AT HOME(AGE 5>):
ONLY ENGLISH:81.7%
SPANISH:3.3%
ASIAN PAC:7.2%
OTHER:7.8%
ENG. SPOKEN WELLNERYWELL
2.8%
5.9%
_7.5%
EXHIBIT # 2B.
FAMILIES WITH CHLDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE
FAMILIES W/OWN CHILDREN UNDER 18:3,569
MARR lED COUPLE W/OWN KIDS < 18:3,094
MALE HEAD/NO WIFE: 64
FEMALE HEAD/NO HUSBAND: 411
% OF TOTAL:
87%
2%
11%
FAMILY STATUS
MARRIED COUPLE
OTHER FAMILY:
MALE HEAD/NO WIFE
FEMALE HEAD/NO HUSBAND
<6YRS. AGE
95%
<1%
5%
~17YRS. AGE
84%
2%
14%
WORK STATUS FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN < 18 YEARS OF AGE
LIVING WITH TWO PARENTS: 85% OF FAMILES WITH CHLDREN<18
BOTH PARENTS WORK:63%
FATHER ONLY WORKS:36%
MOTHER ONLY WORKS:1.1%
NEITHER WORK:.8%
LIVING WITH ONE PARENT: 15% OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN <18
LIVING WITH FATHER: 12% OF SINGLE PARENT FAMILES HEADED BY FATHER
WOR KS:100%
DOES NOT ~)RK:0%
LIVING WITH MOTHER: 88% OF SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES HEADED BY MOTHER
WORKS:90%
DOES NOT WORK:10%
CENSUS TRACT: WEST INCLUDING STANFORD
POPULATION
TOTAL POPULATION:26,113 1980: NA
POP. BY AGE GROUP
<5
5-17
18-44
45-64
65+
POP. 1980
NA
POP. 1990
1,284
2,180 ...
16,3o0
3,791
2,517
% CHANGE ’80 TO ’90
NA
RACIAL IDENTITY
WHITE
HISPANIC
AFRICAN AM
ASIAN
OTHER
PERCENT
71.7%
7.2%
3.9%
15.8%
1.4%
MEDIAN INCOME: $47,360 Family: $60,226 Nonfamily: $33,735
HOUSING
TOTAL OCCUPIED UNITS: 10,485
OWNER OCCUPIED: 3,024
RENTER OCCUPIED: 7,461
% OF TOTAL: 29%
% OF TOTAL: 71%
FAMILIES
TOTAL# FAMILIES: 5,397
MARRIED COUPLE: 4,578
MALE/NO WIFE: 203
FEMALE/NO HUSBAND: 616
%OFTOTAL
81%
5%
14%
PERSONS PER FAMILY: 2.8
WEST INCLUDING STANFORD Census Tract Cont’d
LANGUAGE AT HOME(AGE.5>):
ONLY ENGLISH: ..73,9%
SPANISH:6.4%
ASIAN PAC:10.2%
OTHER:9.7%
ENG. SPOKEN WELL/VERY WELL
5.5%
8.8%
9.1%
FAMILIES WITH CHLDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE
FAMILIES W/OWN CHILDREN UNDER 18:
MARRIED COUPLE W/OWN KIDS < 18:
MALE HEAD/NO WIFE: 85
FEMALE HEAD/NO HUSBAND: 533
3,369
2,7’51
% OF TOTAL:
82%
3%
15%
FAMILY STATUS
MARRIED COUPLE
OTHER FAMILY:
MAIF HEAD/NO WIFE
FEMALE HEAD/NO HUSBAND
<6 YRS. AGE
95%
1%
4%
6-17 YRS. AGE
73%
3%
24%
WORK STATUS FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN < 18 YEARS OF AGE
LIVING WITH TWO PARENTS: 80% OF FAMILES WITH CHLDREN<18
BOTH PARENTS WORK:59%
FATHER ONLY WORKS:31%
MOTHER ONLY WORKS:5%
NEITHER WORK:5%
LIVING WITH ONE PARENT: 20% OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN <18
LIVING WITH FATHER: 13% OF SINGLE PARENT FAMILES HEADED BY FATHER
WOR KS:100%
DOES NOT WORK:
LIVING WITH MOTHER: 87% OF SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES HEADED BY MOTHER
WORKS:73%
DOES NOT WORK:27%
EXHIBIT # 2D
CENSUS TRACT: WEST WITHOUT STANFORD
POPULATION
TOTAL POPULATION:14,959
POP. BY AGEGROUP POP.1980 POP. 1990
< 5 532 764
5-17 1,711 1,641
18~4 6,646 7,533
45-64 3,073 2.916
65+1,809 2,064
1980:13,771
% CHANGE ’80 TO ’90
43.6"/,
(4.1%)
13.3%
(5%)
14.1%
RACIAL IDENTITY PERCENT
WHITE 76.5"/,
HISPANIC 7.2"/,
AFR I CAN AM 3.7%
ASIAN 11
OTHER 1.4%
MEDIAN INCOME: $46,993 Family: $60,053 Nordamily: $34,145
HOUSING
TOTAL OCCUPIED UNITS: 6,049
OWNER OCCUPIED: ..3,024
RENTER OCCUPIED: . 3,025..
% OF TOTAL: 50%
% OF TOTAL: 50"/.
FAMILIES
TOTAL # FAMILIES: 3,563
MARRIED COUPLE: 2,867
MALE/NO WIFE: 181
FEMALE/NO HUSBAND: 515
% OF TOTAL
81%
5%
15%
PERSONS PER FAMILY: 2.92
WEST WITHOUT STANFORD Census Tract Cont’d
EXHIB1T # 2D
LANGUAGE AT HOME(AGE 5>):
ONLY ENGLISH:77.6%
SPANISH:6.3%
ASIAN PAC:7.i %
OTHER:9.5%
ENG. SPOKEN WELL/VERYWE~
5.0%
5.8%
8.6%
FAMILIES WITH CHLDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE
FAMILIES W/OWN CHILDREN UNDER 18:2,332
MARRIED COUPLE W/OWN KIDS < 18:1,796
MALE HEAD/NO WIFE: 58
FEMALE HEAD/NO HUSBAND: 478
% OF TOTAL:
77%
3%
2O%
FAMILY STATUS
MARRIED COUPLE
OTHER FAMILY:
MALE HEAD/NO WIFE
FEMALE HEAD/NO HUSBAND
YRS. AGE 6-17 YRS...AGE
93%70%
1%3%
6%27%
WORK STATUS FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN < 18 YEARS OF AGE
LIVING WITH TWO PARENTS: 75% OF FAM1LES WITH CHLDREN<18
BOTH PARENTS WORK:65%
FATHER ONLY WORKS:33%
MOTHER ONLY WORKS:1%
NEITHER WORK:1%
LIVING WITH ONE PARENT: 25% OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN <18
LIVING WITH FATHER: 11% OF SINGLE PARENT FAMILES HEADED BY FATHER
WOR KS:100%
DOES NOT WORK:0%
LIVING WITH MOTHER: 89% OF SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES HEADED BY MOTHER
WOR KS:72%
DOES NOT WORK:28%
EXHIBIT
PA YOUTH COUNCIL SURVEY -1991
SPECIFIC POINTS
Survey of PAUSD grades 7 through 12 - 2800 .respondents
85% plan to go to college
95% reported academic stress
First time drinking age average = 12 (same as national avg)
First time drug use age = 13 (slighter older than national
avg)
Demographics:
68.9% white
19.4% asian
5.0% african american
4.3% hispanic
The highest majority (15.3%) live closest to JLS middle
school.
91.9 % have a mother at home; 75.7% have a father at home.
70.1% reported that both parents work.
The top three things they do in their spare time:
86.6% listen to music
79.2% watch tv
55.2% read
The top three group involvement activities:
46.5% school sports
35.5% community sports
30.4% school clubs
Major problems identified:
top ten issues:
49.7% academic pressure
42.5% parental pressure
33.7% peer pressure
32.3% alcohol abuse
30.4% self image/esteem
26.0% homophobia
24.7% relating with parents
21.7% drug abuse
20.4% school grades
19.2% depression
Academic stress:
65.5% define academic stress as constant worry about getting
good’grades;
51.8% worry about meeting parenta! academic expectations.
48.1% report that stress manifests in exhaustion; 34.5% in
general unhappiness.
Safety/qender!sexuality issues:
45.3% do not feel safe walking along in the city at night.
27.2% think that date rape is a problem.
13.6% think that seventy percent of their peers are having
sexual intercourse.
69.1% think their peers use birth control.
32.5% reported knowing a gay/lesbian/bisexual peer.
Substance abuse:
67.5% report never using drugs
3.2% report using drugs everyday
of those using drugs,
36.0% use them for fun
18.3% use them for curiosity
13.1% use them at a friends house
12.8% use them at a party
36.0% report never using alcohol
1.1% report using alcohol everyday
of those using alcohol,
40.5% drink with friends
29.6% get alcohol from friends or family
Types of drugs and alcohol used:
42.6% beer
33.1% wine
29.9% hard liquor
17.9% cigarettes/tobacco
17.6% marijuana
EXHIBIT #4
PAUSD STUDENT HEALTH SURVEY -1993
ISSUE/POINT
Number
surveyed
Severe
problems
identified
(in order of
importance)
STUDENT
RESPONSE
1,759
weight/
eating;
rape; abuse;
loneliness;
anger and
violence;
drugs and
alcohol
STAFF
RESPONSE
88
PARENT
RESPONSE
8961
PHYSICIAN
RESPONSE
1552
family
problems;
academic
stress;
depression
and acne.
(Secondary:
weight;
asthma and
allergies;
severe
stress;
loneliness;
vision;
hearing;
drugs and
alcohol.
acne;
menstrual;
academic
stress;
asthma and
allergies;
vision;
sports
injuries;
learning
problems;
severe
stress;
depression;
family
problems;
headaches;
sleeping
problems.
asthma;
sports
injury;
ache;
menstrual;
weight;
headaches;
stomach
aches;
family
problems.
: 914 total returned; 896 in english were tallied.
108 see adolescents.
Table 7 Stress and Leave Issues
Demographic Characteristics
Women with Children at Home
Serious Problem
"Too much stress"
High Priority for Change
"Paid leave to care for newborns
9r ill relative,~" ,,,,
Palo Alto National Palo Alto National
0-5 years old 40.0%62.1%
6-12 years old 55.5%57.1%
13-18 years old 31.3%60.5%
No children at home 35.9%57.8%
62.5%62.6%
72.2%55.0%
50.0%40.3%
43.4%43.9%
Demographic Char~acteristics
Professionals
All Others
Seriou~ Problem High Priori .ty for Change
Stress Flexibility Paid Leave More Flexible
54.3%48.6%60%60%
28.9%23.7%65.8%52.6%
Table 8 Child Care Issues
Demographic Characteristics
Women with Children at Home
Serious Problem High Priority for Change
"Hard to find Quality Child Care" "Information and Support for
Child and De~ndent Care"
0-5 years old
6-12 years old
13-18 years old
No children at
Professionals
All Others
home
Palo Alto National Palo Alto National
52.5%55.8%57.5%52.6%
50.0%31.9%55.5%31.4%
12.5%10.8%12.5%17.8%
6.9%8.4%15.2%17.0%
34.3%34.3%
52.6%60.5%
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PALO ALTO SAMPLE IN
COMPARISON TO NATIONAL STATISTICS
Demom-auhic Characlrristies blarional Statistics Palo Alto samule
OCCUPATIONS**
Professional/Ma~g~ial 27.0 47.1
T~hnical 3.5 2.2
Low-wage whim collar 58.2 43.4
Low-wage blue collar 9.7 4.0
HOURS WORKED
Part-time (under 35)25.4 19.1
Full-time (35 and over)74.6 70.6
EDUCATION
Less than high school 9.1 0.45
Completed high school 36.6 32.4
S~ne colleg~ courses 19.2 2.3
College Degree 26.8 41.6
Post Graduam Degree 8.4 25.1
RACE & ETHNIC1TY
White 84.8 74.0
Black 11.4 2.7
Hispanic 6.7 13.0
Asian 1.9 13.6
Native American 0.6 2.3
PERSONAL INCOME
Under 10,000 37.8 5.9
10-25,000 37.9 15.1
25-50,000 21.1 53.4
50-75,000 2.3 20.1
Over 75,000 0.7 4.1
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Under 10,000 14.6 2.3
10-25,000 26.3 4.1
25-50,000 31.9 28.8
50-75,000 16.1 26.0
Over 75,000 11.0 37.0
CHILDREN UNDER 18 AT HOME
No 60.1 34.2
Yes 39.9 64.4
AGE
Less than 25 16.5 2.3
25-34 26.3 25.6
35-44 26.9 31.1
45-54 18.6 26.9
55+11.4 11.0
** Occupational categories: The following occupations are included in each category-
Professional/Managerial: Executives or Managers, and Professionals; Technical:
Technicians; Low-wage white collar.. Clerical Sales, and Services; Low-wage blue collar:
Operators/Fabricators, Craft/Repair, Transportation, and other.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WOMEN WITH CHILDREN IN
THE PALO ALTO SAMPLE
Demographic Characteristics ~~
OCCUPATIONS**
Clerical 42.1 43.6
Service 10.5 1.8
Sales 5.3 0
Technical 10.5 1.8
Executive 15.8 10.9
Professional 15.8 41.8
EDUCATION
Completed high school 10.5 9
Some college courses 36.8 16.4
College Degree 15.8 45.4
Post Graduate Degree 31.6 23.6
PERSONAL INCOME
Under 10,000 0 1.8
10-25,000 21 12.7
25-50,000 52.6 56.4
50-75,000 15.8 21.8
Over 75,000 10.5 1.8
** Occupational categories: The following occupations are included in each category-
Professional/Managerial: Executives or Managers, and Professionals; Technical:
Technicians; Low-wage white collar: Clerical, Sales, and Services; Low-wage blue collar:
OperatorsSZabricators, Crafuq~epair, Transportation, and other.
Family Resource Center Survey
Addison, Duveneck, Hays, Jordan, Palo Alto, Briones, Escondido, Hoover, Nixon, Gunn, Greendell,
El Carmelo, Young Fives, Fairmeadow, Ohlone, Palo Verde, J.L. Stanford
MASTER
Number of Parents in.Home 1 Parent 11%
2 Parents 88 %
Grade Level
Infant/Toddler/Preschool
Grade K-5
Grade 6-8
Grade 9 - 12
Family Ethaicity
Caucasian
Hispanic
African American
Asian
Other
Primary Language(s)
Spoken in the Home
English
Spanish
Mandarin
Other
How Long the Family has Lived in Palo Alto
0 -5 years
6 - 10 years
I 1 - 20 years
More than 20 yrs
Community Resources and Services Families
Would Use (Response rate of 20% or higher)
Libraries
Parks
Recreation - Grade K-5
Recreation - Adults
Community Service
and Voltmteerism
Educational Activities
Babysitting
Recreation - Grade 6-8
Recreation - Grade 9-12
25%
71%
34%
28%
55%
5%
5%
17%
18%
86%
3%
4%
7%
35%
21%
23%
16%
66%
60%
48%
40%
33%
32%
27%
27%
27%
Hours of Operation
Location of Services
Cost of Services
MASTER
Social Activities
Child Care
Health Care
Information on
Available Resources
.Neighborhood Assoc.
Neighborhood Watch
Parent Education
and Support
Weekday day
Weekday Evening
Weekend
At Work
Computer Access
Neighborhood Center
One City-wide Center
Social Service Agency
Local School
Library
Full Cost
Sliding Scale
Free of Charge
23%
22%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
30%
44%
53 %
30%
16%
36%
11%
2%
36%
41%
20%
34%
32%
Family Resource Center Survey
West." Briones, Escondido, Hoover, Nixon, Gunn
Number of Parents in Home 1 Parent 11%
2 Parents 88 %
Grade Level
Infant/Toddler/Preschool
Grade K-5
Grade 6-8
Grade 9 - 12
Family Ethnicity
Caucasian
Hispanic
African American
Other
Primary Language(s)
Spoken in the Home
English
Spanish
Mandarin
Other
How Long the Family has Lived in Palo Alto
0 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 20 years
More than 20 yrs
Community Resources and Services Families
Would Use (Response rate of 20% or higher)
Libraries
Parks
Recreation - Grade K-5
Recreation - Adults
Community Service
and Volunteerism
Educational Activities
Babysitting
Recreation - Grade 6-8
Recreation - Grade 9-I2
Healthcare
16%
62%
24%
45%
5O%
5%
4%
21%
20%
5O%
3%
4%
36%
35%
20%
23%
17%
63%
54%
40%
35%
31%
31%
21%
21%
27%
21%
Hours of Operation
Location of Services
Cost of Services
WEST
Weekday day
Weekday Evening
Weekend
At Work
Computer Access
Neighborhood Center
One City-wide Center
Social Service Agency
Local School
Library
Full Cost
Sliding Scale
Free of Charge
22%
40%
50% .
7%
14%
33%
9%
2%
34%
37%
16%
31%
31%
Family Resource Center Survey
South: Young Fives, Greendell, El Carmelo, Fairmeadow, Ohlone, Palo Verde, J.L. Stanford
Number of Parents in Home
Grade Level
SOUTH
1 Parent
2 Parents
Infant/Toddler/Preschool
Grade K-5
11%
89%
37%
86%
Family Ethnicity
Grade 6-8
Grade 9 - 12
Caucasian
Hispanic
African American
28%
10%
58%
5%
4%
Asian
Other
Primary Language(s)
Spoken in the Home
English
Spanish
Mandarin
Other
How Long the Family has Lived in Palo Alto
0 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 20 years
More than 20 yrs
Community Resources and Services Families
Would Use (Response rate of 20 % or higher)
Libraries
Parks
Recreation - Grade K-5
22%
11%
86%
3%
6%
5%
39%
21%
19%
14%
7O%
65%
57%
Recreation - Adults
Community Service
and Volunteerism
Educational Activities
Babysitting
Recreation - Grade 6-8
Recreation - Grade 9-12
43%
29%
34%
35%
24%
21%
Hours of Operation
Location of Services
Cost of Services
Social Activities
Child Care
Health Care
Information on
Available Resources
Neighborhood Assoc.
Neighborhood Watch
Parent Education
and Support
Weekday day
Weekday Evening
Weekend
At Work
Computer Access
Neighborhood Center
One City-wide Center
Social Service Agency
Local School
Library
Full Cost
Sliding Scale
Free of Charge
26%
28%
21%
22%
21%
23%
25%
37%
48%
54%
7%
18%
40%
11%
2%
43%
43%
19%
37%
37%
Family Resource Center Survey
North: Addison, Duveneck, Hays, JordaI1, Palo Alto
Number of Parents in Home
Grade Level
Family Ethnicity
NORTH
1 Parent
2 Parents
Infant/Toddler/Preschool
Grade K-5
Grade 6-8
Grade 9 - 12
Caucasian
Hispanic
African American
Other
Primary Language(s)
Spoken in the Home
English
Spanish
Mandarin
Other
How Long the Family has Lived in Palo Alto
0 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
1! - 20 years
More than 20 yrs
Community Resources and Services Families
Would Use (Response rate of 20% or higher)
Libraries
Parks
Recreation - Grade K-5
Recreation - Adults
Community Service
and Volunteerism
Educational Activities
Babysitting
Recreation - Grade 6-8
Recreation - Grade 9-12
13%
87%
17-%
61%
59%
30%
60%
4%
4%
9%
23%
95%
2%
1%
1%
29%
22%
29%
19%
65%
63%
44%
42%
41%
32%
22%
40%
38%
NORTH
Hours of Operation
Location of Services
Cost of Services
Social Activities
Youth Leadership
Teen Center
Information on
Available ReSources
Neighborhood Assoc.
Neighborhood Watch
Parent Education
and Support
Weekday day
Weekday Evening
Weekend
At Work
Computer Access
Neighborhood Center
One City-wide Center
Social Service Agency
Local School
Library
Full Cost
Sliding Scale
Free of Charge
23%
21%
23%
21%
20%
24%
22%
30%
44%
55%
5%
17%
33%
less than 1%
2%
39%
43%
26%
32%
28%
Family Resource Center Survey
~ CAP~
Number of Parents in Home 1 Parent 4 %
2 Parents 95 %
Grade Level
Family Ethnicity
Infant/Toddler/Preschool
Grade K-5
Grade 6-8
Grade 9 - 12
Caucasian
39%
20%
1%
4%
59%
Primary Language(s)
Spoken in the Home
English
Spanish
Mandarin
less than 1%
less than 1%
17%
23%.
95%
less than 1%
less than 1%
How Long the Family has Lived in Palo Alto
0-5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 20 years
More than 20 yrs
Community Resources and Services Families
Would Use (Respome rate of 20% or higher)
Libraries
Parks
Recreation - Grade K-5
Recreation- Adults
Community Serviee
and Volunteerism
Babysitting
Recreation- 0-Preschool
Food
31%
36%
21%
6%
80%
81%
33%
51%
28%
69%
40%
23%
Hours of Operadon
Location of Services
Cost of Services
Social Activities
Information on
Available Re, sources
Neighborhood Assoc.
Neighborhood Watch
Parent Education
and Support
Child Care
Health Care
Stress Management
Transportation
Ways to Meet Neighbors
Weekday day
Weekday Evening
Weekend
At Work
Computer Access
Neighborhood C~nter
One City-wide Center
Social Service Agency
Local School
Library
Full Cost
Sliding Scale
Free of Charge
28%
31%
36%
36%
42%
60%
34%
20%
25%
28%
43%
73%
72%
3O%
30%
58%
17%
5%
51%
56%
45%
45%
43%
Appendix D
Family Resource Center
Providers’ Survey
Summary Report
12/7/95
Introduction
In an effort to gather information on the needs of local family service providers and their
clients, the Family Resource Center (FRC) Task Force decided to conduct a survey of
service providers. The information from the survey, along with that from a series of
community focus groups1, will be used to shape the FRC business plan.
The Task Force charged the Providers’ Subcommittee, comprised of eight members of the
Task Force2, with planning and implementing the providers’ survey. The following sections
detail the methodology developed by the Providers’ Subcommittee and the results of the
survey.
Survey Format
In addition to establishing a database of basic information on local family services, the
Providers Subcommittee’s goals were to determine both the needs of the service providers
and the needs of their clients. Toward those ends, the Subcommittee designed a four page
survey with 34 questions, including questions about services, overall agency function and
current needs, and the providers’ perception of needs in the community. (SEE ATTACHED
PROVIDERS’ SURVEY)
Survey Dissemination
The list of providers to be surveyed was developed through the PAAIRS database. (SEE
ATTACHED LIST OF AGENCIES) Agencies providing services to Palo Alto families
were surveyed, including agencies not based in Palo Alto but serving Palo Alto families.
The survey was sent to 127 agencies between October 26 and November 2, 1995. The
mailing included a self-addressed, stamped envelope for survey return; survey recipients also
had the option to return the survey via fax. Survey recipients received a reminder call one
and one-half to two weeks after the mailing date.
Response Rate
I The FRC focus groups are detailed in a separate
also dated 12/7/95.
2Ruth Dzau, Megan Swezey Fogerty, Sharon Hofstedt,
McQuaid (co-Chair), Sharon Murphy, Kay Phillips, Barry
Margaret Toor (co-Chair)
report,
Mary
Taylor,
At the time of survey compilation for this report, 67 of 127, or 53 %, of the surveys had
been returned. Since compilation, another 13 surveys have been received. This brings the
overall response rate to 63 % at one month after mailing. In general, the response rate has
been higher for agencies that provide non-specialized services (ex: Palo Alto Medical
Foundation) and those that are locally-based (Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View). Once
address corrections and re-mailing are completed, the response rate should increase.
Compilation Methodology
For the purposes of this report, the Providers’ Subcommittee compiled the survey data from
the following questions:3
#9 Please list types of services.
#13 Are you interested in providing off-site services? If yes, please describe.
#18 Target groups: (compiled only "Children 0-6 years old" answer)
#28 What are your agency’s needs?
#31 Does your agency offer service in collaboration with other agencies? Please
describe.
#34 What gaps in service provision do you see in the local area?
These questions were compiled first because they help answer the most crucial questions for
the FRC:
-Are agencies interested in providing their services at off-site locations?
-Are agencies collaborating with each other?
-What do local providers consider to be the needs of community members?
-How many agencies are serving children 0-6 years of age?
The answers to the above-listed questions were compiled using Excel and Lotus 1-2-3
spreadsheets.4
Summary of Responses
3Responses for the remaining survey questions will be com-
piled and analyzed at a later date. This up to date information
could eventually support referral and networking functions for
the FRC.
4Statistics or database software was unavailable at the time
of this report. More comprehensive survey results will be report-
ed at a later date, using more sophisticated compilation tech-
niques.
A full summary of the responses to survey questions 9, 28, and 34 is contained in the
attached spreadsheets. The sections below include brief explanations of the categories listed
in the spreadsheets and highlights of the responses to all above-listed survey questions.
Types of Services
Survey question #9, asking for "types of services provided," was open-ended. The eleven
categories on the attached spreadsheet titled "Types of Agency" were developed by the FRC
Coordinator while reviewing the survey (CounselinglMentor/Support, Legal, Health, Special
Needs, Basic Needs, Education, Resource & Referral, Support to agencies, Parent Educa-
tion, Advocacy, and Other). The types of services provided by the largest number of survey
respondents were education (32 of 67 agencies or 48%) and counseling/support/mentoring
(31 agencies or 46%).5
Interest in Providing Off-site services
On question #13, 35 of 67 (52%) agencies answered "yes," they would like to provide off-
site services. The services that agencies are interested in providing off-site include counsel-
ing, classes, and trainings.
Target Groups
For question #18, we only compiled the responses for agencies checking off "Children 0-6
years old" as one of their target client populations. In total, 42 of 67 (63%) of agencies
serve children 0-6 years of age. The types of services provided include advocacy, adoption
support, counseling,-physical health, and education.
AgencyNeeds
In addition to the 9 possible answers on question #28 (weekend hours, evening hours, space,
transportation, technical assistance on fundraising and financial management, referrals, staff
training, and "other"), the "Agency Needs" spreadsheet shows a column for "volunteers."
This column was added because 12 respondents (18%) wrote in "volunteers" under "other."
The most common answers to this question were space (28 of 67 agencies, or 42 % of
respondents), technical assistance for fundfaising (46%), and referrals (43 %).
Collaboration
5Each agency listed as many types of services as their
agency provides. This statement means that ONE of the types of
services provided by 32 agencies is education.
As reported on question #31, 50 agencies (75% of respondents) are collaborating with
other agencies. Collaborative efforts include fairs, staff trainings, referrals, and off-site
service provision.
Gaps in Service Provision
Question #34 was open-ended; the Coordinator developed the categories listed in the
spreadsheet detailing the responses to #34. Unfortunately, 15 of 67 (22%) respondents did
not answer this question. The most common response to this question was a need for
expanded services for low income clients (13 responses, or 19% of respondents) Fully 40%
of respondents noted gaps in the provision of services in their agency’s field.
Preliminary Conclusions
Most major types of services are provided in Palo Alto and surrounding communities.
There is no consensus among providers as to gaps in specific types of service provision, but
many providers agree that services for low income clients should be expanded.
Many providers report that services in their specific field should be expanded or improved.
Agencies are collaborating with each other.
Many agencies are willing to provide off-site services.
4
Famil3 Resource Center _ ask Force
Office of Human Services
Office of Human Services
Cubberley Community Center
4000 Middlefield Rd., T2
Palo Alto, CA 94303
phone 415/329-2375 fax 415/856-8756
Family Resource Center Task Force
Provider’s Survey
Completing this survey takes 10,15 minutes.
1. Agency/institution name:..
2. Type of organization: r~ Private non-profit
r~ Government [] Other, please specify
3. Executive director:
4. Street address:
City:County:
5. Mailing address (if different):
6. Branch office locations:
7. Telephone(s): ()
[] Public non-profit [] Religious
8. FAX:TDD/TrY:E-Mail:
9. Please list types of services. You may attach additional sheets or brochure in addition to answering this
question:
1 cubb2&..dA:knamlie\p rov9w6.svy
Services lntormauon
Location-Related
10. Location of services:.
11. Geographical area served:
12. Do you provide off-site services (home visits, services at other locations)?, r~ yes
If yes, please describe:
13. Are you interested in providing off-site services? r~ yes r~ no
If yes, please list which services:
[] no
Access-Related
14. What are your days and hours of service? (Please check all that apply)
[] After 5PM [] Before 8AM rn Weekends [] Other, specify
15. Do you provide child care for clients? [] no [] yes, please explain..
16. Transportation available to site (Please check all that apply):
[] Public transit within 4 blocks [] Arranged (taxi, escort)
[] Agency van or private transportation [] Other, specify
[] 8AM - 5PM
17. Special needs access (Please check all that apply):
[] Special parking [] Ramps
[] Wheelchair access [] Bathrooms
[]Elevators
[]TDD
[]Other, specify,
Client-Related
18. Target groups: [] Children 0-6 years old [] School-age children [] Youth (above 6th grade)
[] Women [] Men [] Senior citizens [] Ethnic minorities [] Disabled
[] Geographic neighborhood(s), specify [] Other, specify
19. Language translation and services in languages other than English (list lan~ages, including sign
language):
20. Fees (Please check all that apply): [] No fee r~Sliding scale [] Fixed fee [] Medi-Cal
[] Medicare [] Insurance [] Scholarships available [] Other, specify.
21. Are you accepting new clients? [] yes [] no
22. Waiting List: [] None [] Less than 1 week [] 1-2 weeks [] More than 2 weeks
[] Other, specify
2 cubb2&dA Anatalie\provgw6.svy
Agency Information
23. How long has your age. been operating? ra Less than 1 ye~. [] 1-5 years [] 6-10 years
[] More than 10 years
24. Funding sources (please check all that apply and f’dl in approximate percentage of total agency
funding):
__[] City government
~r~ County government
~r~ State government
mm Federal government
~ Client fees (including
insurance)
m¯ United Way
__[] Private foundations
~[] Individual donations
__[] Other, specify
25. Agency Budget: [] Less than $50,000 [] $50,000 - 250,000
ra $501,000 - 1 million [] Over $1 million
26. What are your referral sources? (please check all that apply)
[] Walk-ins
ra Phone book
[] PAAIRS information and referral
[] Other, specify;
[] $251,000 - 500,000
[]County or city agencies
[]Other providers
[]Schools
27. How many unduplicated clients does your agency serve per year?~
28. What are your agency’s needs? (please check all that apply)
[] Technical assistance
[] Grant writing and fundraising
[] Financial management
[] Referrals
[] Staff training
~How many volunteers do you have?.~
[] To expand hours of services
[] Weekend hours
[] Evening hours
[] Space
[] Transportation for clients
[] Other, specify.
29. How many staff do you have?.
30. Does your agency collaborate with other agencies to provide staff training? [] yes [] no
If so, with which agencies?
31. Does your agency offer services in collaboration with other agencies: []yes []no
Please describe:
32. Does your agency offer community education programs: [] yes [] no
If yes, list:
Locations of community education programs: [] Our agency [] Schools
[] Other, specify.
3 cubb2d~lA:kaatalie\provgw6.svy
1 year, within 5 years)?33. What are your agencies 1:for future program development (wi¢
34. What gaps in service provision do you see in the local area?
Thank you for being a part of this survey. We will keep you informed about the progress of this project.
To be included in the survey report, please mail or fax this survey by October 26 to the address below.
Brochures from your agency would also be helpful. Prepaid postage only covers the mailing cost of the
survey; please add appropriate mount of postage if you include brochures.
phone 415/329-2375
Natalie Seer
Family Resource Cemer Task Force
Office of Human Services
Cubberley Community Center
4000 Middlefield Rd., Rm T-2
Palo Alto, CA 94303
fax 415/856-8756 e-mail ilene_hertz@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Do you want to be sent a copy of the results of this survey? [] yes [] no
Are you interested in receiving information about the Family Resource Center?[] yes [] no
4 cubb2&dA:knatalie\prov9w6.svy
Appendix E
Family Resource Center
Focus Groups/Phone Surveys
Summary Report
12/7/95
Introduction
The Family Resource Center (FRC) Task ForCe decided to hold community focus groups in
an effort to gather community input on the FRC project. A series of five focus groups was
held in October and November of 1995. The input from the focus groups, along with that
from a providers’ survey1, will be used to shape the FRC business plan.
The Task Force charged the Focus Groups Subcommittee, comprised of eight members of
the Task Force:, with planning and implementing the focus groups. Because the number of
participants in focus groups was lower than originally anticipated, the Focus Groups
Subcommittee decided to supplement the focus group series with a telephone survey of
community members who were unable to attend the focus group. The following sections
detail the methodology developed by the Focus Groups Subcommittee and the results of the
focus groups and phone survey.
FOCUS GROUPS
Methodology
The group decided to hold a series of focus groups, targeting the primary geographical,
language, and cultural groups in Palo Alto: West Palo Alto, North Palo Alto, South Palo
Alto, Japanese-American, Chinese-American, Latino/Hispanic, and Russian-American. A
focus group for Single Parent Dads was also included to ensure that members of this isolated
group would be included.
Facilitators
A list Of potential focus group facilitators for the geograpchially-based focus groups was
generated in subcommittee, and the full Task Force was solicited for additional names. The
entire list was reviewed by the Task Force, and finalists were interviewed by the Subcommit-
tee. To fred facilitators for the remaining focus groups, the subcommittee s_ought out persons
I The FRC providers’ survey is detailed in a separate re-
port,~ also dated 12/7/95.
2Sue Barkhurst (chair), Alberto Colorado, Margo Dutton, Tina
Gutierrez, Julie Jerome, Janet Lederer, Henry Page, Rachel Samoff
active in each of the respective communities. The FRC Coordinator interviewed each of these
potential facilitators over the phone. The following is a list of the FRC focus group
facilitators who were chosen3:
Karen Csejtay
Mike Kaku
Eva Lee
Pnina Levermore
Henry Page
Dolores Ramirez
South, North, West Palo Alto
Japanese-American
Chinese-American
Russian-American
Single Parent Dads
Latino-Hispanic
Focus Group Participants
Both direct and indirect modes of outreach were used to contact potential focus group
participants.
The direct outreach included mailing invitation letters (SEE ATTACHED) to residents, with
a goal of 30 letters sent for each focus group. For the geographically-based focus groups,we
contacted neighborhood associations to gather names of residents. For each of the cultur-
al/Ianguage groups, the facilitator and other community contacts assisted the subcommittee in
gathering contact names, due to difficulties in obtaining names from some groups, contact
lists ranged from 10 to over 30 names per group. The invitation letters were followed up
with a phone call, and letter recipients were asked for names friends or neighbors who might
also be interested in attending.
In addition to inviting people directly, we conducted general community outreach for the
focus groups. Two advertisements were run in the Palo Alto Weekly, notices were listed in
the Weekly community events section, and fliers went out with the P.alo Alto Community
Child Care parent newsletters and Palo Alto Unified School District elementary and middle
school newsletters. Fliers were also placed in several locations, including Palo Alto libraries,
the Junior Museum, and the Children’s Theatre. Additionally, community-specific outreach
was conducted, including placement of fliers at the Mayfield Clinic (which serves a large
number of Latino/Hispanic residents) and at the Chinese Reading Room. The.subcommittee
originally anticipated 10-1.5 participants for each focus group.
Focus Group Format
The goal in holding the focus groups was to find out what services families use, which
services they are lacking, and what type of program would best serve those needs. Toward
3As detailed later, only five focus groups were held.
that goal, the subcommittee came up with the following list of questions to be asked of focus
group participants:
- What might have made it easier for you when you ftrst moved here?
- What might have. made it easier for you when you had your first child? Your second child
(increasing family size)?
- What needs did you have when you started your family that were hard for you to satisfy?
- What services did you need? What services did you use
- How would you have liked to access these services?
- What services did you lack?
- What stopped you from making contacts?
- What might a place look like where you could access services? Where would it be - down
the block? In the library? Downtown? In the school?
- How would you suggest the services be funded? Fees for service, free access, etc.
Facilitators were asked to use these questions as a guideline for running their focus group.
Also, each of the facilitators participated in a "facilitator orientation," run by Janet Lederer
and the FRC Coordinator. During these orientations, the history and vision of the FRC were
discussed, and the format and goals for the focus groups were outlined.
Focus groups were held at Iocations agreed upon by the subcommittee and each of the
facilitators. A Focus Group Subcommittee member and the FRC Coordinator attended each
of the focus groups to observe and provide logistical support. In addition to the facilitators’
flip-chart notes and notes taken by the Coordinator or a language-specific observer during the
focus group, each group was audio-taped for backup.
Each of the focus groups met for one and one half hours, except the Latino/Hispanic group,
which met for two hours (at the facilitators suggestion). Each facilitator led their group
through introductions and a guided discussion (directed by the questions listed above.)
Processing Focus Group Input
After each focus group, the FRC Coordinator met with the facilitator (and note taker when
appropriate) and, using the detailed notes from the meeting, wrote up a summary of the input
from the focus group. The.se summaries were reviewed by the facilitators to ensure that no
major points were omitted. Next, the FRC Coordinator prepared a summary of the input
common to all focus groups. Both the individual focus group summaries and compilation of
common input were reviewed by the full subcommittee before the FRC Coordinator wrote up
this report.
PHONE SURVEY
Methodology
3
Reason for Conducting Phone Survey
The attendance at focus groups was lower than anticipated. Between four and nine partici-
pants attended each of the focus groups. Two focus groups, the Chinese-American and
Russian-American, were cancelled due to lack of participants, and the West Palo Alto focus
group was combined with the South Palo Alto group for the same reason.
The subcommittee determined a few probable reasons for the low turnout based on comments
made by residents who were contacted by phone and conversations with experienced focus
group facilitators. First, and perhaps most obvious, Palo Alto residents are very busy. Most
people are working full time and more, and people’s schedules are already booked with PTA
meetings, children’s activities, and other commitments. Second, the subcommittee hypothe-
sized that people might be more likely to put energy into reacting to an existing situation or
institution than into something that they cannot get their arms around.
In an effort to increase the number of people reached during the process of gathering
community input, the Focus Groups Subcommittee decided to conduct a telephone survey of
the residents on our contact lists who had been unable to attend the focus groups.
Survey Format
Volunteer phone surveyors, selected and trained by the Subcommittee Chair, called 76 people
and completed 20 surveys. The survey consisted of six questions (SEE ATTACI-IED) based
on those questions asked .at the focus groups. Each completed survey was identified by focus
group category (ex: South P.alo Alto or Chinese-American.) Each person on the set of lists
was called once; a message was left asking the person to call the FRC Coordinator at a more
convenient time if the person was not home or unavailable.
Processing Input
The answers to the six questions were compiled by the FRC Coordinator. An initial review
of the survey responses yielded a set of categories into which most answers fell, including
isolation, child care, and school issues. Next, the survey answers were tabulated according
to those categories.
~:OCUS GROUP AND PHONE SURVEY
Results
Summaries of Unique Input
from each Focus Group
(South\West Palo Alto, North Palo Alto, Latino,
Japanese-American, Single Parent Dads)
4
Latino/Hispanic
The Latino/Hispanic focus group participants were concerned about their experiences of
discrimination and negative stereotyping. They spoke of assumptions by others that their
families were on welfare and a belief in Palo Alto that Latinos in Ventura are creating gang
problems. Unlike residents in other parts of Palo Alto, they reported poor housing and
neighborhood conditions: the buildings are run down and have roaches, and landlords blame
tenants for poor condition of buildings. Also, there is a fear of going outside because the
streets are dark due to insufficient street lights.
These focus group participants presented a vision of a Family Resource Center to which they
could contribute by sharing their strengths and talents. This center would have fun activities,
including music, cultural activities, dance, festivals, ping pong, children’s games.
Japanese-American
The participants in this group were interested in increased information about
and access to activities and classes that are Japanese-specific. Ideas included language
classes by native speakers, Aikido taught in the traditional Japanese way, a basketball league
for Japanese (which already exists), play groups, and child care in Japanese (which also
already exists.) Parents were concerned that their third generation Japanese children main-
tain their cultural identity. Participants suggested that the FRC help set up a volunteer base
of Japanese people to meet and support newcomers from Japan and that the phone number of
FRC should be given to the Japanese consulate.
Single Parent Dads
These dads were very interested in access to information about services and activities for
their children. They described a survival package with condensed information and
referral that could be dropped off at the door like a phone book. According to this group,
children and youth should be included in the plarming and direction of the FRC,
which should include a quiet room, kitchen, and reading room. Regular classes or meetings
should be held so that single parent clads can plan for them each week. Additionally, the
FRC should include the following:
-public relations/classes to offset negative views of males as parents
-groups/classes at FRC should be cooperative, don’t have to always bring in outside
experts, everyone, can take turns teaching a class on their expertise
-legal information on family and custody issues
North Palo Alto
North Palo Altans were especially concerned about babysitting. They didn’t knov¢ how to
find babysitters they could trust, and need help with screening. Often teens aren’t available
because they have so many activities. They suggested a hotline for parents and a packet to be
given to families at the hospital after birth.
South/West Palo Alto
5
South Palo Altans feel that they don’t get as many resources as other areas of the city:
-There are never any neighborhood concerts or activities hosted by the city.
-The tree trimming and sidewalks are not kept up.
Participants were confused by school waiting lists and associated politics, and were interested
in information that would make the enrollment process more clear. They described an FRC
located in South Palo Alto (in Ventura) where children could hang out, but that would not
duplicate specialized services provided locally. It was suggested the City Council host a
newcomers introduction to Palo Alto once per quarter.
Summary of Phone Survey Responses
The responses to the 6 question telephone survey (SEE ATTACI-IED) supported the findings
from the five focus groups. Participants expressed family needs ranging from improved
transportation to elderly care. However, the most commonly expressed needs were babysitt-
ing (50% of survey participants) and information or improved services from the schools
(40% of respondents). Twenty-five percent of participants did not remember having unmet
family needs when fast moving to Palo Alto, and 40% get support for family needs through
community, family, and friends.
CONCLUSIONS
Because the focus groups and telephone survey represent a small sample of Palo Alto
residents (51 people), the information from this report must be considered along with the
Family Resource Center Providers’ Survey results and other relevant information. Other
documents to be considered include the results of the Family Resource Center Back to School
Night Family Survey and the Demographics Subcommittee Report.
The results of the focus groups and phone survey include several themes common across
geographical and cultural groups:
The Center: The family resource center would be structured as a community
living room., with comfortable space for informal gatherings and family-
oriented socialir.ing. An approachable and knowledgeable staff person would
be available to provide information about existing resources and programs, and
written materials on all types of programs for families would also be available.
Ventura residents were eager to see a Family Resource Center in their neigh-
borhood, as they want to participate in family-oriented festivals and events
close to home. Most participants were not particular as to the location of a
Family Resource Center.
Welcome Wa_~on~. Many people want to see a Welcome Wagon service. This
service would provide an easy-to-use compilation of resources for families in
the local area (child care information, classes and recreation schedules,
explanation of school sign ups). This packet would be disseminated to new
residents and be readily available to all families with children.
Internet and other modes of information access: Residents are interested in
accessing family services information online, at their convenience. Participants
also desire other methods of easily accessing information including a hotline, a
comprehensive Palo Alto-specific resource book, and meetings for Palo Alto
newcomers.
Buildin~ communit-v: People want to develop connections and mutual support
among families. It was suggested that the Family Resource Center could
facilitate and support community-based activities such as babysitting co-ops,
play groups, block parties, and mom’s clubs. These types of groups already
exist and are really working for people.
Child care: The one service consistently mentioned as a "need" was child care.
Parents have a hard time finding child care slots for their children, and waiting
lists are sometimes long. Many people cannot fred drop-in care or babysitting.
Although the types of formal services needed by most families exist in Palo Alto or in the
Bay Area, people have difficulty accessing information about services. When first moving to
Palo Alto or fu’st experiencing parenthood, some residents feel isolated. They are interested
in accessible information (especially child care information), a community space for
information sharing and gatherings, and increased connections and support within neighbor-
hoods.
7
October 5,
Family kesource Center Ta k Force
1995
Office of numma Set-
Dear (name),
We are writing to ask for your help in making Palo Alto the best community possible. Palo Alto’s
Family Resource Center Task Force is holding community Focus Groups in October, and we’d like to
invite you to use this opporamity to help shape the future of family services in Palo Alto.
The Family Resource Center Task Force was initiated a year ago by then Mayor Liz Kniss, who
responded to the community’s call for coordinated services for children and families. The reason for
the development of improved services for fzmilies is the betief that the primary responsibility for the
development and well-being of children lies within the family, and that families exist as part of a
community system. Children cannot be seen as separate from their families, nor families separate
from their communities. The Task Force, made up of 30 community, members and non-profit agency
representatives, has been meeting for a year and is now ready to write a Master Plan based on
community input. That is why the Task Force is holding focus groups to fred out from you and a wide
variety of members of our community what families need.
At the focus ~oup, you will be asked for input on the de~ee to which services in Palo Alto have
been accessible, unavailable, inadequate, or unknown to you and your family. Your input, along with
that of participants in eight Focus Groups across Palo Alto, will be used to shape the Master Plan.
This plan will be sent to all focus group participants.
As a Palo Alto resident, you are invited to participate in a focus group at Walter Hayes
Elementary School library:. 1525 Middlefield at Embarcadero, on Wednesday, October 18 at
7:00 PM to 8:30 PM. Please call if you need directions or have any special needs, including child
care, wheelchair access, or sign language interpretation. Light refreshments will be served. Your
input, is very important to us, and we hope that you will be able to attend. We also encourage you to
share this invitation with any neighbors in North Palo Alto who might be interested in attending.
Space is limited, so please RSVP to Natalie Seer at 415/329-2375 by Monday, October 16 to
reserve your place at the Focus Group.
Thank you for your participation,
Sincerely,
Sue Barkhurst
Chair, Focus Groups Subcommittee
Family Resource Center Task Force
Natalie Seer
Coordinator
Family Resource Center_Task Force
Family Resource Center
Telephone Survey i1/95
Participant
!.As a member of a family with children, what frustrations did
you encounter when you came to Paio Alto?
2.What would have made it easier for you and your family?
3.What are your frustrations now?
4.How did you get help?
5. Which, if any, of the fo!iowin~ information or se_$vices have
you needed in the past? (write in "i" and/or "S" for each choice)
housing
schools
babysitting
child care
newcomers meetings
neighborhood
strengthened
other, specify
6..Which, if any, of the followin~ services are you needing now?
housing
schools
babysitting
child care
newcomers meetings
neighborhood
strengthened
__ other, specify