Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-09-10 Human Relations Commission Agenda PacketHUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Regular Meeting Thursday, September 10, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM   Human Relations Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 76, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Clerk/Boards-and- Commissions. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91994548701) Meeting ID: 919 9454 8701 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to HRC@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Commission and available for inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to HRC@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.    1 Regular Meeting September 10, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.   CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL   IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda.   AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES   Approval of the August 13, 2026, Human Relations Commission Regular Meeting Draft Action Minutes. – Action – 5 minutes BUSINESS ITEMS   1.CEDAW Subcommittee 2026 Findings and Recommendations Supplemental Report 2.Presentation of the Jed Foundation Findings Report 3.PUBLIC HEARING: Summary of Fiscal Year 2025-2026 (HUD CDBG Program Year 2025) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Accomplishments — Review of the Draft Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) •Commissioner Reports •Council Liaison Report •Staff Liaison Report COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)   VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda.    2 Regular Meeting September 10, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.   ADJOURNMENT   OTHER INFORMATION The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during this meeting’s agenda. Written public comments may be submitted in advance and will be provided to the Commission and available for public inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting.   A.Public Comments  3 Regular Meeting September 10, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.   PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to hrc@PaloAlto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B-E above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 919 9454 8701 Phone:1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. MINUTES 1 Human Relations Commission 2 Regular Meeting 3 August 13, 2026 4 In-Person & Virtual Conference 5 Palo Alto, California 6 7 Commissioners Present In-Person: 8 Chair Kraus, Vice Chair Causey, Commissioner Karnam, Commissioner Rosenberg, Commissioner 9 Stimmler, Commissioner Barr 10 Commissioners Present Virtually: 11 12 Commissioners Absent: 13 Commissioner Ansari 14 Others Present: 15 Staff Present: 16 Sophie Pigman 17 Eric Vidal (Clerk) 18 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 19 Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM 20 21 PUBLIC COMMENT 22 1. XXXXX 23 24 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 25 26 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 June 11, 2026 28 MOTION: Commissioner stimmmler moved, seconded by Commissioner kanman 29 MOTION Carried: 6 – 0 - 1 30 31 {{item.number}}     Packet Pg. 5     32 BUSINESS ITEMS 33 1. Affordable Senior Housing: Local and Regional Projects, Needs, and 34 Challenges: Presentations from Alta Housing, Eden Housing, and MidPen 35 Housing – Discussion – 45 min 36 Chair Kraus 37 Commissioner Barr 38 Chair Kraus 39 Alta Housing - Stephanie S. (Vice president) 40 Chair Kraus 41 Commissioner Barr 42 Eden Housing – Linda M. (CEO of Eden housing) 43 Commissioner Barr 44 Linda M. 45 Chair Kraus 46 MidPen – Molly 47 Linda M. 48 Chair Kraus 49 V. C. Caucey 50 Commissioner Barr 51 Stephanie S. 52 Chair Kraus 53 Stephanie S. 54 Linda M. 55 Chair Kraus 56 Molly 57 Commissioner Barr 58 Molly 59 V.C. Causey 60 {{item.number}}     Packet Pg. 6     Linda M. 61 Commissioner Barr 62 Linda M. 63 Commissioner Stimmler 64 Linda M. 65 Commissioner Stimmler 66 Molly 67 Commissioner Stimmler 68 Linda M. 69 Chair Kraus 70 Commissioner Rosenberg 71 Molly 72 Commissioner Barr 73 Commissioner Rosenberg 74 Linda 75 76 No Public Comments 77 2. Barriers to Senior Services: Perspectives from Seniors including Clients of 78 Avenidas and Alta Housing - Discussion - 45 minutes 79 Chair Kraus 80 Avenida CEO – Christina L 81 Alta COO - Cheryll Kline 82 Roberta Jane Stone 83 Commissioner Rosenberg 84 Roberta Jane Stone 85 Ella Herbert – resident 86 Ella Herbert’s Daughter 87 Chair Kraus 88 Ella Herbert 89 {{item.number}}     Packet Pg. 7     Chair Kraus 90 V.C. Causey 91 Ella Herberts Daughter 92 Ella Herbert 93 Cheryl Kline 94 95 No Public comments 96 97 3. County Policies and Regional Legislation Affecting Seniors: Presentation from a 98 County policy analyst –Discussion — 15 minutes 99 Removed from the Agenda 100 101 4. Property-Tax Qualifications for Affordable Senior Housing Projects: Presentation 102 from the California State Board of Equalization – Discussion — 15 minutes 103 Sally Leiber – Board of Equalization 104 Chair Kraus 105 Sally L. 106 Chair Kraus 107 Commissioner Stimmler 108 Sally L. 109 Commissioner Stimmler 110 Sally L. 111 Chair Kraus 112 Sally L. 113 Chair Kraus 114 Commissioner Stimmler 115 116 No Public comments 117 118 {{item.number}}     Packet Pg. 8     CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) 119 • Commissioner Reports 120 Vice Chair Causey 121 Commissioner Stimmler 122 Chair Kraus 123 Commissioner Karnam 124 Chair Klause 125 Commissioner Karnam 126 Chair Klaus 127 128 • Council Liaison Report 129 Councilmember Greer Stone 130 • Staff Liaison Report 131 Sophie 132 133 COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA 134 ITEMS 135 Chair Kraus 136 Sophie 137 Commissioner Stimmler 138 Commissioner Barr 139 Sophie 140 V.C. Causey 141 142 143 ADJOURNMENT 144 Meeting was adjourned at 8:12 PM 145 {{item.number}}     Packet Pg. 9     Human Relations Commission Staff Report From: Sophie Pigman, Human Services Manager Meeting Date: September 10, 2026 Report #: 2608-6699 TITLE CEDAW Subcommittee 2026 Findings and Recommendations BACKGROUND Attached to this staff report is a full report from the CEDAW Subcommittee. The recommendations from the Subcommittee have not yet been analyzed by staff. The overview below is to provide background information related to and a summary of the Subcommittee report. It is not an analysis of the recommendations. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) provides a framework for identifying and addressing barriers affecting women and girls. On March 23, 2026, City Council adopted local CEDAW principles, now codified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.73.050. The ordinance directs the City, to the maximum extent possible and as permitted by law, to integrate CEDAW principles into its role as a service provider, employer, and community and business partner. The adopted principles address economic development; housing and homelessness; civic engagement; access to community, library, and transportation services; and climate action and sustainability. In adopting the ordinance, City Council referred the matter to the Human Relations Commission (HRC) for actionable recommendations to advance implementation, specifically including appropriate housing options for unhoused individuals and survivors of sexual or gender-based violence, as well as childcare. The HRC CEDAW Subcommittee was formed to support the Commission’s work in developing feasible, phased recommendations for Palo Alto. The Subcommittee recognizes HRC’s advisory role and proposes an implementation approach that balances near-term actions with longer- term systems change while remaining scaled to the City’s capacity. The table below summarizes the Subcommittee recommendations. These recommendations have not yet been analyzed by staff to determine resource impacts or applicability as a task for the City. Topic Proposed Recommendation 1     Packet Pg. 10     Ongoing implementation Establish CEDAW as an ongoing HRC responsibility supported by a standing subcommittee, annual focus-area audits, staff coordination, and annual reporting to City Council (through the full HRC). Grants and surveys Encourage staff to consider CEDAW-related funding opportunities when pursuing grants and to incorporate CEDAW considerations into community surveys. Childcare facilities Direct staff to review City-controlled land use, zoning, permitting, parking, fees, and development requirements that may affect the opening, expansion, and operation of childcare facilities. Childcare workforce Continue policies and advocacy supporting living wages, workforce development, provider sustainability, subsidies, and childcare infrastructure investments. State advocacy Include advocacy for increased California childcare licensing capacity and reduced licensing delays in the City’s state legislative advocacy priorities. Childcare anti- displacement Study renter protections and anti-displacement measures for childcare facilities, including lease stability and strategies to mitigate significant rent increases. Housing, mobility, and caregiving Continue incorporating a caregiving and safety lens into housing, transportation, land-use, ADU, affordable-housing, and age-friendly community decisions. Civic participation Consider a dependent-care stipend for Councilmembers and members of City Boards and Commissions for official City meetings and duties. Family-friendly workplaces Study a local ’family-friendly workplace‘ ordinance, informed by San Francisco’s model, including flexible or predictable scheduling requests, an interactive process, anti-retaliation protections, exemptions, thresholds, and enforcement options. City procurement Develop a ’family-friendly procurement‘ policy that considers bidders’ caregiving-supportive workplace policies and benefits, where legally permissible and appropriate. Survivor emergency lodging Establish and fund an emergency lodging program for survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and other gender-based violence when immediate safe shelter is unavailable. Survivor housing advocacy Include advocacy for expanded state relocation assistance for survivors as part of the City’s state legislative advocacy efforts. Note: the recommendations listed above have not yet been analyzed by staff to determine resource impacts or applicability as a task for the City. ANALYSIS Proposed CEDAW Implementation Model 1     Packet Pg. 11     The Subcommittee recommends establishing CEDAW as a core, ongoing responsibility of the Human Relations Commission, supported by a standing CEDAW Subcommittee. Under this model, the Subcommittee would request to meet periodically with relevant City staff to receive updates regarding implementation of CEDAW principles and related City initiatives. Each year, the Subcommittee would select a focus area for a more detailed audit, examine how Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and Emerging Needs Fund investments align with CEDAW priorities, and identify findings, service gaps, and actionable recommendations for full HRC consideration. The Subcommittee would also support annual HRC updates to City Council regarding implementation progress, audit findings, and future policy or funding recommendations. 1     Packet Pg. 12     Gender-Based Violence and Survivor Resources Audit: Key Findings 1     Packet Pg. 13     FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The fiscal and resource impacts of the Subcommittee recommendations have not yet been assessed. This first discussion of the Subcommittee report has no direct fiscal impact associated with receiving the Subcommittee’s findings and recommendations. Staff anticipates that some of the recommendations would require significant resources or staff time to implement if approved. Recommendations advanced by the Commission and subsequently considered by City Council, would require further staff analysis regarding legal authority, organizational jurisdiction, implementation capacity, potential costs, funding sources, interdepartmental roles, and alignment with existing City work plans. Certain recommendations may also require coordination with Santa Clara County, the State of California, nonprofit service providers, and other regional partners. 1     Packet Pg. 14     Human Relations Commission Staff Report From: Sophie Pigman, Human Services Manager Meeting Date: September 10, 2026 Report #: 2609-6735 TITLE Presentation of the Jed Foundation Findings Report BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Attached is the full packet of the Jed Foundation (JED) report that was presented to the City Schools Liaison Committee on September 1, 2026. The Human Relations Commission (HRC) requested a presentation of this report to support the discussion within the HRC Youth Mental Health Subcommittee. Staff recommends that the HRC receive this report and for it to be context for the HRC Youth Mental Health Subcommittee. Also, that any planned next steps from the Subcommittee to be shared with the full HRC and coordinated with broader citywide efforts on this work. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT There is no fiscal impact for this discussion. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: City Schools Liaison Committee Staff Report and JED Report and Attachment 2     Packet Pg. 15     City Schools Liaison Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: September 1, 2026 Report #:2608-6692 TITLE Receive and Discuss the 2026 Findings Report on Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto Prepared by The Jed Foundation, and Discuss Next Steps – CEQA: Not a Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Schools Liaison Committee receive and discuss the 2026 Findings Report on Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto Prepared by The Jed Foundation (JED) and discuss next steps. BACKGROUND In September 2025, the City of Palo Alto engaged with The Jed Foundation (JED), a nationally recognized suicide prevention organization, to help with Palo Alto’s future efforts related to youth mental health including postvention support, strengthening prevention efforts, elevating youth voice, increasing awareness, and building community skills through training . Key deliverables include: 1. A comprehensive findings report of youth mental health in Palo Alto, including challenges, progress, and next steps. 2. Mental health trainings for clinicians and practitioners, and community members. 3. A roadmap to establish a Youth Task Force. 4. A postvention guide to improve responses to suicide and reduce the risk of suicide contagion. 5. A review of communication efforts. The scope of work was created after feedback from the April 2025 City Schools Liaison Committee meeting and subsequent discussions with JED. The contract was approved by City 2     Packet Pg. 16     Council on September 29, 20251 with the intention of being a 24-month engagement through September 30, 2027. ANALYSIS To date, JED has provided Counseling on Access to Lethal Means (CALM)2 training on lethal means reduction to clinicians, mental health professionals, emergency responders, and community partners. JED also hosted workshops / trainings for youth, educators, parents, staff on topics such as ”You Can Help,”” It’s Okay to Say Suicide,” and ”Creating an Inclusive Community of Care” in the spring and summer . The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) also separately hosted workshops with JED in the spring. As training courses are planned and introduced, the session information is posted on the City’s JED webpage at: www.paloalto.gov/jed. In addition to the trainings, one of the first deliverables JED provided is their Findings Report3 (Attachment A). It is the result of a community-wide review of suicide prevention and postvention efforts in Palo Alto. JED reviewed City efforts as well as efforts by other organizations beyond the City of Palo Alto. The report presents JED’s independent evaluation findings, including strengths and opportunities for the whole Palo Alto community in addressing youth mental health. The strengths and areas of opportunity transcend individual organizations and span many subject matters, reinforcing the importance of community partnerships and collaboration to strengthen support for Palo Alto youth. The task JED sought to cover through this analysis was to conduct a gap analysis of the current programs and services for youth mental health support in Palo Alto. The y evaluated services offered by age, accessibility of services, supports for specific demographic groups, availability of types of mental health support services, and more. Their recommendations include evidence- based programs and interventions for suicide prevention in communities and reflect themes gathered through stakeholder engagement throughout the Palo Alto community . JED describes the Findings Report as the start of a community conversation. The report provides a list of JED’s recommendations as a list of possible actions where the City and its partners will need to decide which actions to pursue. As a toolkit of potential actions, it is not intended to imply that all actions be taken nor only by the City. The City Schools Liaison Committee is the start of this conversation. It is a first opportunity after report publication for 1 September 29, 2025 City Council meeting, Item #12. Link: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16240 2 CALM is a practical intervention to increase the time and distance between individuals at risk of suicide and the most common and lethal methods of suicide. It is the oldest and most widely used training on lethal means safety and teaches why means matter. CALM equips individuals with tools to intervene effectively with those at risk for suicide both upstream–before a crisis hits–as well as in times of crisis. More information can be found here: https://sprc.org/bpr-programs/counseling-on-access-to-lethal-means-calm/ 3 The JED Findings Report is also available online at www.paloalto.gov/jed 2     Packet Pg. 17     the City and community partners, including PAUSD, to review existing efforts together and to work together on opportunities. In initial staff-to-staff conversations with PAUSD staff and Project Safety Net (PSN), there are many existing efforts that align with JED’s recommendation themes. Attachment B includes a summary of current efforts in PAUSD, the City and PSN in the five recommendation themes identified by JED in the Executive Summary. Those five (5) recommendation themes include: 1. Policies, Procedures, and Protocols 2. Education, Outreach, and Training 3. Collaboration and Messaging 4. Reducing Access to Lethal Means (one of JED’s thematic domains) 5. Address Root Causes and Culture Change Additionally, JED provided some recommendations related to the other six (6) thematic domains of JED’s comprehensive approach to suicide prevention. Those domains are: - Fostering Life Skills - Promote Connectedness and Positive Culture - Recognize and Respond to Signs of Distress - Reduce Barriers to Help Seeking - Ensure Access to Effective Mental Health Care - Establish Systems of Crisis Management The information in Attachment B centers on the five (5) recommendation themes described in the Executive Summary. This is a good starting place for Committee discussion as it provides the opportunity to build on existing efforts. Next Steps This initial Committee discussion of the Findings Report continues the community efforts to address and support youth mental health. Collaboratively this discussion begins the work to think through which recommendations can be accomplished and in what timeframe (short-, medium-, and long-term). The report leads to consideration of policy direction by the Palo Alto City Council in coordination with PAUSD, PSN, and other community partners. JED encourages clearly written goals with actionable objectives and specific timelines and that the goals should be ranked and available resources utilized to promote a unified citywide response. To keep a pulse on citywide need, JED references the benefit of an annual community survey related to youth mental health to determine areas of improvement or newly identified areas of concern. Staff has begun work with JED and stakeholders on the Postvention Guide through a smaller stakeholder discussion and a broader community discussion on August 11. The postvention guide discussion is looking at the current postvention supports and systems. JED will 2     Packet Pg. 18     incorporate feedback and create a codesigned and customized postvention guide to improve responses to loss by suicide (and other unexpected loss) and to reduce the likelihood that othe r individuals will die by suicide following a loss. Further next steps from the Findings Report will be followed up on per the Committee discussion. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Some of the recommendations within the recommendation themes and JED thematic domains require significant resources by different agencies in Palo Alto. JED encourages the City and partners to set short-, medium-, and long-term strategic goals in supporting youth mental health in order to balance community-wide resources. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT JED’s Findings Report findings are the result of many community stakeholder interviews and a review of national, state, and local data. Specifically, JED reviewed, analyzed, and synthesized quantitative and qualitative data from multiple sources (e.g., archival and publicly available national, state, and local data, youth focus groups, stakeholder listening sessions, results from Palo Alto Unified School District’s Panorama student 2024-2025 survey, JED’s Community-Based Organization Baseline Assessment, and a review of relevant documents and reports. JED conducted a total of 10 in-person and 12 virtual listening sessions led by Dr. Katie Hurley, Dr. Kurt Michael, Kiana Davis, and Whitney Yoder at JED . Cumulatively, these sessions included 74 community members from 22 stakeholder groups including nonprofit partners, youth organizations, behavioral health service providers, local universities, county behavioral health services, City staff (including first responders), City Council, and Palo Alto residents. JED also conducted three (3) in-person and four (4) virtual youth focus groups for Palo Alto teens aged 13-17 and young adults aged 18-30. The seven (7) focus groups included a total of 53 teens and young adults. All of these engagements were critical for the information in the Findings Report. These relationships will continue to be leveraged for the other efforts within the JED contract scope. Thus far, the late summer engagements (CALM workshop, Community workshop on Postvention Guide and the It‘s Okay to Say Suicide workshop) had a total of 72 participants. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Not a project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: JED Findings Report and Cover Letter 2     Packet Pg. 19     Attachment B: PAUSD, City, and PSN Current Efforts Related to JED Recommendation Themes APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager 2     Packet Pg. 20     August 20, 2026 RE: Cover Letter for JED Findings Report The City of Palo Alto engaged with the Jed Foundation (JED), a nationally recognized suicide prevention organization, to help with Palo Alto’s future efforts related to youth mental health including to conduct a community-wide review of suicide prevention and postvention efforts in Palo Alto. JED reviewed City efforts as well as efforts by other organizations beyond the City of Palo Alto. This report presents JED’s independent evaluation findings, including strengths and opportunities for the whole Palo Alto community in addressing youth mental health. The strengths and areas of opportunity transcend individual organizations and span many subject matters, reinforcing the importance of community partnerships and collaboration to strengthen support for Palo Alto youth. The report’s findings are informed by research and conclude that Palo Alto is well positioned to build upon strengths for a comprehensive approach to youth suicide prevention and postvention. The findings are the result of many community stakeholder interviews and a review of national, state, and local data. The executive summary provides a list of JED’s recommendations as a list of possible actions where the City will need to decide which actions to pursue. As a toolkit of potential actions, it is not intended to imply that all actions be taken immediately or only by the City. As a next step, the report will lead to consideration of policy direction by the Palo Alto City Council in coordination with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and Project Safety Net (PSN). JED encourages clearly written goals with actionable objectives and specific timelines and that the goals should be ranked and available resources utilized to promote a unified citywide response. To keep a pulse on citywide need, JED references the benefit of an annual community survey related to youth mental health to determine areas of improvement or newly identified areas of concern. Attachment A - Cover Letter and JED Findings Report 2     Packet Pg. 21     An immediate next step will be JED’s presentation of the findings report at the September 1 City Schools Liaison Committee meeting at 7p.m. at 25 Churchill Ave. While a lot of work is already underway in the community, addressing many of the recommendations in the report will require priority setting, resources, and consideration of roles among multiple parties, including PSN, PAUSD, the City, families, youth groups, and community-based organizations. JED observed that all these parties want to work collaboratively to build a stronger mental health safety net in Palo Alto. Beyond review of the findings report as a starting place for discussion on actionable goals and objectives, the next phase of this effort will include the development of a postvention guide. The guide will provide a community-focused protocol for responding to a loss by suicide. The recent or upcoming series of broader public engagement sessions are: - August 11 - Community Postvention (Response to Suicide Loss) Conversation, Mitchell Park Community Center, 6 p.m. - August 12 - It’s OK to Say Suicide Workshop, Rinconada Library, 6 p.m. - CALM Trainings for practitioners and first responders (in August and September) The ongoing work with JED and these community conversations continue to reinforce commitment to supporting Palo Alto youth and community mental health. For details about upcoming workshops and the City’s work with JED, visit www.PaloAlto.gov/JED. 2     Packet Pg. 22     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto i Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto: Challenges, Progress, and Next Steps A Detailed Findings Report Prepared by The Jed Foundation (JED) for the City of Palo Alto June 30, 2026 ® 2     Packet Pg. 23     Table of Contents 01 Executive Summary 07 Purpose and Scope 09 Methodology 09 Analyses of National, State, and County Data 10 Palo Alto Unified School District Panorama Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Student Competency and Well-Being Measures for Grades 6-12 10 JED Community-Based Organization Baseline Assessment 10 Youth Focus Groups 11 Community Stakeholder Listening Sessions 11 Documents and Reports Reviewed 12 Current Overview 13 National, State, and County Trends in Suicide Deaths 15 Schools 17 Thematic Feedback 18 Youth 24 Adult stakeholders 30 Systems Gap Analysis 31 Interpretive Summary 35 Recommendations 35 Foster Life Skills 35 Promote Connectedness and Positive Culture 36 Recognize and Respond to Signs of Distress 36 Reduce Barriers to Help-Seeking 37 Ensure Access to Effective Mental Health Care 37 Establish Systems of Crisis Management 38 Reduce Access to Lethal Means 39 Systems & Governance 40 Implementation Considerations 40 Limitations and Future Directions 41 Appendices 42 Appendix A 43 Appendix B 47 Appendix C 51 Appendix D 52 Appendix E 53 Appendix F 55 References 2     Packet Pg. 24     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 1 Executive Summary The Jed Foundation (JED), a nonprofit that protects emotional health and prevents suicide for our nation’s teens and young adults, and the City of Palo Alto entered into a partnership on September 29, 2025 to advise on suicide prevention, intervention, and postvention planning for youth and young adults living in Palo Alto. Phase one of the project included an assessment and gap analysis to assist Palo Alto in identifying strengths and areas of opportunity to improve its citywide mental health response plans. Suicide by pedestrian–train collision in Palo Alto has received sustained national and local media coverage since at least 2009. The problem persists and remains deeply traumatizing, particularly given its public nature and repeated incidents near local high schools. Local experts, including Dr. Shashank Joshi, have also raised longstanding concerns about extensive media attention and detailed reporting of methods and locations, which may increase the risk of subsequent suicides (also known as suicide contagion). Many factors contribute to suicide, including limited access to effective and suicide-focused mental health care, ready access to common and lethal means of suicide, insufficient culturally responsive interventions, intense academic pressure, and broader systemic barriers to basic needs such as rest, sleep, and recreation. Despite these challenges, one theme emerged consistently across listening sessions that JED staff conducted with community members: a strong, shared commitment to healing and to strengthening coordinated, citywide prevention efforts. “My brother is in 5th grade. He already has friends experiencing suicidal ideation.” - Palo Alto Youth 2     Packet Pg. 25     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 2 Strengths and areas of opportunity emerged during the assessment phase, and the City of Palo Alto is well positioned to build on these strengths to develop comprehensive mental health policies and procedures as well as prevention and postvention response plans. Areas of strength include a motivated community with an abundance of resources, local expertise in suicide prevention, support from Stanford Medical School, student engagement, and City Council’s and Palo Alto School District Board of Trustees’ support for meeting the mental health needs of youth and young adults. People across age groups in this community are willing to lend their time, expertise, and resources to improve mental health support for youth and young adults. When a crisis occurs, the community is quick to mobilize and offer grief support, pathways to care, and community connection. Community groups are motivated to collaborate and work together to pool resources and work with local schools throughout the school year to get to know the students better and increase awareness of available resources. Areas for improvement were also identified, including a need for better communication and coordination among local resources, as coordination is often reactive instead of proactive. Youth and adults alike named intense academic achievement and performance pressures, even beyond school, as top sources of stress in their daily lives and as barriers to positive mental health. Youth focus group participants noted a lack of trust in adults, as well as feeling misunderstood by adults. While these are significant mental health barriers, given the many strengths and resources of the community, the City of Palo Alto is in a direct position to improve citywide mental health support for youth and young adults. High level recommendations include, but are not limited to: 2     Packet Pg. 26     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 3 Policies, Procedures, and Protocols ■Develop and implement a comprehensive, citywide framework for suicide prevention, intervention, and postvention that integrates into existing mental health services and crisis response procedures. ■Strengthen Project Safety Net (PSN) resource mobilization efforts by building clear communication channels and implementing systematic, coordinated postvention efforts. ■Establish clear, consistent response protocols for identifying and supporting youth at risk for suicide and mental health conditions. ■Codify these comprehensive approaches into a published document to be curated and maintained by community stakeholders. Model the published document after published guidelines, such as the STAR Postvention Manual and the Higher Education Mental Health Alliance (HEMHA) Postvention Guide. ■Establish clear, consistent response protocols for identifying and supporting at-risk youth and community members during acute and longer term periods in the aftermath of a suicide loss. ■Develop a coordinated, interagency communication plan, both internal and public-facing (when appropriate), that follows safe reporting guidelines. ■Convene a postvention community task force annually, at a minimum, to update and revise the written postvention and crisis plans and guidelines. ■Identify and appoint a “postvention lead” for the City of Palo Alto to help coordinate and deploy an organized response across the systems that serve youth and young adults (schools, nonprofits, mental health organizations, hospitals, and clinics). 2     Packet Pg. 27     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 4 Education and Training ■Provide annual mental health training for first responders, community members, youth and young adults, and clinicians, with a focus on populations at risk of suicide and mental health conditions. ■Provide annual Counseling on Access to Lethal Means (CALM) training. ■Provide annual training on trauma-informed and culturally sensitive care for school mental health staff, teachers, and school administrators, as well as mental health organizations, faith leaders and other community members. ■Hold communitywide training sessions to educate community members on the postvention guide and protocols. Collaboration and Messaging ■Facilitate collaboration between schools and community organizations to prevent bullying, hate, and toxic competition within the community and promote a community of care. ■Elevate and support the work of other student-led mental health groups to reach youth throughout the city. ■Improve attendance at city-sponsored mental health events by using multiple communication channels, including social media, to reach youth and young adults. ■Develop citywide messaging to reduce stigma and promote help-seeking behaviors. ■Collaborate with local media to ensure safe messaging to prevent suicide contagion. 2     Packet Pg. 28     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 5 Reducing Access to Lethal Means ■Promote suicide-focused care models that address the full spectrum of the most common methods of attempts and deaths at the individual level, including the deployment of interventions vetted on the Suicide Prevention Resource Center’s Best Practice Registry, such as Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) and Counseling on Access to Lethal Means (CALM). ■Create grade separation at all railroad crossings in Palo Alto. ■Limit pedestrian access to all railroad crossings and strengthen real-time intervention to reduce the risk of suicide at these locations. ■Reduce entry points to railroad crossings through extended high-security fencing beyond the right of way to reduce the number of places where people can enter the tracks, making the area safer for everyone. ■Install track-intrusion deterrents (e.g., anti-trespass panels) at all railroad crossings. ■Deploy advanced surveillance and intrusion alert systems in coordination with Caltrain. ■Trained security personnel stationed at high-risk rail crossings on empathetic engagement, using evidence-informed strategies (e.g., Be Sensitive, Be Brave). ■Trained community volunteers who can provide a visible, supportive presence at rail crossings, particularly during school hours near adjacent campuses. ■Conduct annual educational sessions across the community about reducing access to the full spectrum of highly lethal and dangerous means beyond railroad crossings. 2     Packet Pg. 29     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 6 Address Root Causes and Culture Change ■Hire a social worker (MSW) as a Director of Youth Wellness for the City of Palo Alto to provide case management, assist with referral pathways, lead annual mental health survey data collection, develop and implement programming specific to life skills and mental health for youth, and lead caregiver education opportunities to address culture change within the parent and caregiver population. ■Create a youth-led taskforce to promote mental health and culture change and advise the City Council on the ongoing needs of youth in the community. ■Use third spaces within the community (e.g., teen centers, libraries, etc.) to provide support by partnering with other community organizations like The Q Corner, Kara - Grief Support, and allcove Palo Alto. 2     Packet Pg. 30     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 7 Purpose and Scope In response to ongoing risk of youth suicide, The Jed Foundation (JED) partnered with the City of Palo Alto to advance a coordinated public health approach that centers youth voice, strengthens prevention and postvention, and supports community well-being. On April 1, 2025, The City Schools Liaison Committee discussed a possible partnership with The Jed Foundation (JED). The Committee recommended the following: “Refer The Jed Foundation proposal and further refine the scope with stakeholders to the City Council for Council discussion and potential direction and for continued collaboration with the School District.” On September 29, 2025, City Council approved a contract for JED to provide technical assistance, evaluation, and support for youth and young adult mental health programs for the City of Palo Alto over a two year period. 2     Packet Pg. 31     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 8 The scope of the project includes the following goals: ■Postvention Support …Establish coordinated, trauma- informed postvention supports and safe messaging to reduce suicide contagion and strengthen community healing following suicide loss ■Strengthen Prevention Efforts …Identify gaps, risk patterns, and evidence-based interventions to improve youth mental health supports and reduce access to lethal means citywide ■Facilitate Youth Engagement …Elevate youth voice through structured engagement and data collection to inform city policies, programs, and prevention strategies ■Citywide Campaign & Communications …Improve reach, clarity, and usability of mental health communications and resources to increase awareness, help- seeking, and access ■Training …Build community capacity through targeted trainings that increase mental health literacy, reduce stigma, and strengthen early intervention skills The work will be carried out in phases, with the following deliverables expected (final dates are subject to change): 1. Comprehensive Findings Report: An assessment of postvention & prevention efforts to identify gaps, risks, and opportunities to strengthen citywide suicide prevention, especially for youth. (Estimated to be complete June 30, 2026) 2. Training Series: Two in-person Counseling on Access to Lethal Means (CALM) training workshops; three in- person mental health workshops; three virtual mental health workshops. (Series estimated to be completed by September 28, 2026) 3. Youth Task Force Roadmap: One roadmap to guide the structure, priorities, and early activities of the City’s Youth Task Force. (Estimated to begin September 30, 2026) 4. Postvention Guide and Crisis Policy Review: A guide to improve responses to suicide and other unexpected deaths and reduce the risk of suicide contagion. (Estimated to be complete November 30, 2026) 5. Communications and Website Review: A review of the City’s communication efforts to ensure youth mental health resources are clear and accessible for the community. (Estimated to be complete March 26, 2027.) 2     Packet Pg. 32     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 9 Methodology This section provides a description of the data sources, published reports, engagement strategies (interviews, focus groups, surveys, document review, environmental scans), participant groups, and analytic approach used to inform the findings. To develop this findings report and inform the recommendations presented throughout, JED reviewed, analyzed, and synthesized quantitative and qualitative data from multiple sources. These included archival and publicly available national, state, and local data, youth focus groups, stakeholder listening sessions, results from Palo Alto Unified School District’s Panorama student 2024-2025 survey, JED’s Community-Based Organization Baseline Assessment, and a review of relevant documents and reports. Together, these sources provided a comprehensive foundation for the findings and recommendations presented in this report. Analyses of National, State, and County Data JED consultants conducted a comprehensive review and analysis of available nonidentifiable (aggregate) archival datasets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Wide- Ranging Online Data for Epidemiological Research (WONDER) and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s Data Dashboard. CDC WONDER is available to public health professionals, researchers, and the public at large with the goal of providing access to a wide array of public health data. Data were accessed from CDC WONDER to assess and compare national (U.S.) vs. state (California) vs. county (Santa Clara Co) multi-year patterns of suicide rates and mechanisms of suicide among individuals aged 10-24 from 2018-2024 (CDC data from 2025 are not yet available). Aggregate data from the publicly available Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s Data Dashboard were reviewed to assess suicide mortality patterns among individuals aged 10-24 in Santa Clara County from 2018-2025. Variables examined from the dashboard included the number of suicide deaths, cause (mechanism) of suicide death, and location of death. Data were analyzed to examine county-level trends in suicide mortality and then compared to national, state, and county-level trends from CDC WONDER. Consistent with CDC’s reporting guidance for public health mortality data, cells containing counts of nine or fewer deaths were not reported to reduce the risk of potential identification of individuals and to protect confidentiality in small populations. 2     Packet Pg. 33     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 10 Palo Alto Unified School District Panorama Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Student Competency and Well-Being Measures for Grades 6-12 Aggregate data from the Palo Alto Unified School District Panorama Social-Emotional Learning Student Competency and Well-Being Measures from the school year 2024-2025 were shared and reviewed by JED consultants. The survey included responses from 5,178 of 10,209 (51%) Palo Alto students in grades 6-12, and assessed the following key domains: challenging feelings, emotional regulation, positive feelings, and supportive relationships. Challenging feelings assessed the frequency with which students experienced difficult emotions (e.g., “During the past week, how often did you feel sad?”), with higher scores indicating less frequent experiences of challenging emotions. Emotional regulation assessed students’ perceived ability to regulate and manage their emotions (e.g., “How often are you able to pull yourself out of a bad mood?”). Positive feelings assessed how frequently students experienced positive emotions (e.g., “During the past week, how often did you feel excited?”). Supportive relationships assessed the extent to which students felt supported through relationships with friends, family, and adults at school (e.g., “Do you have a teacher or another adult from school who you can count on to help you no matter what?”). Only aggregate-level data were reviewed and analyzed. JED Community-Based Organization Baseline Assessment The JED Community-Based Organization (CBO) Baseline Assessment is a 65-question survey designed to provide JED with a clear snapshot of how an organization currently supports youth mental health, with the goal of highlighting opportunities for growth, collaboration, and tailored support. A group of city leaders (N = 3) completed the JED CBO Baseline Assessment to inform partnership efforts with the City of Palo Alto. Main assessment categories included staff and capacity, program scope, data collection and evaluation, funding, training, policies and crisis response, referral and community partnerships, programming, and JED partnership priorities. Findings from the assessment were used to inform recommendations outlined in this report. Youth Focus Groups JED also conducted three in-person and four virtual focus groups (Appendix A) for Palo Alto teens aged 13-17 and young adults aged 18-30. The seven focus groups included a total of 53 teens and young adults. Prior to participation, young adults and parents/guardians of teen participants were provided with informed consent forms (Appendices B and C) outlining the purpose, procedures, and ethical considerations of the focus groups. To ensure that youth voice was broadly represented in the feedback report, two of the virtual youth focus group sessions offered $10 gift cards as an incentive to encourage participation. 2     Packet Pg. 34     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 11 Community Stakeholder Listening Sessions In collaboration with the City of Palo Alto, key community stakeholders were identified (Appendix D) and asked to participate in a series of in-person and virtual listening sessions led by Dr. Katie Hurley, Dr. Kurt Michael, Kiana Davis, and Whitney Yoder at The Jed Foundation (JED). A total of 10 in-person and 12 virtual listening sessions were held, which included 74 community members from 22 stakeholder groups including nonprofit partners, youth organizations, behavioral health service providers, local universities, county behavioral health services, first responders, city staff, city council, and Palo Alto residents. JED requested and received written feedback and verbal permission from all session participants to share some of the themes and ideas discussed during the listening sessions and focus groups with The City of Palo Alto leadership and the broader Palo Alto community without identifying any individuals. The information gathered from these discussions focused on improving current systems of prevention support and strengthening strategic approaches to postvention response, with an emphasis on identifying protective factors and opportunities to enhance the safety and well-being of the Palo Alto community. The most frequently identified themes were synthesized, leading to the development of strategic recommendations. Documents and Reports Reviewed ■CDC Findings Report: Undetermined Risk Factors for Suicide Among Youth, Ages 10-24, Santa Clara County, 2016 ■Suicide Prevention Policy and Mental Health Promotion, September 22, 2010 ■City Suicide Prevention Policy, Revised 2024 ■Project Safety Net (PSN) Suicide Postvention Practices (rev. 06-07-2021) ■Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Approve the City of Palo Alto Suicide Prevention Policy; Adoption of Two Resolutions: …Supporting the Santa Clara County Suicide Prevention Plan …Approving the 41 Developmental Assets Framework for Youth and Teen Well-Being ■California Healthy Kids Survey: Palo Alto Unified Secondary 2023-2024 Main Report 2     Packet Pg. 35     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 12 Current Overview The City of Palo Alto aims to serve all of its citizens and offers a number of services, programs, and options for support. A vibrant after-school teen center is open to students, and five libraries in the city offer different programs and spaces for young people. There are also several teen advisory committees and boards to give youth in the community a chance to share their voices and advocate for youth needs. Project Safety Net (PSN) is a local nonprofit (previously a City of Palo Alto function from 2010-2020) that works with the city to mobilize support and resources for youth suicide prevention. PSN also offers community education, training, and outreach, in addition to connecting youth to quality mental health resources. Though PSN works hard to coordinate efforts, there can be gaps between what is discussed and what is offered, and the city will benefit from a coordinated response team and system to address mental health crisis events. The City of Palo Alto does have a suicide prevention policy and PSN offers a set of postvention practices that include verification, response, and communication practices. JED is scheduled to review and provide feedback on all citywide suicide prevention and crisis intervention policies. The City of Palo Alto website includes a mental health page with direct links to resources in the community for residents of various ages. It also provides crisis line contact numbers. JED will work with the city to expand the reach and user experience of the website, including improving communications specific to youth and young adults. The City of Palo Alto Psychological Emergency Response Team (PERT) team, which includes emergency medical response and police paired with licensed clinicians, responds to emergency mental health calls to assess and refer or transport as needed. Better coordination and relationship building with the school district and community members is needed in order to reduce stigma and improve trust. 2     Packet Pg. 36     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 13 National, State, and County Trends in Suicide Deaths There were 46,416 suicides in the U.S. among individuals ages 10-24 between 2018–2024. Most suicide decedents were identified as male (36,377; 78.3%). The crude rate was 10.3/100k (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 10.2–10.4) (see Figure 1). The leading methods nationally, accounting for 91.5% of the suicides for people ages 10-24 were by firearm (51.1%), suffocation/ hanging (32.2%), and poisoning (8.2%). There were 3,639 suicides in California among individuals ages 10-24 between 2018–2024. Most suicide decedents were identified as male (2,735; 75.1%). The crude rate was 6.8/100k (95% CI = 6.6 – 7.0) and relatively lower than the U.S. suicide rate among the same age group (see Figure 1). The leading methods, accounting for 83.3% of suicides among people ages 10- 24 in California, were by suffocation/hanging (42.0%), firearm (29.4%), and poisoning (11.9%). There were 165 suicides in Santa Clara County, California among individuals ages 10-24 between 2018–2024. Most suicide decedents were identified as male (113; 68.4%). The crude rate was 6.7/100k (95% CI = 5.7–7.8), which was generally consistent with the suicide rate among the same age group across California (see Figure 1). The leading methods, accounting for 75% of suicides among people ages 10-24 in Santa Clara County, were by suffocation/ hanging (38.7%), poisoning (20.0%), and firearm (16.3%). When comparing the CDC WONDER data from Santa Clara County over time, including the trends published in the 2016 CDC Report (2003- 2015), two of the most common methods of suicide between 2018-2024 remained hanging/ suffocation and firearms for people aged 10- 24. However, poisoning surpassed firearms as a leading method in Santa Clara County and there were fewer deaths by suffocation/ hanging between 2018-2024 (38.7%) versus 2003-2015 (47.6%). It also appears that a higher percentage of suicide decedents were identified as female (31.6%) between 2018-2024 when compared to 2003-2015 (25%) in Santa Clara County. The percentage of female decedents between 2018-2024 was higher in Santa Clara County (31.6%) than California (24.9%) and across the U.S. (21.7%) over that period of time. 3,639 suicides in California among individuals aged 10-24 between 2018–2024 2     Packet Pg. 37     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 14 Figure 1. *CDC WONDER Suicide Rates (per 100k) Among Individuals Aged 10-24, 2018-2024 Note: *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics System, Mortality 2018-2024 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released in 2026. Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 2018-2024, as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10-expanded. html on May 6, 2026 10:49:33 PM Data from the publicly available Santa Clara Medical Examiner’s Data Dashboard were reviewed and found to be generally consistent with broader CDC WONDER trends for Santa Clara described above. Consistent with CDC reporting guidance (e.g., avoiding presentation of death rates based on counts of nine or fewer), the dashboard was used to confirm that multiple locations along the railroad corridor in Palo Alto meet criteria for “frequently used locations” (Owens, 2016) or suicide “hotspots” (Pirkis et al., 2015). Pirkis et al. (2015) argued that once such locations become known, priority should be given to sustained prevention efforts because of their self-perpetuating nature and their impact on those who work, live, or travel nearby. Recommended strategies include reducing access to lethal means, both universally (e.g., location-based barriers and deterrents across the corridor) and individually (Counseling on Access to Lethal Means), promoting help- seeking, increasing opportunities for third-party intervention through surveillance and rapid emergency response, and adhering more closely to responsible suicide-reporting guidelines. Although restricting access along railway systems can be operationally challenging and costly in the short term (grade separation), such interventions may prove cost-effective over time (Pirkis et al., 2015). 2     Packet Pg. 38     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 15 Schools This section provides a summary of available school-based mental health survey data and indicators reflecting student well-being, help- seeking behavior, risk factors, and perceived access to support. Aggregate findings from the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Panorama Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Student Competency and Well-Being survey provided an overview of student well-being such as like skills, social awareness, and school support among 5,178 students in grades 6-12 in the 2024-2025 school year. Results were examined across four primary domains: challenging feelings, emotional regulation, positive feelings, and supportive relationships. Overall, Palo Alto 6-12th grade students ranked in the 80-90th percentile in all four key areas indicating relatively strong social-emotional well- being compared to national Panorama norms. 62% of respondents reported experiencing challenging emotions, such as anger, loneliness, sadness, worry, and frustration, either “almost never” or only “once in a while.” Feeling worried was reported more frequently than other challenging emotions, with only 43% of respondents indicating they felt worried “almost never” or only “once in a while”. The majority of respondents reported feeling worried at least “sometimes” (33%), “frequently” (18%), or “almost always” (6%). 54% of respondents reported challenges around their ability to stay calm when things go wrong for them. 2     Packet Pg. 39     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 16 Sixty percent (60%) of respondents reported the ability to regulate their emotions (e.g., pull themselves out of a bad mood, control their emotions, relax, stay calm, and think before they act). Seventy-four percent (74%) of students reported that they are able to control their emotions when they need to “almost always” or “a lot of the time”. However, more than half of the student respondents (54%) reported challenges around their ability to stay calm when things go wrong for them. Regarding positive feelings, 65% of respondents reported frequent feelings of positive emotions (e.g., excited, happy, loved, safe, and hopeful). Notably, only half (50%) of the respondents reported feeling safe “almost always” during the past week and only 53% of students reported feeling hopeful either “almost always” or “frequently.” Finally, 86% of respondents reported feeling supported through their relationships with friends, family, and adults at school. The majority (90-94%) of respondents reported having a supportive relationship with family members, adults outside of school, and friends from school. This support included relationships with people they could count on for help no matter what, and around whom they could be completely themselves. Notably, fewer respondents reported having similarly supportive relationships with teachers or other adults at school, with only 78% reporting that they had an adult at school they could ask for help and 71% reporting that they had an adult or teacher around whom they could be themselves. A review of the publicly available Palo Alto Unified School District, California Healthy Kids Survey, 2023-2024: Main Report was also conducted. In particular, the percentage of Palo Alto Unified School District students who took part in the survey and who reported “chronic sad or hopeless feelings” and “seriously contemplating suicide” over the previous 12 months were reviewed. Approximately 1 in 5 teens (in grades 7, 9, and 11) in Palo Alto reported “chronic sad or hopeless feelings” over the past year. The highest percentage (22%) was among the 11th graders. One in ten teens in Palo Alto reported “seriously contemplating suicide” over the past 12 months. These results are similar to national surveys, such as the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). The rates of “seriously contemplating suicide” were relatively higher for students who identified as “English learners”, those receiving special education via an “IEP” (Individualized Education Plan), and those that reported having an “other living arrangement” (living in an other relative’s home, or in a home with more than one family). One in ten teens in Palo Alto reported “seriously contemplating suicide” over the past 12 months. 2     Packet Pg. 40     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 17 Thematic Feedback This section provides a synthesis of recurring themes, concerns, strengths, and perceived barriers identified through youth and adult stakeholder engagement. Findings are drawn from seven focus groups with 53 youth and young adults (aged 13–30) and 22 stakeholder listening sessions with 74 adult community members representing nonprofit partners, youth organizations, behavioral health service providers, local universities, county behavioral health services, first responders, city staff, city council, and residents. While stakeholders shared their perspectives as professionals and volunteers, many also shared their experiences as parents in the community. 7 focus groups 53 youth and young adults 22 stakeholder listening sessions 74 adult community members 2     Packet Pg. 41     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 18 Youth Youth and young adult focus groups yielded eleven key themes. Participants were open about the current landscape of mental health in Palo Alto, available resources, and shared ideas for improvement in how mental health is discussed, understood, and addressed. Community Strengths: Youth and young adults in Palo Alto recognize that the community offers many strengths and highlighted social mobility, opportunities, success, and resource availability as positive attributes. One of the most important findings from youth engagement is that young people in Palo Alto are not waiting to be handed solutions. Youth in Palo Alto are resourceful, creative, and ready to lead. Across focus groups, participants described ongoing initiatives and ideas grounded in understanding of what their peers actually need: ■One participant noted designing an app to aggregate local mental health resources on a single screen, built in collaboration with allcove and tailored by students, for students [high school student, in-person focus group]. Various other participants highlighted local youth-designed websites, apps, social media pages, and programs that are designed to support young people’s well-being. ■Participants discussed community art projects aimed at building connection, advocacy for a positive psychology elective, organized petitions for systemic change, and detailed proposals for peer therapy and youth-centered mental health design [high school student, in-person focus group]. ■Young adults noted entering the mental health field because of what they witnessed growing up in Palo Alto, and alumni returning to offer community support [young adult, virtual focus group]. ■“If something is student-led, people are more likely to engage,” one participant noted [middle school student, in-person focus group]. 2     Packet Pg. 42     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 19 Resources are Underutilized: Both youth and young adult participants noted that Palo Alto has an abundance of underutilized resources. Participants noted the following: ■Various resources and support available in schools (e.g., drop-in therapy options, adult and peer tutors, a wellness center that includes psychologists, counselors, career counselors, and affinity groups). ■Crisis resources are prominently posted and widely recognized; however, youth report needing additional non-crisis mental health support that is easier to access while balancing school responsibilities. Youth shared a need for actionable stress management skills and informal support via text or virtual options, to get help as needed for non-crisis situations. Barriers to Support: Several barriers to help-seeking were noted across focus groups. Though youth know that services are available, they struggle to use those resources for various reasons, including the following: ■Help should begin earlier because school stress, anxiety, and friend problems all start in or around 3rd grade. ■High stress is normalized in the community, and performance is prioritized over health. Young people noted training themselves to sleep three hours or less per night beginning in elementary school to allow sufficient time for studying. ■Parents may be barriers because they don’t want their kids to have therapy or are not supportive of identities. It was noted that some parents have “forcefields” in place at home that prevent young people from accessing any online sources of support, including 988 and Crisis Text Line in a moment of crisis. ■LGBTQIA affirming support is difficult to access and many youth feel that no one recognizes the struggles of LGBTQIA kids. ■The Teen Center is frequently perceived as a “hangout” for middle school youth, making it harder for high school students to see it as a resource for them. ■Youth are busy and under stress and getting to a community resource that isn’t centrally located requires time. High stress is normalized in the community, and performance is prioritized over health. 2     Packet Pg. 43     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 20 Resources Exist, But Most Youth Can’t or Won’t Use Them Palo Alto has invested meaningfully in mental health resources, and youth across all focus groups acknowledged this. Yet, most resources are largely unused, for reasons that are specific and addressable. ■Participants noted the school wellness center sits above the attendance office and described it as “out of sight, out of mind,” and helpful resources, like allcove, are difficult to reach before or after school. Participants suggested the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center as a more accessible alternative. ■Insurance requirements and parental consent block access for students with unsupportive families, with some parents restricting access to online resources entirely. ■Crisis resources are prominently posted, but everyday mental health support is not, sending the unintended message that help is only for emergencies. “Resources are reactive to tragedy,” one participant observed. “People associate needing help with suicidal ideation” [middle school student, in-person focus group]. Youth described needing routine, low-barrier access to mental health support, including more text-based and online options, that does not require leaving class, navigating a referral process, or being in crisis. Lack of Trust in Current Resources: Youth and young adults described a lack of trust rooted in fear, stigma, and perceived lack of confidentiality in both school and community resources. ■Both youth and young adults described instances where Child Protective Services were called when youth identified thoughts of suicide and parents refused assessment. There is a very real fear of being removed from the family because of unsupportive parents. ■There is no transparency about what the schools will do with mental health survey results so students don’t take it seriously. ■Youth shared concerns about what information might be recorded in their “files” and become discoverable by colleges. Youth also reported that counselors can be dismissive of their stressors, which contributes to shame. ■Youth say that counselors/therapists talk to peers and colleagues about confidential student information. This hinders their trust in the system. Youth described needing routine, low- barrier access to mental health support. 2     Packet Pg. 44     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 21 Lack of Trust in Adults: Participants described a pattern of youth leaning on other youth for help with mental health concerns, including thoughts of suicide, due to low trust in the ability of adults to understand and help them. ■Youth stated they wish they could go to a “trusted” adult, but they don’t know who that would be at home, in school, or in the community. ■Teen training in Mental Health First Aid was described as helpful but lacking in guidance beyond seeking help from a trusted adult. ■High school students noted they are reluctant to talk to adults about their mental health because they don’t want teachers or other adults “badgering” them about how they’re doing. “I knew the person who died this year. I remember the morning after their death, I was taking a test on covalent bonds. I went to a counselor to talk about it, and they’re a good person, but they dismissed me and told me I was too young to be thinking about these things.” - Palo Alto Middle School Student ■Adults ask so much of young people but don’t respect their thoughts, opinions, and needs. ■Youth described helping peers through a suicidal crisis. One student helped three friends this year alone. ■Some teens named faith leaders as potential sources of support. Young People Feel Misunderstood by Adults Young people shared concerns that adults in the community aren’t listening. This is illustrated by the following statements: ■Adults think there is a natural fix to mental health and stress. ■Adults focus too much on “what can they take away” to help youth, rather than “how can they strengthen.” ■The adults aren’t listening. ■Peers are judging each other as much as the parents are. ■Adults are always posting accomplishments online. ■Expectations are too high. You need a 4.5 GPA and extra curricular activities. ■Adults need more education around self- harm. Peer Support is Valued but They Need Help Middle and high school-aged youth help one another through crisis situations. Some feel equipped to do this, but many do not. ■Some middle schoolers stated they are not equipped to be able to support peers in those situations. 2     Packet Pg. 45     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 22 …A lot of middle schoolers are willing to help a friend [in crisis] but they don’t feel emotionally equipped to do so. …Some youth feel equipped to help a friend feeling suicidal. ■Youth stated they are more likely to seek mental health help from friends than adults. ■Many young people are afraid to get help from adults. ■Lots of young people are doing things sometimes better than the people in power. Two students have created mental health apps to help teens. ■If something is student-led, people are more likely to engage. Early Intervention is Needed Many young people indicated either they or someone they know began struggling with their mental health and achievement culture as early as third grade. ■Early intervention and mental health education should start in elementary school because mental health issues and self-harming behaviors can start very young. ■Help should begin earlier because school stress, anxiety, and friend problems begin in elementary school. ■Higher-risk situations are happening at younger and younger ages. One participant noted that their brother in 5th grade has friends experiencing suicidal ideation. Lack of Effective Training Though grateful for opportunities to learn, young people expressed a need for more detailed knowledge about coping with stress. ■Mandatory SEL sessions have been rolled out at school. …Teens described them as very manufactured and covering basic skills they already know. …Teachers aren’t trained to address the emotional needs of students and many students don’t understand why. ■Youth appreciate the effort of these courses but say a balance needs to be found. ■Parent mental health courses have been offered in the past but youth don’t think parents always know best. ■Adults need more education about self- harm. ■Teachers need specific mental health training. ■Youth voice should be included in decisions about training and programs. 2     Packet Pg. 46     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 23 Need for Acknowledgment, Collective Healing, and Universal Systems of Support Youth and young adults alike stated that they feel like community culture avoids any mention of loss and moves on quickly. They expressed that: ■Paly immediately focused on [suicide] not happening again but didn’t take time to say “this awful thing happened.” ■A culture of healing is needed in the community. ■Most adults won’t talk about suicide. ■Teachers should give a moment of silence and acknowledge what happened. ■When a community grieves, youth can see that their lives matter. ■Student knowledge is important because they can help each other get help. Youth Messaging and Community Culture Young people hear their peers talk about mental health in harmful ways. People also talk about their community with harmful messaging. These messages include: ■Messaging of [something is] “wrong with them” but not all of us have things that are wrong with us. ■If someone isn’t cutting they are made to feel like they are fine. ■People who do emotionally talk about suicide or grieve are seen as maybe being next. ■“You’re too young to understand it.” ■Grief is not recognized. ■The scarcity mindset drives this success driven culture that believes only a few can succeed. 2     Packet Pg. 47     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 24 Adult stakeholders This section provides a synthesis of recurring themes, concerns, strengths, and perceived barriers identified by adults through stakeholder listening sessions. Community Strengths Adult community members were optimistic about the amount of resources in the community and the willingness of community members to work together. They noted: ■Palo Alto is a caring community and willing to work towards change. ■There are several existing mental health initiatives, including youth-led programs. ■The community has access to resources and mental health experts at Stanford and Palo Alto University. ■There is an opportunity to elevate youth voice to raise awareness about how they truly experience emotional health at this time. ■There are many community centers that provide access to counseling and resources for youth in Palo Alto. ■There is a collaborative mindset among different organizations that want to provide opportunities for supporting mental health. “I wish we could go to an adult for help instead of peers.” - Palo Alto Middle School Student Need for Increased City-School District Collaboration Many adult community members noted that it’s difficult to collaborate with the school district but that they are motivated to find pathways to working together. These community members noted: ■Teachers play an important role in prevention efforts. ■The district has no formalized threat assessment process. ■The school district avoids speaking about mental health and suicide publically. ■There is resistance to collaborate between district and other community organizations, including law enforcement. ■Many community resources developed by local experts (including the HEARD Alliance toolkits) for Palo Alto students are no longer being used in the school district. ■The district needs implementation support for some prevention efforts and programs (e.g., Living Skills program and other SEL programming). ■Many organizations (e.g., county behavioral services, allcove, PERT, fire department personnel, etc.) mentioned that they have a desire to be involved on district campuses to support teachers and students but have been dismissed. 2     Packet Pg. 48     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 25 Community Culture of Pressure and Stigma Many groups cited what they perceive to be unique stressors in Palo Alto and acknowledged that attitudes about mental health can act as barriers to change. They mentioned: ■Students feel academic pressure and stress. ■Students are unwilling to leave classes to get the help that they need. This leads to many of the resources at the school and in the community not being used. ■There is a lack of belongingness, especially for certain subpopulations of youth (e.g., LGBTQIA, Asian immigrants). ■Youth are overly scheduled starting in elementary school. ■When teens hear that something is a mental health event, they might not attend the event. Sometimes parents will block them from attending if the topic is mental health. ■A massive culture shift in the community is needed (from the school to the parents to law enforcement) to address the pressure and decrease stigma. “Everyone is so obsessed with being worried about suicide so there are no conversations and no preventive efforts.” - Palo Alto adult stakeholder Siloed Work and Lack of Coordination Adults described a lack of trust rooted in fear, stigma, and perceived lack of confidentiality in both school and community resources. Stakeholders noted: ■There are many siloed efforts and fragmented workstreams related to mental health in the community. ■There is a need to develop an infrastructure that supports the sustainability of these efforts collectively. ■Implementation of a unified framework has been identified as a gap. ■Communication has broken down among agencies (schools, community, parents, and outside organizations). ■The community lacks awareness about root causes of suicide, and they focus on the trains to defer and deflect responsibility. ■Many people were witnesses to the most recent train accident, yet there is no communitywide postvention provided after incidents. ■Everyone mobilizes very quickly following a suicide but it becomes confusing and overwhelming when many resources are thrown around in an unorganized manner. 2     Packet Pg. 49     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 26 Upstream Prevention is Needed Adult stakeholder groups expressed the need for education and training to reduce stigma and empower people to help others. They stated: ■Upstream prevention is needed, as well as education on reducing access to lethal means. ■Interventions such as QPR should be revisited often. ■Mental health education needs to start in elementary school, and mental health support should be made more accessible earlier. ■There is a need to teach people how to feel comfortable talking about suicide and mental health in their community. ■Sustainability is needed for many of the existing initiatives (e.g., QPR, Track Watch). ■Many community members and first responders want to know how they can help in a way that does not exceed their scope of practice. ■First responders want youth to know they are there for them and want to be welcoming and trusted adults and community helpers. ■Prevention efforts and education need to start earlier (e.g., elementary school). Community Resources are Underutilized Adult stakeholder groups agreed that available resources are currently underutilized by young people. They noted: ■The community is not utilizing the widely available resources and tools. ■The Wellness Center is not used at school because students don’t feel like they can miss class. ■Allcove is not used frequently because there isn’t time before or after school. ■Those who do use allcove use it to get away from people. ■Youth are not prioritizing these resources because they only prioritize things that will help them get into college. ■ Youth have trouble accessing certain levels of care. ■Stigma prevents youth from using resources. ■Youth in crisis do not feel like they can freely use the available resources at school. 2     Packet Pg. 50     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 27 Reducing Access to Lethal Means Many adult stakeholder groups mentioned the need to increase safety precautions and better solutions. They shared the following observations and concerns about lethal means: ■There have been a lot of disjointed initiatives to help with safety around the train tracks in Palo Alto. ■Much of the means reduction and deterrent work at the tracks has been pieced together and there is a need for consistent and sustained implementation support. ■They have AI technology, lights, fencing, parent volunteers (track watch did help with prevention), and a customized version of the Be Sensitive Be Brave curriculum for track watchers. They also recently hired a professional security firm and have stationed track watchers at various crossings throughout Palo Alto 24/7. ■There is limited ability to add lights to the area due to residential restrictions. ■Grade separation or gates/physical barriers (intrusion barriers) should be implemented with greater fidelity, such as more protective fencing installed to deter crossing at high-risk entry points further from the right of way. ■Temporary closure of specific, grade-level crossings was also considered after a period of study by qualified planners and engineers (i.e., feasibility, cost, disruption), but the Palo Alto City Council voted not to approve the temporary closure on May 11, 2026. ■The motion that passed (7-0) on May 11, 2026, was “A) Direct staff to explore options for a long-term rail crossing guard contract and engage PAUSD through the City School Liaison Committee regarding a potential long-term cost-sharing agreement; B) Direct The Jed Foundation, as part of its 2026 deliverables, to return to the Rail Committee with targeted recommendations and evidence-based strategies to address safety risks at all four rail crossings, and authorize any budget adjustments necessary to achieve those deliverables; C) Direct staff and Rail Committee to prioritize and expedite implementation of Quiet Zones at all four rail crossings, with particular emphasis on accelerating the Churchill Avenue crossing Quiet Zone; and D) Explore gate(s) or other options in collaboration with Caltrain for enhanced enclosure or safety measures in addition to the quad gates.” 2     Packet Pg. 51     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 28 Lack of Parental Support Participants noted that deep culture change among parents is needed to improve parent-child communication and decrease achievement pressure. The following concerns were raised: ■Parent involvement is needed to support youth asking for help. ■There is a disconnect between the parents and the youth. ■Parents don’t know how to talk to their youth and youth are afraid to talk to their parents. ■Youth and parents need access to mental health education that uses the same language. ■There is stigma in Palo Alto that stems from the parents. Parents in this community believe that presenting a particular image is important, which leads to certain families not accessing mental health support. ■Parents need culturally relevant education. ■Many parents and families don’t support their youth, and this family dynamic needs to be addressed. Lack of LGBTQIA Support and Belonging There are clear concerns about how LGBTQIA youth are treated and supported in the community. Adult stakeholder groups noted: ■Queer and trans kids in the community feel erased/invisible, and the school district is notably silent. ■Explicit action is needed to counteract the messaging seen in the U.S. about the LGBTQIA community. Local community organizations and the school district should explicitly include and support all youth. ■Many youth do not have access to gender affirming mental health providers. ■The LGBTQIA community is feeling attacked and there is an increased urgency to address this in the community and in schools. 2     Packet Pg. 52     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 29 Need for More Diverse Youth Engagement While they shared some positive observations about youth involvement, stakeholders also shared concerns that many youth are left out of conversations because they are not already involved in youth advocacy. They noted: ■Many youth are being missed if they are not already involved in the ecosystem of youth programs and groups that are available to them. ■When the community first responded to the crisis in 2009, they often spoke over the heads of the youth and focused on adults. ■Youth voice has become the focus now but there is a need for more diverse voices. ■Many organizations are equipping youth with resources but also listening to their perspective. ■Peers have really taken over with adult support. Youth organizations have created a sense of belonging for many young people. Addressing Grief and Generational Trauma as a Community Stakeholders express that although the entire community is grieving, they aren’t (for the most part) grieving together. They stated: ■There is a need to collectively acknowledge this trauma and grief, and move towards healing. ■Silent trauma is being perpetuated through the generations and culture. ■Intergenerational conversations are missing. ■Many people are grieving alone even though the community is also grieving. ■First responders endure layered trauma and grief and need more specific resources. Bullying is a Problem Many groups talked about bullying as a central problem that isn’t being addressed in a meaningful way. They noted: ■Bullying takes place in the school from staff, teachers, administrators, and peers, particularly to LGBTQIA individuals. ■Students in Palo Alto are hyperfocused on bullying interactions, and the school needs to address this. ■Students need to be able to self-report bullying from peers and staff without consequence, and they need to know that it will be dealt with seriously. ■LGBTQIA bullying is not being addressed at the schools or in the community. Many youth are being missed if they are not already involved in the ecosystem of youth programs. 2     Packet Pg. 53     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 30 Systems Gap Analysis Results of the Community Initiatives Baseline Assessment survey completed by the City of Palo Alto (“the City”) working group for this project indicates a series of strengths as well as opportunities for growth. Importantly, the City has a taskforce in place to work on strategic planning specific to community health. This is a crucial step toward developing and operationalizing mental health policies, procedures, and response teams. The City utilizes a Psychological Evaluation and Response Team (PERT) to respond to calls for mental health crises. These first responders are trained to assess, support, refer, and transport for hospitalization based on situational needs. The City does offer annual staff training in bullying prevention, suicide prevention and intervention, and recognizing signs of distress. However, the City would benefit from offering additional training on trauma-informed approaches to youth intervention, reducing access to lethal means, and equitable approaches to meet youth and young adult needs, particularly within the LGBTQIA community. The City offers bullying prevention, suicide prevention, recognizing signs of distress and self-care strategies training to youth on an ad hoc basis. The City has an opportunity to survey youth about specific areas of concern they want to address and provide more targeted trainings to meet the needs. There are currently no trainings for families or caregivers. This is an area of opportunity for communitywide training. While The City does have several policies in place to address common issues among youth (e.g., mental health crisis, substance use, and bullying), procedural plans to address these issues and staff training on what to do are an area for growth. Performing annual environmental scans to reduce access to lethal means should also be considered. JED can advise and train staff, and develop an environmental scan checklist to assist with this project. The City offers a multitude of opportunities for youth to connect in spaces that promote fun, relaxation, and social support. Though there are spaces and programs designated for “teens,” younger (middle school) teens tend to use these programs and spaces more than high school students. Available programs do not currently incorporate mental health components. Two areas of potential growth are including youth voice to inform both programs and how teen spaces are developed and incorporating components of positive mental health (e.g., intentional efforts around connection, coping, and resilience) into existing and new offerings. The addition of a social worker on staff could help achieve this goal. 2     Packet Pg. 54     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 31 Interpretive Summary The findings from the assessment and gap analysis reveal systemic challenges and opportunities for the City of Palo Alto. This section includes a summary of what was learned contextualized across the seven thematic domains of JED’s comprehensive approach to suicide prevention. Foster life skills The community’s “normalization of high stress” is a major barrier to well-being, as indicated by youth modifying sleep habits to three hours or less per night to prioritize studying. While a majority of students report general emotional regulation skills, over half struggle with staying calm when facing difficulty. Youth perceive current mandatory Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) sessions as too basic, underscoring a need for more detailed, effective programming specific to life skills, coping, and resilience. 2     Packet Pg. 55     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 32 Promote connectedness and positive culture Despite strong support from friends and ample community resources and programs that promote connection, youth continue to struggle with their mental health. The prevailing “success driven culture,” fueled by intense academic and achievement pressure, promotes toxic competition and a scarcity mindset. Furthermore, a lack of explicit support for LGBTQIA youth, who feel “erased/ invisible,” and pervasive, unaddressed bullying further compromises a positive, inclusive culture. A culture of healing is needed, as the current community response avoids acknowledging loss and trauma, leading to silent grief. Collaboration between schools and community organizations is recommended to address these deep-seated cultural issues. Recognize and respond to signs of distress While The City offers annual training for staff on recognizing signs of distress, a greater need exists for specific mental health and trauma-informed training for teachers and adults, as youth generally distrust adults’ ability to understand and help them. Peer support is highly valued and relied upon, with middle and high school students helping friends through suicidal crises, but many lack the emotional resilience to handle these situations, highlighting a need for better-defined response protocols and training that goes beyond simply seeking help from a trusted adult. Reduce barriers to help-seeking Palo Alto has an abundance of underutilized resources due to pervasive barriers that include stigma, parental dismissiveness of mental health needs, and access issues like inconvenient location and students’ reluctance to miss class time. A fundamental barrier is youth’s lack of trust in school and community resources, driven by fears of confidentiality breaches that might impact achievement and future goals, and the involvement of Child Protective Services. Early intervention (i.e., starting mental health education in elementary school) is crucial to address problems before they escalate. Ensure access to effective mental health care Limited access to mental health care is a multifaceted contributing factor to the overall problem. While resources exist, they are underutilized, and access barriers prevent some youth from reaching the needed level of care. The strategic use of “third spaces” (e.g., teen center, library) in partnership with community organizations is recommended to provide accessible support. An explicit focus on citywide messaging to promote stigma-reducing and help-seeking behaviors is necessary to improve access. 2     Packet Pg. 56     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 33 Establish systems of crisis management Current crisis management is characterized by siloed efforts and fragmented work among agencies, leading to a response that is reactive instead of proactive. The community quickly mobilizes after a loss by suicide, but the effort is often disorganized and overwhelming. Key systemic gaps include the lack of clear communication channels, systematic coordinated postvention efforts, and consistent response protocols for identifying and supporting at-risk youth. The primary recommendation is to develop and implement a single, citywide comprehensive approach to prevention, intervention, and postvention, integrating it into existing crisis response procedures like the PERT team. Reduce access to lethal means Access to lethal means—particularly suicide by pedestrian–train collision—remains one of the most visible and consequential suicide prevention challenges facing the City of Palo Alto. Multiple locations along the railroad corridor have developed characteristics consistent with suicide “hotspots,” underscoring the need for a comprehensive, sustained, and coordinated approach to means safety. Accordingly, it is recommended that the community adopt a comprehensive lethal means safety strategy that combines universal and individual approaches, and long-term infrastructure investments. In the near term, stakeholders should establish a multidisciplinary Means Safety Working Group composed of representatives from city government, schools, behavioral health agencies, transportation authorities, law enforcement, emergency services, Caltrain, and community organizations. This group should be charged with coordinating prevention activities, reviewing incidents, near misses, successful interventions, monitoring implementation progress, and recommending environmental modifications based on emerging data. The community should also institutionalize annual environmental scans of the railroad corridor and surrounding areas. These assessments should evaluate the adequacy of fencing, surveillance systems, lighting, signage, emergency call resources, sightlines, access points, and other environmental features associated 2     Packet Pg. 57     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 34 with suicide prevention. Findings should be used to prioritize remediation efforts and guide future capital investments. In parallel, the community should expand education and training related to reducing access to all potentially lethal means of suicide, especially the leading methods identified for Santa Clara County earlier in this report. Annual training opportunities, including Counseling on Access to Lethal Means (CALM) and Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS), should be offered to clinicians, school personnel, first responders, community leaders, and interested residents. These efforts should emphasize the broader principle that creating time and distance between an individual experiencing a suicidal crisis and highly lethal methods can significantly reduce the likelihood of death. Educational initiatives should address not only railway-related risks but also include an emphasis on other common methods of suicide and suicide attempts in Santa Clara County, helping to foster a community-wide culture of means safety both at the universal and individual levels. Because media coverage can influence suicidal behavior, local stakeholders should continue efforts to strengthen adherence to evidence-based recommendations for responsible suicide reporting. Ongoing collaboration with local media organizations should focus on minimizing detailed descriptions of methods and locations, reducing sensationalism, highlighting stories of recovery and help-seeking, and consistently providing information about available resources and supports. Over the longer term, the community should pursue structural interventions designed to permanently reduce access to the railroad right of way. These efforts may include grade separation, expanded high-security fencing, anti-trespass infrastructure, and enhanced intrusion detection systems designed to increase the chances for third party intervention. While such projects require substantial financial investment and extensive planning, they offer the greatest potential for durable risk reduction and may prove cost-effective over time when considering the human, social, and economic costs associated with repeated fatalities and traumatic incidents. Finally, all means safety initiatives should be accompanied by ongoing evaluation. The community should establish measurable indicators of success, including reductions in unauthorized track access, increases in help-seeking and third-party intervention, improvements in community awareness of means safety principles, and decreases in suicide deaths and attempts associated with the railroad corridor. Continuous monitoring and quality improvement will be essential to ensuring that prevention efforts remain responsive, effective, and sustainable over time. 2     Packet Pg. 58     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 35 Recommendations This section includes action-oriented guidance grounded in evidence-informed practices to strengthen the city’s suicide prevention and postvention ecosystem. Foster life skills Youth and young adults in the community shared concerns about high levels of stress, primarily due to achievement culture, and low levels of adaptive coping skills. The following life skills educational opportunities should be integrated into existing youth programs sponsored by the city. ■Holistic care: sleep, nutrition, hydration, connection, and taking care of mind and body. ■Implement a life skills curriculum (e.g., Overcoming Obstacles) to create opportunities to work on coping, time management, communication, and other important life skills. ■Implement a citywide mentoring program that focuses on meaningful intergenerational connection and improving stress reduction, problem solving, and resilience-building skills. Promote connectedness and positive culture While many programs exist to help youth connect outside of school, intentional programming to address bullying, culture change, and inclusion is needed. ■Offer a monthly parent education series to address issues that negatively affect Palo Alto youth, including achievement pressure, child and adolescent mental health, supporting LGBTQIA youth, etc. Survey parents annually to determine topics of high interest. ■Offer parent and caregiver support groups to discuss ongoing areas of concern and address culture change. ■Utilize youth voice in developing activities, programs, and events to promote culture change. ■Schools and community organizations should collaborate to promote a community of caring, including addressing bullying, hate, and toxic competition within the community. ■Elevate and support the work of Bring Change 2 Mind (BC2M) and other student-led mental health groups to reach youth throughout the city. ■Utilize multiple efforts to reach youth and young adults, including social media channels, to meet them where they are and improve attendance at city-sponsored events. ■Focus citywide messaging on reducing stigma and promoting help-seeking behaviors for youth and their parents. 2     Packet Pg. 59     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 36 Recognize and respond to signs of distress The following recommendations provide concrete guidance to improve prevention and intervention efforts. ■Conduct annual mental health training for first responders, community members, youth, and clinicians, emphasizing support for at-risk populations. ■Deliver annual Counseling on Access to Lethal Means (CALM) training to broaden community safety skills. ■Provide annual trauma-informed and culturally responsive care training for school staff, faith leaders, and community members to better serve a diverse youth population. ■Implement targeted resources and community-wide efforts to strengthen help-seeking norms and foster sustained culture change. Reduce barriers to help-seeking The following recommendations are intended to decrease stigma and build trust among youth so that youth are more likely to seek support from adults and access community resources. ■The City should hire a social worker (MSW) for a Director of Youth Wellness position to provide case management, assist with referral pathways, lead annual mental health survey data collection, develop and implement programming specific to life skills and mental health for youth, and lead caregiver education opportunities to address culture change within the parent and caregiver population. ■Create a youth-led taskforce specific to mental health and culture change to advise the City Council on the ongoing needs of the youth population. ■Utilize third spaces within the community (e.g., the Teen Center, library) to provide support by partnering with other community organizations like The Q Corner, Kara - Grief Support, and allcove. ■Coordinate resource fairs with the school district to strengthen connections and build trust between service providers and community members. 2     Packet Pg. 60     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 37 Ensure access to effective mental health care In addition to sharing resources on the City website, it’s important to create pathways to care that meet the needs of a diverse group of youth and young adults. ■Consider partnering with Stanford Medicine or another local system to create a peer crisis text line specific to Palo Alto (based on the Teen Line/Didi Hirsch Model in Los Angeles). ■Promote suicide-focused care models that address the full spectrum of the most common methods of attempts and deaths at the individual level, including the deployment of interventions vetted on the Suicide Prevention Resource Center’s Best Practice Registry, including Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) and Counseling on Access to Lethal Means (CALM). ■Develop and oversee a peer support program through the Teen Center. ■Increase visibility of culturally responsive resources in all community spaces, including QR codes to crisis and noncrisis mental health care posted in bathroom stalls. ■Develop a “pathways to care” resource specific to youth and young adults that includes resources for LGBTQIA affirming mental health care. ■Develop informal drop-in spaces for peer support. Establish systems of crisis management Systems of crisis management are designed to be both preventative (upstream) and responsive in the aftermath of adverse events, including non-fatal and fatal suicide attempts (tertiary level intervention). ■Develop and implement a citywide comprehensive approach to prevention, intervention, and postvention, and integrate it into existing mental health services and crisis response procedures. ■Codify these comprehensive approaches into a living, published document to be curated and maintained by community stakeholders. Consider modeling the published document after well-established published guidelines, including the STAR Postvention Manual and the Higher Education Mental Health Alliance (HEMHA) Postvention Guide. ■Establish clear, consistent response protocols for identifying and supporting at-risk youth and community members during acute and longer term periods in the aftermath of a loss. ■Develop a coordinated, interagency communication plan, both internal and public-facing (when appropriate), that follows safe reporting guidelines. ■Convene a postvention community task force annually, at a minimum, to update and revise the written postvention and crisis plans and guidelines. 2     Packet Pg. 61     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 38 ■Identify and appoint a “postvention lead” for the City of Palo Alto to help coordinate and deploy an organized response in collaboration across the systems that serve youth and young adults (schools, non-profits, mental health organizations, hospitals, clinics). ■Develop and/or update policies and procedures for bullying prevention (including cyberbullying, harassment, and relational aggression), mental health crisis intervention, suicide prevention, and postvention. Reduce access to lethal means The following recommendations provide concrete guidance to reduce access to lethal means through environmental design, policy changes, surveillance considerations, targeted awareness efforts, and individualized interventions. Reducing suicide risk across the spectrum of lethal methods requires promoting suicide-focused, evidence-based care. Lethal means counseling (e.g., CALM, CAMS) is recommended as a standard component of care for individuals and families. At the systems level, it is important for suicide-specific interventions to be scaled across the full continuum of care—including inpatient settings, community outpatient services, and embedded school-based mental health clinics—while also incorporating universal, upstream approaches (e.g., community education, public awareness) that promote safer environments and reduce access to lethal means. At railway crossings, prevention should prioritize limiting access and strengthening real-time intervention. ■Install grade separation at all railway crossings in Palo Alto. ■Reduce entry points through extended high-security fencing beyond the right of way. ■Install track-intrusion deterrents (e.g., anti-trespass panels). ■Deploy advanced sustained surveillance and intrusion alert systems in coordination with Caltrain. ■Sustain staffing of trained security personnel at high-risk crossings, with emphasis on empathetic, evidence-informed engagement. 2     Packet Pg. 62     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 39 Systems & Governance The following are recommendations to strengthen leadership structure, cross-sector coordination, accountability mechanisms, and sustainable oversight of suicide prevention efforts. ■Build a crisis prevention and response team to oversee mental health strategic planning for the city. ■Complete annual review of all policies and procedures. ■Assist Project Safety Net (PSN) in strengthening its resource coalition, including building clear communication channels and implementing systematic coordinated postvention efforts. ■Develop an Anti-Traumatization Transport Policy and provide training. ■Provide police with mental health crisis intervention training. ■Collaborate with PAUSD to share data on youth mental health to address ongoing needs and provide support during high stress periods (e.g., exams, AP testing, SAT/ACT testing). 2     Packet Pg. 63     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 40 Implementation Considerations The following is guidance on sequencing, resource allocation, stakeholder engagement, potential barriers, and short-, mid-, and long-term action planning. ■JED recommends and can assist with building a strategic plan specific to mental health and suicide prevention. ■Goals should be ranked by urgent needs and clearly written with actionable objectives and specific timeframes. ■Utilize available resources to engage stakeholders and promote a unified citywide response. ■Anticipate and address barriers to implementation at regular intervals. ■Survey the community annually to determine areas of improvement or newly identified areas of concern. Limitations and Future Directions These recommendations were developed based on the Specific Services set forth in the agreement between JED and the City of Palo Alto, the information provided and made accessible to JED, and JED’s knowledge and experience. The Jed Foundation expresses its deep appreciation for the evolving partnership with the City of Palo Alto and the joint efforts and expertise from all of the community partners, youth, and local constituents who made substantial contributions to this report. Finally, JED remains committed to improving the overall health and well-being of youth and young adults in Palo Alto, both now and for the foreseeable future. 2     Packet Pg. 64     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 41 Appendices The following supporting documentation includes detailed data tables, instruments, interview protocols, participant summaries, references to evidence-based practices, and technical notes. 2     Packet Pg. 65     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 42 Appendix A Youth and Young Adult Listening Session Questions 1. When young people in your community feel stressed or overwhelmed, where do they usually turn for support? a. What makes those supports or resources appealing or helpful? 2. What challenges do young people face when trying to get mental health support in your community? a. What kinds of mental health supports or resources do you think young people need that aren’t currently available? 3. What kinds of messages do young people in your community hear about mental health? a. Do you notice differences in how adults talk about mental health compared to how young people talk about it? 4. What communication tools or strategies would best reach young people with information about mental health resources (for example, social media, school announcements, text alerts, peer ambassadors, etc.)? a. How could we reach young people who aren’t already engaged in mental health conversations? 5. If you could change one thing about the culture or environment for young people in this community to better support youth mental health, what would it be? a. Where should youth voices be included more in decisions? b. What support would young people need to be involved in making those changes? 6. What do adults in this community most misunderstand about what young people are going through? 7. What types of events, trainings, or programming about mental health would be helpful or interesting for young people when it comes to well-being? a. Are there other people in the community who should receive more mental health training or education? 8. Is there anything about mental health support for young people in your community that we didn’t ask about but you think is important? 2     Packet Pg. 66     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 43 Appendix B City of Palo Alto Youth Focus Group Consent and Release for Minors Assumption of Risk, Release & Waiver of Liability, Indemnification and Consent Agreement Name of Organization: _______________ Date of Focus Group: _______________ This Assumption of Risk, Release & Waiver of Liability, Indemnification and Consent Agreement (“Release”) is to be read and signed by any person participating in the focus group (“Focus Group”) whether a student or other person. The Focus Group is part of The Jed Foundation’s (“JED”) Postvention Program, a JED program, that is designed to further strengthen the prevention (i.e., acute risk detection) and postvention response protocols and to help plan and to make recommendations regarding the implementation of the revised protocols for the foreseeable future to assess and help improve your community’s mental health programs, resources, services, and other offerings. 1. What is the purpose of this focus group? The JED Foundation (JED) is a non-profit organization committed to protecting student emotional health and suicide prevention. We have been working with the City of Palo Alto to assess and help improve its mental health services. The purpose of this focus group is to have one-hour conversations to help learn more about the emotional health of your community. We also use these focus groups to learn more about members of your community and its needs, and to assist with developing a strategic plan to improve mental health support in your community. Your voice matters! 2. What will I be asked to do in this focus group? If you agree to take part, you will be asked to discuss a series of questions about mental health services in your community and your feelings toward mental health. The discussion will last no longer than one hour. 3. How many people are participating in this focus group and what will the focus group be like? The focus group will take place either over Zoom (or a similar video conferencing platform) or in person, and neither JED nor the City of Palo Alto will record the conversation. There will be up to 32 people in the focus group: two moderators and up to 30 participants. Nobody else will be present. 4. Is participation voluntary? Yes, participation in this focus group is voluntary—you do not have to take part if you do not want to. If any questions make you feel uncomfortable, you do not have to answer them. You may leave the discussion at any time without any negative repercussions from JED and without having to justify your decision. If you decide to leave the discussion before it ends, JED will attempt, where practicable, to destroy information regarding your participation, except for this consent form. However, since moderator notes 2     Packet Pg. 67     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 44 from the focus group discussion will usually not contain your name or other uniquely identifying information, JED cannot guarantee that we will be able to destroy all information relating to your participation 5. Will my statements be kept confidential? JED will make every reasonable effort to protect the confidentiality of the information you share with us. JED will keep everything you say in this focus group in strict confidence. Any moderator notes from the focus group discussion will usually not contain your name or any other information that would allow you to be linked to specific statements. Only the moderators facilitating the focus group discussion and other authorized JED personnel and people working with JED will have access to the notes. While JED will present the general findings, including select quotes obtained during the focus group, to the City of Palo Alto overseeing mental health efforts at in your community and may use those findings to help develop a JED Foundation Youth Focus Group strategic plan for improving mental health supports, neither your name nor any other participant names will appear in any report, strategic plan, or other deliverable. However, if you make any statements that indicate that you may harm yourself or others, or that someone else may harm themselves or others, JED may disclose that information in accordance with reporting requirements and guidelines and any applicable laws, which may include informing your parent/guardian, school and/or the authorities for the purpose of protecting you and other individuals. If the focus group is taking place over Zoom (or a similar video conferencing platform), the other members of the focus group will see your image and hear your comments. If you identify yourself on Zoom with your first and last name, the other participants will see your full name as well. If you would rather not be identified by your first and last name, we recommend that you change your Zoom setting so that either only your first name is displayed or an alias is used. 6. Do the other participants have to keep my statements confidential? All participants, including you, are asked to agree to keep this conversation confidential and to refrain from discussing the identity or comments of the other participants outside of the focus group. However, JED cannot ensure that other participants will not disclose statements that they heard during the focus group or the names of the other participants. 7. Will I be able to review the report given to the City of Palo Alto? We encourage organizations to share the findings from the report with the communities. The City of Palo Alto may decide to let you access that information a few months after the focus group discussion. 8. What are the benefits to participating? You will not benefit directly from taking part in this study. However, your participation will help City of Palo Alto officials gain a better understanding of the mental health issues in your community. As a young person, your voice is very important, and your insights will help the administration know how to improve the 2     Packet Pg. 68     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 45 mental health supports that they offer. 9. What are the risks to participating? Some of the questions in the focus group discussion will be about your current mental health. It is possible that talking about your experiences may trigger upsetting or uncomfortable memories. If this is the case, please do not hesitate to let the moderators know and/or stop participating in the discussion. If you find yourself in need of mental health counseling, we encourage you to reach out to a health care provider. JED will make every reasonable effort to protect the confidentiality of your name and statements made during the focus group discussion. However, the nature of a focus group prevents JED from guaranteeing that other participants will not repeat what is said in the focus group to others 10. What if I decide afterwards that I do not want my comments shared with the City of Palo Alto? If you decide after the focus group discussion that you do not want your comments shared, JED may, but cannot guarantee that we will, destroy statements you made during the focus group if you inform us in writing within 5 days of the focus group that you no longer want to participate. JED cannot guarantee that every comment that you make during the focus group can be removed from our focus group-related analysis or deliverables because moderators do not usually note down participant names or other identifying information. By signing this consent form, you agree to allow JED to use your anonymous statements in JED’s focus group-related analysis and deliverables, with the understanding that nothing will be attributed to you by name without your express consent. 11. What if I have a question after the focus group? Whom can I contact at JED? You can contact one of the JED staff members who led the focus group. They will provide their email address at the end of the focus group. Affirmation by Participant: By signing below, I agree to participate voluntarily in the focus group. I have had a chance to read this consent form, and I understand what I have read. I have had the opportunity to ask questions, and any and all answers provided to me have been satisfactory. I understand that I should not sign below if I have any questions or do not understand any part of this consent form. I agree to keep the names and statements of the other members of the focus group confidential. I understand that this means that I must not share the names of the participants who participated in this focus group and what they said during the focus group with individuals who did not participate, and that I must not discuss statements made during the focus group discussion outside the focus group setting, even with other participants. I further understand and agree that participation in the focus group is voluntary and that I can leave the focus group discussion at any time. I authorize JED and the City of Palo Alto to use and disclose any and all statements that I make during the focus group discussion in connection with efforts to improve mental health support in my community and, in the case of JED, in other communities. I understand that my name will not be 2     Packet Pg. 69     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 46 attached to such statements. I acknowledge and agree that the focus group discussion is not intended to provide medical treatment or serve as mental health counseling. I understand that if I require medical or other professional attention in connection with mental health issues or other health care matters, including those raised with the focus group, I should separately reach out to a mental health professional or other health care provider. Affirmation by Parent/Guardian: By signing below, I agree to allow my child to participate voluntarily in the focus group. I have had a chance to read this consent form, and I understand what I have read. I have had the opportunity to ask questions, and any and all answers provided to me have been satisfactory. I understand that I should not sign below if I have any questions or do not understand any part of this consent form. I agree that if my child discloses to me the names and statements of other members of the focus group, I will keep that information confidential, and I will remind my child that this information is confidential and should not be shared. I further understand and agree that my child’s participation in the focus group is voluntary and that my child can leave the focus group discussion at any time. I authorize JED and the City of Palo Alto to use and disclose any and all statements that my child makes during the focus group discussion in connection with efforts to improve mental health support in Palo Alto and, in the case of JED, at other communities. I understand that my child will not be identified by name in connection with such statements. I acknowledge and agree that the focus group discussion is not intended to provide medical treatment or serve as mental health counseling. I understand that if my child requires medical or other professional attention in connection with mental health issues or other health care matters, including those raised with the focus group, my child (or I on my child’s behalf) should separately reach out to a health care provider. ___________________________ ________________________ ____________ Participant Signature Print Name Date __________________________ __________________________ Participant Cell Phone # Participant Email Address ___________________________ ________________________ ____________ Parent/Guardian Signature Print Name Date __________________________ __________________________ Parent/Guardian Cell Phone # Parent/Guardian Email Address 2     Packet Pg. 70     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 47 Appendix C City of Palo Alto Youth Focus Group Consent and Release for 18+ Assumption of Risk, Release & Waiver of Liability, Indemnification and Consent Agreement Name of Organization: CITY OF PALO ALTO Date of Focus Group: __________________ This Assumption of Risk, Release & Waiver of Liability, Indemnification and Consent Agreement (“Release”) is to be read and signed by any person participating in the focus group (”Focus Group”) whether a student or other person. The Focus Group is part of The Jed Foundation’s (“JED”) Postvention Program, a JED program, that is designed to further strengthen the prevention (i.e., acute risk detection) and postvention response protocols and to help plan and to make recommendations regarding the implementation of the revised protocols for the foreseeable future to assess and help improve your community’s mental health programs, resources, services, and other offerings. PLEASE READ BEFORE SIGNING In consideration of my participation in the Focus Group, I acknowledge, understand, and agree to each of the following: 1. The risks from participating in the Focus Group: some of the questions in the focus group may lead to discussions and openness about mental health journeys. It is possible that talking about your experiences may trigger upsetting or uncomfortable memories. If this is the case, please do not hesitate to let the moderators know and/or stop participating in the discussion. 2. I KNOWINGLY AND FREELY ASSUME ALL SUCH RISKS, both known and unknown, EVEN IF ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE of those persons released from liability under this Release, and I assume full responsibility for my participation in the Focus Group or any part of the Focus Group. 3. For myself and on behalf of my heirs, successors, and assigns, I HEREBY RELEASE AND HOLD HARMLESS JED and the CITY OF PALO ALTO and each of its respective officers, directors, employees, contractors, agents, sponsors and parent, subsidiary and affiliated companies 2     Packet Pg. 71     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 48 (“Releasees”), WITH RESPECT TO ANY AND ALL INJURY I MAY INCUR RELATING TO THE FOCUS GROUP, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PERMANENT DISABILITY AND DEATH, or any and all loss or damage to my property, WHETHER CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RELEASEES OR OTHERWISE. 4. For myself and on behalf of my heirs, successors, and assigns, I HEREBY WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO MAKE ANY CLAIM AND INDEMNIFY AND HOLD RELEASEES HARMLESS from any claim, cost, damage, charge or expense relating to or arising out of any claim concerning the Focus Group, including but not limited to the reasonable legal fees and court costs of Releasees through all levels of trial and appeal. Moreover, in the event I use any information, materials, or product provided or made available to me under this Release outside of the Focus Group, I HEREBY INDEMNIFY AND HOLD RELEASEES HARMLESS FROM ANY THIRD-PARTY CLAIM, cost, damage, charge, or expense relating to or arising out of such use, including but not limited to the reasonable legal fees and court costs of Releasees through all levels of trial and appeal. 5. I HEREBY GRANT to JED the right to whatever input or feedback I contribute to the Focus Group or in follow-up to further develop the focus group aligned with JED’s mission. Out of respect for participants in the Focus Group, kindly keep the Focus Group and today’s discussions and any follow-up thereto (our collective discussions, comments, and notes) in confidence. * * * I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS RELEASE. I FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS TERMS AND THAT I HAVE GIVEN UP SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL RIGHTS BY SIGNING IT. I HEREBY SIGN IT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY. NO PROMISES OR REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO INDUCE ME TO SIGN THIS RELEASE. Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _____________________ Name: _________________________________________ Age: _______________________ Email: _________________________________________ Phone: _____________________ Address: _____________________________________________________________________ 2     Packet Pg. 72     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 49 Focus Group FAQs The Jed Foundation is a non-profit organization committed to protecting youth emotional health and suicide prevention. In conducting this Focus Group, we are relying on your agreement to the Release. 1. What are the purpose and benefits of this focus group? Focus groups elicit a space that allows for authentic youth voice, engagement, and conversation. Sharing experiences and stories is an inspiring way to be proactive about our mental health. You will not be financially compensated or receive mental health care for participating. 2. What will the focus group include? It will be a 60 to 90 minute conversation led by a JED staff member to help JED learn more about your community’s culture as it relates to mental health and emotional well-being. The conversation will support the development of a community- wide strategic plan aimed at protecting emotional health and lowering suicide risk. Your voice matters! 3. How many people are participating in this focus group and what can I expect? It will take place either over Zoom (or a similar video conferencing platform) or in person. JED will not record or photograph the conversation, but the moderators will take notes. There will be 1 or 2 moderators and no more than 20 people from your community participating. 4. Is participation voluntary? Yes. You do not have to take part if you do not want to. If any questions make you feel uncomfortable, you do not have to answer them, and you may leave the discussion at any time. 5. Will my statements be confidential? JED will make every reasonable effort to make sure that the statements you make in the focus group are confidential, meaning not including your name or other identifying information with your comments. Only the moderators facilitating the discussion and other authorized JED personnel will have access to the notes. JED will present the general findings with CITY OF PALO ALTO and they may use those findings to help develop a strategic plan for improving mental health supports. If the focus group is taking place over Zoom, other members of the focus group will see your image, hear your comments, and if you identify yourself on Zoom. 6. What if I have a question after the focus group? You can contact the JED moderator who led the focus group. They will provide their email address at the end of the focus group. If you make any statements that indicate that you may harm yourself or others, or that someone else may harm themselves or others, JED may disclose that information in accordance with 2     Packet Pg. 73     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 50 your school’s reporting requirements and any applicable for the purpose of protecting you and other individuals. If you find yourself in need of mental health support or crisis resources, we encourage you to let the moderator know who can assist and support local resources. If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health crisis, call the new national suicide and crisis number—988—or text HOME to 741-741 for a free, confidential conversation with a trained counselor at any time. If the mental health crisis results in a medical emergency or if there is immediate danger of harm, call 911 and explain that you need support for a mental health crisis. 2     Packet Pg. 74     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 51 Appendix D List of Palo Alto Community Stakeholders and Dates of Listening Sessions City Staff: ■Office of the City Manager (virtual biweekly meetings) ■City Council (multiple virtual and in-person meetings) ■Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services (in-person listening session, 12/11/25) ■Palo Alto Fire Department (virtual listening session, 4/8/26) ■Palo Alto Police Department Psychiatric Emergency Response Team (PERT; virtual listening session, 4/14/26) Local Mental Health Professionals: ■HEARD Alliance (virtual listening session, 12/10/25) ■Kara - Grief Support (virtual listening session, 2/24/26) ■Adolescent Counseling Service (virtual listening session, 3/10/26) ■Palo Alto University (in-person listening session, 12/10/25) ■Alum Rock Counseling Center (virtual listening session, 3/5/26) ■The Q Corner (virtual listening session, 3/11/26) ■Stanford School of Medicine (multiple virtual meetings) Youth Groups: ■Allcove Palo Alto (virtual listening session, 3/17/26) ■Youth Community Services (YCS; in-person listening session, 12/10/25) ■City of Palo Alto Teen Center Staff (in-person listening session, 3/19/26) ■City of Palo Alto Youth and Teens Program (in-person listening session, 3/19/26) ■Teen Arts Council (in-person listening session, 3/19/26) ■Palo Alto Youth Council (in-person youth focus group, 3/19/26) ■Bring Change 2 Mind (BC2M) Leadership (virtual listening session, 4/15/26) Additional Stakeholders: ■Project Safety Net (in-person listening session, 12/10/25) ■Community Members/Families (multiple in-person listening sessions) ■CalTrain (virtual listening sessions, 4/13/26; 5/5/26) ■Asian Americans Community (in-person listening session, 12/11/25) ■PAUSD (multiple virtual meetings) ■TrackWatch (virtual listening session, 3/17/26) 2     Packet Pg. 75     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 52 Appendix E Written Statement (April 3, 2026) from JED at the Request of City Council in Advance of Special Session on April 15, 2026 to Consider the Temporary Closure of the Churchill Crossing Comprehensive Efforts to Reduce the Risk of Suicide in Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Suicide by pedestrian–train collision in Palo Alto and across Santa Clara County remains persistent and deeply traumatizing, particularly given its public nature and repeated incidents near Palo Alto High School. However, data from the Santa Clara Medical Examiner–Coroner (ages 9–24, 2018–2026) indicate that train-related deaths are not among the leading methods of suicide in this population. Trains are an urgent concern— but so are other highly lethal methods. Accordingly, it would be most prudent for prevention efforts to be comprehensive, addressing the leading methods while also implementing targeted strategies at pedestrian rail crossings. Reducing suicide risk across methods requires expanding access to suicide-focused, evidence-based care. Lethal means counseling (e.g., CALM, CAMS) is recommended as a standard component of care for individuals and families. At the systems level, it is important for suicide-specific interventions to be scaled across the full continuum of care—including inpatient settings, community outpatient services, and embedded school- based mental health clinics—while also incorporating universal, upstream approaches (e.g., community education, public awareness) that promote safer environments and reduce access to lethal means. Equally important is addressing the underlying and unique mental health needs of Palo Alto’s youth and young adults. Targeted resources that acknowledge and amplify youth voice, providing culturally responsive supports for subpopulations, and community-wide efforts to strengthen help-seeking and help-giving norms are also essential to sustained culture change. Limiting access and strengthening real-time intervention at rail crossings are key strategies for preventing suicide at these locations. This includes reducing entry points through extended high-security fencing beyond the right of way, installing track-intrusion deterrents (e.g., anti-trespass panels), and deploying advanced surveillance and intrusion alert systems in coordination with Caltrain. Sustained staffing of trained security personnel at high-risk crossings is also essential, with an emphasis on empathetic, evidence-informed engagement (e.g., Be Sensitive, Be Brave). In addition, trained community volunteers (“track watchers”) can provide a visible, supportive presence—particularly during school hours near adjacent campuses. We understand that Palo Alto is also considering structural interventions at specific crossings, including temporary or permanent closures and grade separation. While these strategies may reduce incidents at specific sites, they are unlikely to address suicide by train across the broader peninsula, given the many accessible points along the rail corridor. Accordingly, the integration of localized infrastructure changes within a comprehensive, multi-layered prevention strategy that addresses place-based risks, underlying drivers of suicidal behavior, and increased access to effective mental health care are [highly] recommended. Respectfully, The Jed (JED) Foundation 2     Packet Pg. 76     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 53 Appendix F Excerpt from the Summary Minutes of a continuation of the Special Session from April 15, 2026 to consider temporary closure of the Churchill Crossing (May 11, 2026) (Continued Item from 4/15/2026 – On April 15, 2026, the City Council Received Presentations and Public Testimony; The Item is Continued to May 11, 2026 for further Council Discussion, Deliberation, and Potential Action – No Additional Public Testimony Will be Heard on May 11, 2026.) Alex Andrade, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that tonight’s agenda is a continuation of last month’s Expedited Churchill Avenue Rail Crossing evaluation. The supplemental report addressed some of the questions City Council had on the Churchill Avenue Quiet Zone and the JED Foundation collaboration. Assistant Andrade acknowledged a few key components to this body of work and stated the Quiet Zone implementation along the Caltrain corridor is a City Council Priority. Last week, the Finance Committee discussed a strategy for the acceleration of the Churchill Quiet Zone; if the expedited plan is approved, Measure K funds would be used in FY27 for design and construction would take place in 2028. Finance Committee discussed adding funding for the monitoring guards through the end of the current fiscal year, which means additional funding would cover March-June of 2027, contingent on 50/50 cost sharing by the school district. The JED Foundation completed their final listening sessions virtually in April and is compiling findings to complete their assessment report, which should be made public at the end of next month. Kurt Michael, JED Foundation, read a statement. Data from the publicly available Santa Clara Medical Examiner Data Dashboard were reviewed and found to be generally consistent with broader CDC WONDER trends described in the report to be released next month, so consistent with CDC reporting guidance, which includes avoiding presentation publicly or in reports of death rates based on counts of 9 or fewer. The researchers leaned on the widely available CDC WONDER data system to report findings but the dashboard itself from the Santa Clara Medical Examiners boards was used to confirm that multiple locations along the railway corridor in Palo Alto meet criteria for “frequently used locations or suicide hotspots”. The research has shown that once a location is known as a “hotspot”, priority should be given to sustain prevention efforts because of their self- perpetuating nature and impact on those who work, live, or travel nearby. Recommended strategies include reducing access to lethal means via barriers and deterrents, enhanced promotion of help seeking, increased opportunities for third-party intervention through surveillance, rapid emergency response, and adhering more closely to responsible suicide reporting guidelines. Although restricting access along railway systems can be operationally challenging and costly short term, including grade separation and/or closure, such interventions may prove cost effective over time. This finding has been shown in the literature multiple times. 2     Packet Pg. 77     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 54 Councilmember Burt recalled the discussion at the last meeting and said what Council and the school district are trying to address is the community’s teen suicide crisis and the broader youth mental health issues that contribute to it. Councilmember Burt shared that even in the budget discussion, there are multiple areas where youth mental health is addressed. Councilmember Burt noted the value of a closer collaboration between PAUSD, the City, and community partners through Project Safety Net. Councilmember Burt stated that while everyone is aware of how traumatic these recent events were, the big picture focus is the discussion around means restriction. Though no measure is fail-safe, data indicates there are no suicides at rail crossings when security guards are present. There was a large petition by students and parents asking for 24/7 guards at all 4 crossings, which Council and PAUSD are doing. Councilmember Burt noticed that over 17+ years, the overwhelming majority of suicides have occurred at night at Charleston and Meadow. Councilmember Burt questioned if a closure at Churchill would have a discernable benefit over 24/7 guards and emphasized the negative public health and safety impacts that may occur from a closure, including diverting high volumes of bikes and motor vehicles to the same locations and additional delays of emergency vehicles. Councilmember Burt pointed out that Embarcadero Road is an ambulance road for the city and 2 counties and that every 1 minute of delay for a cardiac arrest victim means a 6 to 10 percent increase in mortality. Councilmember Burt added that acceleration of the Quiet Zone effort could be inhibited or delayed by a temporary closure. Councilmember Burt stated all these reasons led him to not support the trial closure of Churchill, though he will continue to support the 24/7 guards. 2     Packet Pg. 78     Youth Mental Health in Palo Alto 55 References Owens, C. (2016). “Hotspots” and “copycats”: A plea for more thoughtful language about suicide. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(1), 19–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00492-7 Palo Alto Unified School District. California Healthy Kids Survey, 2023-2024: Main Report. San Francisco: WestEd for the California Department of Education. Pirkis, J., Too, L. S., Spittal, M. J., Krysinska, K., Robinson, J., & Cheung, Y. T. (2015). Interventions to reduce suicides at suicide hotspots: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(11), 994–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00266-7 2     Packet Pg. 79     © 2026 The Jed Foundation. All rights reserved. ® 2     Packet Pg. 80     2     Packet Pg. 81     2     Packet Pg. 82     2     Packet Pg. 83     Human Relations Commission Staff Report From: Leif Christiansen, Senior Housing Specialist Meeting Date: September 10, 2026 Report #: 2607-6564 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING: Summary of Fiscal Year 2025-2026 (HUD CDBG Program Year 2025) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Accomplishments — Review of the Draft Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that the Human Relations Commission (HRC) open a public hearing to review, discuss, and take public comments on the FY 2025-2026 (Program Year 2025) draft CAPER. No HRC motions or action is required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City must annually report the accomplishments of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This report, called the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), summarizes these accomplishments and expenditures for the FY 2025-2026 (Program Year 2025) CDBG funding cycle. In FY 2025-2026, HUD requires submittal of the CAPER (Attachment A) by September 30, 2026. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto receives funding annually from HUD as an entitlement city under the CDBG program. As a recipient of CDBG funds, the City is required to prepare a CAPER at the end of each fiscal year. The CAPER describes the City’s progress toward implementing the activities identified in the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan1 and the goals and objectives of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan. ANALYSIS During FY 2025-2026 (PY 2025), the City’s CDBG subrecipients continued to provide vital services to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households while addressing the priorities and needs of the community and the City’s funding priorities. 1 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan 3     Packet Pg. 84     $646,183 in CDBG and $127,822 in CDBG-CV funds were available for CDBG projects, programs, and activities during FY 2025-2026. Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long Term Care Ombudsman Program [Goal: Assist 37 individuals; Actual: 37 individuals]. The program provided advocacy and complaint investigation for elderly residents of long-term care facilities in Palo Alto, which included regular contact with Palo Alto Residential Care Facilities to observe and monitor conditions of care; LifeMoves – Case Management [Goal: Assist 32 individuals; Actual: 35 individuals]. LifeMoves provided case management services to Opportunity Services Center and Hotel De Zink clients; this included locating housing and/or employment and connecting clients to benefits; Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services [Goal: Assist 10 individuals; Actual: 4 individuals]. Project Sentinel provided fair housing services to City residents including community education and outreach regarding fair housing law and practices, investigation, counseling, and legal referral for victims of housing discrimination; Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) – Case Management Services [Goal: Assist 21 individuals; Actual: 24 individuals]. SVLIC provided assistance for individuals with disabilities and their families. This assistance helped individuals to transition from homelessness, health care facilities, unstable or temporary housing to permanent affordable, accessible, integrated housing involving emergency assistance, security deposits, rent, information, and referrals; Rebuilding Together Peninsula – Safe at Home Program [Goal: Assist 5 households; Actual: 0 households]. This program preserves affordable housing by transforming homes through critical repairs and accessibility modifications, at no cost to the service recipient. The majority of the low- income homeowners served were elderly seniors and/or people with disabilities, who are physically and financially unable to maintain safe living conditions for themselves and their families. Currently the program has two rehabilitation projects in process, with an anticipated completion date of October 1; 3     Packet Pg. 85     Abode/Community Work Group – Alma Garden Rehabilitation [Goal: 10 individuals; Actual: 0 individuals]. Project activities included rehabilitating rental housing units in Alma Garden, an affordable multi-family housing complex for very low and low-income households, to address existing health and safety concerns. Funding was spent on a project manager, bathroom upgrades, exterior repairs, and electrical and water utility upgrades. The City received a Notice of Construction Completion on August 25, 2026, and will officially closeout the project once the final invoice is received; LifeMoves – HomeKey Recreation Project [Goal: 100 individuals; Actual: 0 individuals]. The provider is managing the design and construction of a recreation area and recreation equipment within the Homekey Palo Alto shelter property. The anticipated project completion timeframe is 3 months. LifeMoves has secured a contractor to install the playground and is currently working through the permit process; Upwards – BOOST Program [Goal: 15 microenterprises; Actual: 11 microenterprises]. Upwards worked with Family Child Care Home (FCCH) providers in Palo Alto who are already on the wait list for the BOOST program. These providers received staff training-learning best practices on how to grow and sustain their organization and how to better support the families they serve. Funds allocated pay staff salaries for training providers on how to use Child Management System (CCMS) software. CCMS was developed for providers to create work plans, goals, capacity, and revenue, empowering them to reach service and operations goals; NextDoor Solutions – Solutions for Domestic Violence Program [Goal: 20 persons; Actual: 14 persons]. The program assists victims/survivors of domestic/intimate partner violence (DV) through client-centered services through Community Support Advocacy such as crisis intervention counseling, risk assessment, safety planning, legal advocacy and attorneys, restraining order assistance, case management, access to support groups and other support services through walk-in or virtual appointments; and Move Mountain View (MMV) [Goal: 109 individuals; Actual: 126 individuals]. The program provides reserved off-street parking for participants, as well as permanent housing solutions through intensive case management. MMV operates four 24/7 RV Safe Parking lots and three Congregational Safe Parking locations. The total capacity of these lots in Palo Alto and Mountain View is 109 vehicles. A total of 159 vehicle dwellers are currently enrolled in the program. 3     Packet Pg. 86     One of locations is in Palo Alto at the Geng Road Safe Parking lot. The Geng Road Safe Parking Lot is where MMV utilizes Palo Alto’s CDBG-CV funds. Funding pays for the salary of one full-time Client Counseling Case Manager and one full-time Client Case Manager Housing Specialist. TIMELINE As required by HUD, the FY 2025-2026 draft CAPER will be submitted by the September 30th deadline. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund associated with this report as CDBG funding is provided by HUD - and the primary purpose of the CAPER is to report on annual program accomplishments. The Community Development Block Grant Fund is a Special Revenue Fund that recognizes revenue provided by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and disburses that revenue through grants to eligible recipients. These are restricted funds that can only be used for eligible purposes. Associated grant funding is also used to support program administration (about $104,000 allocated to Administration in FY 2025-2026) for consultant services and liability insurance STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT An advertisement was published in The Daily Post on August 21, 2026, announcing the upcoming availability of the draft CAPER for public review and comment. The draft CAPER was posted on the City’s CDBG webpage3, and available from August 25, 2026, through September 11, 2026 - meeting the 15-day public comment period requirement. Hardcopies of the draft CAPER were also available for review at the City’s Development Center, Planning & Development Services Department at City Hall, and the City’s Downtown Public Library. The HRC will hold a public hearing on September 10, 2026, to discuss the draft CAPER and provide the public the opportunity to comment; the meeting fulfills the public hearing requirement for the CAPER. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025-2026 Draft Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report Attachment B: 2025-2026 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report Presentation 3 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Housing-Policies-Projects/Community- Development-Block-Grant 3     Packet Pg. 87     Program Year 2025-2026 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) DRAFT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD August 25, 2026 – SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 A DMINISTERED BY: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3     Packet Pg. 88     CAPER 1 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) CR-05 - Goals and Outcomes Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan. 91.520(a) The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is a report that demonstrates the overall progress realized through the City’s priorities and specific objectives as identified in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan and the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan. The CAPER highlights accomplishments that occurred between July 1 2025, to June 30, 2026. This is the first year-end report of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan. As shown in Table 1, the City of Palo Alto has accomplished immense success in FY2025-2026 (PY2025-2026, Program Year 2025-2026, PY2025) while meeting identified goals. The City has used Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support their community’s residents. The City does not receive HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) and thus these funds are not reflected in this report. A total of $646,183 in CDBG funds was available for projects and programs during the 2025-2026 Program Year (PY). In PY2025, 240 persons and 11 microenterprise businesses were assisted through CDBG allocations. Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted with the consolidated plan and explain, if applicable, why progress was not made toward meeting goals and objectives. 91.520(g) Categories, priority levels, funding sources and amounts, outcomes/objectives, goal outcome indicators, units of measure, targets, actual 3     Packet Pg. 89     CAPER 2 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) outcomes/outputs, and percentage completed for each of the grantee’s program year goals. Project/ Agency/ Strategic Plan Goal Funding Indicator Unit of Measure 2025 Goal 2025 Actual % Comp. Activity Operator Affordable Housing Supply and Condition 15 0 0% Safe at Home Program Rebuilding Together Peninsula Affordable Housing Supply and Condition $73,585.00 Homeowner Units Rehabilitated Household Housing Units 5 0 0% Alma Garden Apartment Rehabilitation Community Work Group Affordable Housing Supply and Condition $162,474.00 Homeowner Units Rehabilitated Household Housing Units 10 0 0% Respond to Homelessness and At Risk of Homelessness 136 35 26% Case Management LifeMoves Respond to Homelessness and Risk of Homelessness $39,154.64 Public services for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit Persons Assisted 32 35 109% Homekey Recreation Project LifeMoves Homelessness and Risk of Homelessness $70,000.00 Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit Persons Assisted 104 0 0% Strengthen Neighborhoods 168 188 112% Case Management SVILC Strengthen Neighborhoods $20,067.43 Public services other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit Persons Assisted 21 24 114% Ombudsman Program Catholic Charities Strengthen Neighborhoods $8,500.00 other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Persons Assisted 37 37 100% 3     Packet Pg. 90     CAPER 3 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Planning and Administration City Staff Neighborhoods $123,246.60 Other Other 1 1 100% Safe Parking Program MOVE Mountain View Strengthen Neighborhoods $124,187.00 other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Persons Assisted 109 126 116% Increase Opportunities for Workforce Development 15 11 73% Boost Program Upwards Increase Opportunities for Workforce Development $90,000.00 Public Services other than Low/Mod Housing Benefit Microenterprises Assisted 15 11 73% Supportive Services for Low Income Households 30 18 60% Fair Housing Services Project Sentinel Services for Low Income $22,005.33 other than Low/Mod Housing Persons Assisted 10 4 40% Solutions for Domestic Violence Nextdoor Solutions Services for Low Income $7,200.00 other than Low/Mod Housing Persons Assisted 20 14 70% Table 1 - Accomplishments – Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority activities identified. Throughout PY2025-2026, the subrecipients of the City’s CDBG program persistently delivered essential services to households belonging to the extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income brackets. Simultaneously, they tackled the priorities and needs of the community, as outlined in the City’s officially adopted 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan. The City achieved numerous goals as outlined in the PY2025-2026 Annual Action Plan (AAP) through CDBG funding. A total of $646,183 was 3     Packet Pg. 91     CAPER 4 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) available for funding projects and programs during the 2025 Program Year. At the time of this CAPER, the City has spent approximately $461,825.76 in CDBG entitlement funds and $71,616.45 in CDBG-CV funds. In the first year of the 2025-2030 ConPlan, the City saw success with the following goals and activities: •Responding to Homelessness and At Risk of Homelessness: o LifeMoves’ Case Management exceeded its goal of assisting 32 persons by assisting 35 persons o LifeMoves’ Recreation Project expects to begin construction before Fall 2026 and be completed in PY2026-2027. Accomplishments will be reflected in the 2026-2027 CAPER. •Strengthen Neighborhoods: o SVILC’s Case Management exceeded its goal of assisting 21 persons by assisting 24 persons; o MOVE Mountain View’s Safe Parking exceeded its goal of 109 by assisting 126 persons; o Catholic Charities’ Ombudsman Program met its goal of assisting 37 persons •Increase Opportunities for Workforce Development: o Upwards’ BOOST program saw moderate success assisting 11 persons with a goal of assisting 15 persons; •Supportive Services for Low Income Households: o Nextdoor Solution’s for Domestic Violence assisted 14 persons with a goal of assisting 20 persons; o Project Sentinel’s Fair Housing assisted 4 persons with a goal of assisting 10 persons; •Affordable Housing Supply and Condition Goal expects to record accomplishments in PY2026-2027: o Rebuilding Together Peninsula has two projects in the pipeline and will likely find more eligible applicants, and projects completed in PY2026-2027 will be reported in the 2026-2027 CAPER; o Alma Garden Rehabilitation is expected to be completed prior to Fall 2026 and will be reported on in the 2026-2027 CAPER. 3     Packet Pg. 92     CAPER 5 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) CR-10 - Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted). 91.520(a) White 172 Black or African American 24 Asian 22 American Indian or American Native 2 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 251 Hispanic 111 Not Hispanic 140 Table 2 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds Narrative During PY2025-2026, the City was successful in collecting demographic data for 251 persons who were served with CDBG funds. Table 2 above outlines the racial and ethnic populations served by CDBG funds in PY2025-2026 for a variety of races, although this HUD IDIS formatted reporting table does not track persons identifying as multi-racial. Not reflected in Table 2 above is an additional 30 persons (why the first 4-rows total 221) assisted with CDBG funds, with 21 identifying as Hispanic. 3     Packet Pg. 93     CAPER 6 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) CR-15 - Resources and Investments 91.520(a) Identify the resources made available CDBG public - federal 646,183 $461,825.76 Other public - federal $127,822.21 71,616.45 Table 3 - Resources Made Available Narrative The City awarded $646,183 in PY2025-26 and expended $461,825.76 with $97,101.16 for public service activities, $90,000 for economic development activities, $100,423.96 in program administration costs, and $174,300.64 in housing rehabilitation activities. Additionally, the City had $127,822.21 in CDBG-CV available and expended $71,616.45 in PY2025-26 for the Safe Parking and Case Management program with Move Mountain View. Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments Table 4 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments Narrative The City’s approach to housing assistance encompasses all forms of housing support, aligning with the principles outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. CDBG-funded public service and housing activities are not confined to specific target areas. The City strives to offer affordable housing options and community services to individuals with lower incomes across the entire municipality. The City does not have any target areas. 3     Packet Pg. 94     CAPER 7 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Leveraging Explain how federal funds leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the needs identified in the plan. The City of Palo Alto does not receive HOME, ESG, or any other federal grants that require matching requirements. However, the City is consistently maximizing their use of available resources while simultaneously looking out for additional funding opportunities. In addition, the City actively encourages nonprofit organizations to pursue various avenues of funding, including state, local, and federal resources, to support housing and community development activities. The following funds were leveraged during FY2025-2026 Human Services Resources Allocation Process (HSRAP): In FY2025-2026, the City allocated General Funds to HSRAP to address primary human service needs in Palo Alto. These funds support human service initiatives, guided by the Human Relations Commission’s priority needs and administered by the Office of Human Services. Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF): In FY2025-2026, the City of Palo Alto received $3.4 million from HCD to use alongside local matching funds toward the production of rental housing units at varying affordability levels. 70 percent of these funds target housing units for residents with incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median income (AMI), while 30 percent are for residents with incomes at or below 30 percent AMI. Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA): As a PHLA entitlement jurisdiction, Palo Alto received an annual PHLA allocation from HCD. The City uses these funds to assist persons who are experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of experiencing homelessness. Funding is used toward street outreach and operating expenses for the Palo Alto Homekey shelter, and for affordable rental housing preservation, new construction, and operating subsidies. Homekey: Palo Alto Homekey is a forthcoming modular interim housing shelter with the capacity to serve over 200 individuals annually with on-site supportive services. As a co-development partnership between the City and LifeMoves, the project is receiving a combination of funding from both state and local contributions, including the Palo Alto Community Fund, the Peery Foundation, Sobrato Philanthropies, Santa Clara County, and the City itself. These additional funding sources address expenses beyond what federal funds can cover, such as pre-development costs, feasibility studies, and site acquisition. 3     Packet Pg. 95     CAPER 8 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) CR-20 - Affordable Housing 91.520(b) Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the number and types of families served, the number of extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income persons served. One-Year Goal Actual provided affordable housing units 0 0 provided affordable housing units 15 0 provided affordable housing units 0 0 Total 15 0 Table 5 – Number of Households One-Year Goal Actual Rental Assistance 0 0 The Production of New Units 0 0 Rehab of Existing Units 15 0 Acquisition of Existing Units 0 0 Total 15 0 Table 6 – Number of Households Supported Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting these goals. While not a recipient of HOME funds, the City continued its partnership with Rebuilding Together Peninsula through its Safe at Home Program. The Program represents preservation of affordable housing, as the program provides for critical home repairs and accessibility modifications at no cost to the recipient. In PY2025, Rebuilding Together Peninsula had a goal of assisting 5 households. Those served include LMI homeowners that are elderly and/or are people with disabilities, who are physically and financially unable to maintain safe living conditions for themselves and their families. With Rebuilding Together Peninsula, the City expects to assist at least 2 LMI households with rehabilitation through CDBG funds during PY2026-27 and will be reported in the 2026-27 CAPER. The number of households assisted through the Safe at Home Program is dependent on available funds and the extent of rehabilitation work needed per household. 3     Packet Pg. 96     CAPER 9 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) The City also partnered with Community Work Group/Abode to rehabilitate rental housing units in Alma Garden, an affordable multi-family housing complex for very low- and low-income households. These rehabilitation efforts addressed health and safety concerns, with funding spent on a project manager, bathroom upgrades, exterior repairs, and electrical and water utility upgrades. During PY2025, Community Work Group/Abode nearly completed interior work to the Alma Garden multi-family housing complex. This work will finish before Fall 2026 and assist 10 LMI household units. Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans. Rebuilding Together Peninsula’s multi-year success demonstrates a continued need for home rehabilitation for LMI households in the City of Palo Alto. Future plans would build upon these consecutive successes to continue providing home rehabilitation. The City expects to begin its City-owned housing stock condition audit in Fall to identify potential affordable housing rehabilitation projects to pursue. Include the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income persons served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine the eligibility of the activity. Extremely Low-income 0 0 Low-income 0 0 Moderate-income 0 0 Table 7 – Number of Households Served Narrative Information The City of Palo Alto continues to prioritize the promotion of affordable housing for its residents. Currently, the City has the second highest inventory of affordable housing for incorporated jurisdictions within Santa Clara County (as a percentage of total housing stock). Since 2017, the City has contributed or pledged $52 million towards affordable housing, has approximately 2,300 units (nine percent of total housing stock) dedicated to affordable housing through deed restrictions, and has permitted over 1,000 housing units in the last eight years. Further, the Palo Alto City Council adopted “housing for social and economic balance” as a key priority in both 2023 and 2024. For 2025, the City Council has made “implementing housing strategies for social and economic balance” a key priority. To make the search for affordable housing easily accessible to LMI residents, the City has an interactive Affordable Housing Resources Map embedded on their website featuring affordable housing properties and projects managed by affordable housing organizations. In addition, the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) administers the federal Section 8 3     Packet Pg. 97     CAPER 10 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) program countywide, providing rental subsidies and developing affordable housing for low-income households, seniors, and persons with disabilities. 3     Packet Pg. 98     CAPER 11 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) CR-25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c) Evaluate the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending homelessness through: Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs The City of Palo Alto has an enduring local commitment to address homelessness and provide services for the unhoused. Jurisdictions in the County of Santa Clara participate in the county-wide Point-in-Time (PIT) Count every two years. At the time of this report, the 2025 PIT Count’s preliminary results show that there are 10,711 individuals experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County. This represents an 8.2 percent increase from 2023. Simultaneously, the number of sheltered homeless individuals increased to 30 percent, marking an increase in shelter capacity. Unsheltered homeless individuals remained relatively the same as in 2023, with an increase of just one percent. The full 2025 PIT Count Report, which includes detailed data about the City of Palo Alto’s homeless trends, will be available in late summer or early fall of 2025. Move Mountain View’s Safe Parking Program assisted 126 persons with off-street parking and access to case management services and permanent housing solutions. Since the Safe Parking Program opened in February of 2021, 50% of client households have been placed in safe housing or other interim housing. MMV expects this percentage to rise as more safe housing options are developed by the state of California. The Safe Parking lots contain spaces for parking, commuter parking, and RVs . One of the Safe Parking lots contains a library, laundry, kitchen, showers, and office spaces, which will create many options for service to the clients in the program. The City of Palo Alto provides funding for unhoused services and homelessness prevention through multiple funding channels, including CDBG, Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), and the Emerging Needs Fund. This broad financial support is directed toward service provision and homeless prevention. Services for the City’s homeless population include workforce development, basic needs stipends for work experience, food, seasonal homeless shelter, school supplies for children, case management, tele- medicine equipment, and shower/laundry services. Additionally, the City contracted with a local nonprofit to provide a two-person full-time Outreach Team to reach out and provide services to unhoused individuals in the community, including those living in cars and RVs. The City also opened an Overnight Warming Location (OWL) that operated during winter and provided 19 “nights indoors.” The City also has several initiatives aimed at preventing homelessness from occurring, including assistance through LifeMoves and the Silicon Valley Independent Living Center. LifeMoves’ Opportunity Services Center (OSC) is specifically designated by the County of Santa Clara as the Emergency Assistance Network Agency for financial assistance in the City of Palo Alto. The OSC in Palo Alto 3     Packet Pg. 99     CAPER 12 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) exclusively serves homeless individuals. Furthermore, LifeMoves at the OSC provides intake services to all clients served to assess needs and to provide appropriate resources and referrals. LifeMoves also provides basic need services such as access to restrooms, showers, laundry, used clothing, hygiene supplies, healthcare, mail and telephone services, food, transportation assistance, counseling, information and referral services, and other critical services as needed. The City of Palo Alto will continue to explore its funding strategy and collaborate with other Santa Clara County cities to ensure that limited federal and local resources are targeted to critical community needs such as homelessness. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons During PY2025-26, LifeMoves’ Opportunity Services Center (OSC) received funding from the City of Palo Alto to provide emergency shelter and/or transitional housing for homeless persons. This project received $39,154.64 in CDBG funding from the City and has significantly extended its operational hours, thereby providing enhanced support to Palo Alto’s homeless community. This extension has provided vulnerable clients with more time within a secure and nurturing environment, ensuring they receive the critical assistance they require. During PY2025-26, LifeMoves offered case management services to 35 individuals in the City of Palo Alto through its CDBG funds. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: likely to become homeless after being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); and, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs In PY2025-26, the City of Palo Alto administered CDBG funds to LifeMoves to help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially those who are extremely low-income and those who are discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care. LifeMoves received $39,154.64 in CDBG funding and provided case management services to 35 homeless and/or very low- income City residents. Case management services included assistance with housing and job searches, referrals to other resources, and mentoring. The City follows the guidance of Santa Clara County’s Continuum of Care (CoC) as it relates to individuals who may be discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care. The Santa Clara County CoC has developed the Santa Clara County Countywide Quality Assurance Standards for Homeless Housing and Service Programs (2021). This was developed with the expectation of providing quality, standardized services to persons who have become homeless to facilitate their successful re- entry back into their communities. As a member of the CoC, the City of Palo Alto will be following the standards established in the documents. 3     Packet Pg. 100     CAPER 13 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again In PY2025-26, the City undertook several activities to help homeless persons, especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. Through CDBG funding, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) conducted case management and offered their Housing Workshops. These Housing Workshops educate households on skills and topics that are conducive to independent living. Topics and skills include credit card readiness and credit repair, types of low-income housing and eligibility, application and interview preparation, tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities, housing and home modifications laws and resources, security deposit and rental assistance programs, and long-term supportive services. During PY2025-26, SVILC used CDBG funds to assist 24 unduplicated Palo Alto residents with disabilities with one-on-one assistance and the development of an independent living plan for housing. These individualized independent living plans resulted in improved access to decent affordable housing. In addition, Project Sentinel provided community education and outreach regarding housing laws and practices, investigation, counseling, and legal referrals for victims of housing discrimination. During PY2025-26, 4 LMI residents were provided individual case management and consultation through CDBG funds. 3     Packet Pg. 101     CAPER 14 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) CR-30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j) Actions taken to address the needs of public housing SCCHA administers Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) and Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) in the City of Palo Alto. As of January 2025, there were 272 total vouchers in use in the City, including 67 PBVs at the Buena Vista Mobile Park. SCCHA’s waiting list for the County is operated on a lottery basis, with preference given to households who have lived and worked in the County for the past five years and to veterans. For PBV units, accessibility features are tracked, and a lottery is used to match households based on specific accessibility needs. SCCHA currently has no public housing units in its portfolio that are located in the City of Palo Alto. Following SCCHA’s conversion of its public housing portfolio under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, only four traditional public housing units remain in the County, all of which are located in the City of Santa Clara. Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership While the majority of the public housing units have been converted to affordable housing stock, SCCHA is proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy making process including the having two tenant commissioners on the Authority’s board. SCCHA also operates a Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program for households participating in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Through the FSS Program, as earned income and rent portions increase, SCCHA makes monthly deposits into a household savings account. Upon the completion of the Program, which involves meeting personal goals, the savings are provided to the household. The FSS Program encourages financial independence and stability, and is typically five years in length, with an average completion time of 3 years and 10 months. Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs SCCHA is a Moving to Work agency and has a stable outlook from S&P Global Ratings with a “AA-“ credit rating. 3     Packet Pg. 102     CAPER 15 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) CR-35 - Other Actions 91.220(j)-(k); 91.320(i)-(j) Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i) The City of Palo Alto is committed to taking actions to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing. In July 2024, the City adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element, which includes several programs meant to tackle impediments to affordable housing development. The 2023-2031 Housing Element was certified by HCD on August 20, 2024. Programs include modifications to existing zoning standards to allow for denser development, further streamlining the development review process, provisions of development standards that incentivize housing production, reevaluation of fees to support development, and more. The Housing Trust Silicon Valley (Housing Trust) was established to provide available financial resources targeted at bridging the affordable housing gap within Santa Clara County. Originally known as the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County, the Housing Trust’s overarching mission is to contribute to rendering Silicon Valley a more financially accessible place to live. The Housing Trust achieves this by disbursing loans and grants to increase the affordable housing supply, supporting first-time homebuyers, forestalling homelessness, and enhancing community stability. Palo Alto was one of the founding contributors to this initiative and has continued to support and help fund the Housing Trust. Notably, the partnership has a provision to ensure that funds allocated by the City of Palo Alto are exclusively channeled toward qualifying affordable housing projects within the City’s municipal boundaries. To further remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that result in barriers, the City has development impact fees encompassing four distinct categories. These include housing, traffic, community facilities, and parkland dedication. The introduction of development impact fees in the City is a result from comprehensive nexus studies undertaken for both commercial and residential development. Outcomes from the studies laid the groundwork for revised fees associated with residential and non-residential housing, which became effective on June 19, 2017. The housing impact fees are subject to annual updates, with fees charged being periodically evaluated and modified to ensure that they support, rather than prohibit, housing development. Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City's CDBG program demonstrates a committed effort to collaborate with various funding entities, aiming to maximize the impact of each dollar invested. This is accomplished through strategic collaborations with other municipal resources, such as the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), enabling the pooling of funds designated for site acquisition in low-income housing alongside diverse funding sources. However, Palo Alto faces challenges in fully addressing barriers that impede the 3     Packet Pg. 103     CAPER 16 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) fulfillment of underserved needs, given that needs outshine the annual availability of CDBG funds over the years. In response, the City supplements its CDBG funding with other resources and funds. For example: •During FY2025-2026 (PY 2025), the City allocated General Funds to the City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) to address primary human service needs in Palo Alto. HSRAP funds, coupled with CDBG public service funds, are allocated to local non-profit organizations. •Palo Alto’s Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. •Palo Alto’s Residential Housing Fund is derived from mitigation fees collected through the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program from residential developers and various other miscellaneous sources, such as the proceeds generated from the sale or leasing of City property. •The City established the Below Market Rate (BMR) Emergency Fund to offer continuous funding for loans to BMR owners, encompassing special assessment loans. This supports the restoring and safeguarding of the City's collection of BMR ownership units. •While the City itself is not a recipient of HOME funds, HOME funds are made accessible through a competitive selection process administered by the State of California HOME program and the County’s HOME Consortium. Actions taken to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) Lead-based paint (LBP) was popularized in the early twentieth century but was banned for use in public housing through the Lead-Based Paint Act of 1971 and later in 1978 for use in private residential housing. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), LBP can be found on window frames, walls, on the outside of a home, or on other surfaces. While LBP in good condition does not typically pose a threat, chipped paint or paint dust is harmful when ingested. This is particularly concerning for young children, as elevated blood lead levels are associated with cognitive impairments amongst other issues. According to the State of California Department of Health, children are most susceptible to LBP poisoning due to hand-to-mouth behaviors. City housing and CDBG staff disseminate information and make referrals to property owners, developers, and non-profit organizations engaged in the restoration of older housing, particularly concerning hazards linked to LBP. In line with this, any dwelling slated for rehabilitation aided by City financial support is subjected to an assessment for the presence of LBP hazards. The City extends financial support for mitigating LBP hazards in rehabilitated units with City funding. Additionally, the City enforces contractor training and certification to mitigate the potential use of LBP in the construction of 40 new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35. 3     Packet Pg. 104     CAPER 17 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty-level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City of Palo Alto is actively committed to ending and reducing poverty. All activities funded in PY2025-26 aimed to reduce poverty through program beneficiaries. CR-05 details the accomplishments of PY2025-26. Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City is actively working towards enhancing collaboration between governmental bodies and private sector entities to harness collective endeavors, pool resources, and identify additional revenue to address community service requirements and create affordable housing. This collaborative approach encompasses several key initiatives, including participation in: • Meetings among entitlement jurisdictions through the CDBG Coordinators; • Meetings of the Regional Housing Working Group; • Joint jurisdiction Request for Proposals and project review committees; • Community service and housing initiatives funded by multiple jurisdictions; and • HOME Consortium meetings among member jurisdictions to discuss affordable housing projects. Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City of Palo Alto benefits from a strong housing and community development partnership network both within its jurisdiction and the wider region. Collaborative relationships with organizations such as the County and the Continuum of Care (CoC) further strengthen this network. To foster increased collaboration between public and private sectors, the City actively partners with local jurisdictions and developers, facilitating the exchange of knowledge and resources. In addition to the strategies mentioned above, the City remains dedicated to harmonizing its goals with its Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) funding initiatives, ensuring a comprehensive approach to meeting community needs. Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the jurisdictions analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.520(a) The City is committed to actively promoting fair housing in accordance with the adopted Analysis of Impediments. Measures undertaken to advance fair housing in Palo Alto include: • 2023-2031 Housing Element: Includes programs to address affirmatively further fair housing, such as outreach/education services, the continuation and enforcement of the Below Market Rate (BMR) program that provides more affordable units, the expansion of housing services, and the implementation of more renter protections. • City of Palo Alto Local Housing Funds: A sizable portion of the City's local housing funds were allocated toward augmenting and conserving the inventory of affordable housing. • Section 8 Housing Vouchers: The Office of Human Services held regular meetings with the Santa Clara 3     Packet Pg. 105     CAPER 18 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) County Housing Authority to facilitate the placement of homeless individuals using Section 8 vouchers. • Information Access: The Office of Human Services provided affordable housing information and referral services. • Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) Plan: In a joint effort with the County of Santa Clara and its cities, Palo Alto adopted its updated AFH Plan in May 2023. • Project Sentinel: During FY2025-2026, the City provided CDBG funding to Project Sentinel, a non-profit organization dedicated to assisting individuals with housing problems. Project Sentinel served 4 LMI individuals with fair housing services. 3     Packet Pg. 106     CAPER 19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) CR-40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and used to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements The City remains actively engaged in overseeing all subrecipients and projects to ensure their adherence to the federal CDBG program and comprehensive planning requirements. This monitoring process encompasses the review of quarterly performance reports, reimbursement requests, supporting documentation, and agency audit reports. Biennial desk-site monitoring is conducted for CDBG subrecipients, involving assessing client files, project objectives, compliance with agreements, administrative and financial management, and internal controls. The City completed its last subrecipient monitoring process in Winter 2026 for selected subrecipients and will conduct subrecipient monitoring again in the next Fiscal Year. The City also completed risk assessments for all subrecipients. Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d) Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on performance reports. Electronic copies of the PY2025-2026 CAPER were made available on the City’s website for the required 15-day public comment period from August 25, 2026, through September 11, 2026. Hardcopies of the draft CAPER were also available for review at the Development Center, Planning and Development Services at City Hall, and at the City’s Downtown Public Library. On August 21, 2026, an advertisement was placed in the Daily Post newspaper advertising the upcoming availability of the CAPER for public review and comment. The Human Relations Commission (HRC) held a public hearing on September 10, 2026, to discuss and hear public comments on the CAPER. Per the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan (CPP), Palo Alto offers translation services when a substantial number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to participate or when a reasonable accommodation request is made. Non-English speaking residents requiring translation assistance or any accommodations, along with persons with disabilities requiring assistance, are advised to submit their request as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before a scheduled meeting, program, or service. For the September 10th HRC meeting agenda, staff report, and meeting information, please visit City’s website. [Comments, if any, received by phone, email, and/or during the public meeting will be summarized and provided in the draft CAPER attachments that will later be submitted to HUD.] 3     Packet Pg. 107     CAPER 20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) CR-45 - CDBG 91.520(c) Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its experiences. Not applicable. The City does not plan to change the CDBG program objectives. Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grants? No [BEDI grantees] Describe accomplishments and program outcomes during the last year. 3     Packet Pg. 108     CAPER 21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) CR-58 – Section 3 Identify the number of individuals assisted and the types of assistance provided Total Number of Activities 0 0 0 0 0 Total Labor Hours 0 Total Section 3 Worker Hours 0 Total Targeted Section 3 Worker Hours 0 Table 8 – Total Labor Hours Outreach efforts to generate job applicants who are Public Housing Targeted Workers Outreach efforts to generate job applicants who are Other Funding Targeted Workers. Direct, on-the job training (including apprenticeships). Technical assistance to help Section 3 workers compete for jobs (e.g., resume assistance, coaching). Outreach efforts to identify and secure bids from Section 3 business concerns. Technical assistance to help Section 3 business concerns understand and bid on contracts. Division of contracts into smaller jobs to facilitate participation by Section 3 business concerns. Provided or connected residents with assistance in seeking employment including: drafting resumes,preparing for interviews, finding job Held one or more job fairs. provide direct services or referrals. Provided or connected residents with supportive services that provide one or more of the following: work readiness health screenings, Assisted residents with finding child care. year educational institution. Assisted residents to apply for, or attend vocational/technical training. Assisted residents to obtain financial literacy training and/or coaching. Provided or connected residents with training on computer use or online technologies. Promoting the use of a business registry designed to create opportunities for disadvantaged and small businesses. Outreach, engagement, or referrals with the state one-stop system, as designed in Section 121(e)(2) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Other. Table 9 – Qualitative Efforts - Number of Activities by Program 3     Packet Pg. 109     CAPER 22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Narrative No activities required Section 3 considerations in PY2025-2026. 3     Packet Pg. 110     Human Relations Commission - September 10, 2026 www.paloalto.gov FY 2025-26 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) 3     Packet Pg. 111     PURPOSE •Provide the HRC with an update on the year-end accomplishments of the FY 2025-2026 CDBG program year •Conduct a public hearing to allow for public comment on the CAPER •City of Palo Alto CDBG team member contacts: •Austin Knudsen, CDBG Consultant Lead, Michael Baker International (MBI), austin.knudsen@mbakerintl.com •Leif Christiansen, Senior Housing Specialist, leif.christiansen@paloalto.gov 3     Packet Pg. 112     CDBG PROGRAM •CDBG is a federal program that provides funding to local and state governments for community development activities (established in 1974) •The CDBG program has three primary national objectives that guide the use of CDBG funds: 1.Benefit low-and moderate-income persons by improving the living conditions, economic opportunities, or access to public services; 2.Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight by rehabilitating deteriorating buildings, improving infrastructure, or revitalizing distressed communities; and 3.Meet urgent community development needs having particular urgency or posing a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. The Palo Alto CDBG program has primarily been focused on meeting the first objective of benefiting low- and moderate-income persons. 3     Packet Pg. 113     CAPER ANNUAL REPORT •The City is required to submit a year-end report called the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) •Reports the accomplishments and progress toward the goals identified in the 5-year Consolidated Plan for the CDBG program •Summarizes the specific achievements for each program or project funded for the respective year 3     Packet Pg. 114     FY 2025-26 CDBG FUNDS AVAILABLE Funding Sources Amount CDBG Entitlement Grant $516,233 Prior Year Allocations $0 Program Income $129,950 TOTAL FUNDS $646,183 3     Packet Pg. 115     FY 2025-26 CDBG ACCOMPLISHMENTS PUBLIC SERVICES Nextdoor Solutions provided counseling and case management services to 14 residents through its Solutions for Domestic Violence Catholic Charities provided advocacy and complain investigation to 37 mostly low- or moderate- income elderly residents LifeMoves provided case management services to 35 homeless and/or very low- income individuals at the Opportunity Center and Hotel de Zink Silicon Valley Independent Living Center assisted 24 adults with disabilities, improving accessibility to affordable housing 3     Packet Pg. 116     FY 2025-26 CDBG ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Continued) PUBLIC SERVICES, CONTINUED Project Sentinel provided fair housing services to 4 low- and or moderate-income residents Move Mountain View assisted 126 individuals with reserved off-street parking and intensive case management ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Upwards – BOOST Program assisted 11 microenterprises with staff training and best practices for business growth 3     Packet Pg. 117     FY 2025-26 CDBG ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Continued) PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION City of Palo Alto CDBG Administration provided general administrative support to the CDBG program PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS LifeMoves Recreation project will begin construction before Fall 2026 with contractor selection completed Abode/Community Work Group Alma Garden Rehabilitation project team submitted Certification of Construction Completion on 8/25 HOUSING REHABILITATION Rebuilding Together Peninsula assisted 0 households with home rehabilitation but has two projects underway with completion and reporting expected in FY26-27 3     Packet Pg. 118     NEXT STEPS Receive Public Comments through September 11, 2026. Submit CAPER to HUD by September 30, 2026 To submit comments, email Leif Christiansen: leif.christiansen@paloalto.gov 3     Packet Pg. 119     Recommendation •Staff recommends that the Human Relations Commission open a public hearing to review, discuss, and take public comments on the FY 2025-2026 (Program Year 2025) draft CAPER. 3     Packet Pg. 120     1 0 6 3 7 Human Relations Commission Supplemental Report From: Sophie Pigman, Human Services Manager Meeting Date: September 10, 2026 Item Number: 1 Report #:2609-6742 TITLE Supplemental Report: CEDAW Subcommittee 2026 Findings and Recommendations BACKGROUND The published staff report inadvertently omitted Attachment A, the CEDAW Subcommittee's Report. That attachment has been included with this supplemental memo. Additionally, the printed staff report included an incomplete table that summarized the Subcommittee recommendations. The updated table is included below and should be used for Commission discussion instead of the one printed in the original staff report. Here is the updated table: Topic Subcommittee Proposed Recommendation D0. Ongoing implementation Establish CEDAW implementation and oversight as an ongoing HRC responsibility, supported by a standing HRC CEDAW Subcommittee, a coordinating interdepartmental City staff committee, annual focus-area audits, review of applicable human-services funding, and annual reporting to City Council through the full HRC D1. CEDAW implementation webpage Create and maintain a dedicated webpage explaining Palo Alto’s CEDAW ordinance, implementation activities, reports and data, community- participation opportunities, and relevant City and community resources. D2. Evaluate CEDAW- Related Grant Opportunities Evaluate grant opportunities that could support implementation of the City’s CEDAW ordinance and related priorities, including care infrastructure, gender equity, survivor services, data collection, and community engagement. 4     Packet Pg. 121     1 0 6 3 7 D3. Incorporate CEDAW Measures into City Surveys and Needs Assessments Evaluate opportunities to incorporate CEDAW-related measures into the annual Palo Alto Community Survey and other applicable City surveys and needs assessments, including appropriately disaggregated and repeatable measures. D4. Support Living Wages and Sustainability for Care Providers Evaluate City-controlled strategies for supporting living wages for care providers and strengthening the long-term sustainability of the caregiving workforce, and return to Council with prioritized options. D5. Reduce Barriers to Opening and Expanding Childcare Facilities Review City-controlled land-use, zoning, permitting, parking, fee, and development requirements applicable to childcare facilities and return with recommended amendments or other actions to reduce unnecessary barriers to opening or expanding facilities. D6. Civic participation Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a caregiving stipend for City Councilmembers and members of City boards and commissions and return to Council with findings and implementation options. D7. State Advocacy for Increased Childcare Licensing Capacity Consider incorporating increased childcare-licensing capacity and resources, including reductions in unnecessary licensing delays, into the City’s state legislative advocacy priorities. D8. State Advocacy for Expanded Relocation Assistance for Survivors Consider incorporating expansion of state relocation assistance for survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and other gender- based violence into the City’s state legislative advocacy priorities. D9. Study Renter Protections and Anti- Displacement Measures for Childcare Facilities Evaluate potential anti-displacement measures and other strategies to improve lease stability for childcare facilities and return to Council with findings and legally feasible options. D10. Family-friendly workplaces Evaluate the feasibility of a local ordinance establishing workplace protections for employees with caregiving responsibilities, informed by San Francisco’s Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance and other relevant models, and return to Council with findings and options. D11. Gender-equitable and family-friendly City procurement Evaluate legally permissible options for incorporating gender-equity and family-friendly employment considerations into City procurement and responsible-contracting policies, and return to Council with findings and implementation options. D12. Survivor emergency lodging Have HRC work with PAPD and appropriate City staff to identify one or two Palo Alto hotels willing to participate in a prearranged, direct-billing process for short-term, last-resort emergency lodging when an appropriate shelter or victim-services placement cannot be secured promptly. D13. North County Family Justice Center Evaluate, in coordination with Santa Clara County, North County jurisdictions, PAPD, YWCA, and other service providers, the 4     Packet Pg. 122     1 0 6 3 7 feasibility of establishing a permanent, accessible physical location for the North County Family Justice Center in Palo Alto. D14. Prioritize Long-Term Stability Services for Survivors Identify how eligible programs supporting survivors’ long-term safety and stability—including housing stability, civil legal assistance, and trauma-informed mental-health services—may be considered within applicable HSRAP, CDBG, and Emerging Needs funding processes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: CEDAW Subcommittee Findings and Recommendations 4     Packet Pg. 123     1 City of Palo Alto Human Relations Commission CEDAW Subcommittee: Findings and Recommendations Items for Human Relations Commission Discussion A. Review the Report Commissioners are asked to review this report in its entirety of the CEDAW Subcommittee: Findings and Recommendations, which provides: ● Section 1: Background on CEDAW; The City Council’s direction to the Human Relations Commission;The CEDAW Subcommittee’s proposed model for ongoing CEDAW implementation; ● Section 2: Current City-Funded Care Infrastructure and Survivor Resources: Current investments made through HSRAP, CDBG, and Emerging Needs ● Section 3: Analysis Pending Data: Understanding Palo Alto’s Unhoused Population Through a CEDAW Lens ● Section 4: 2026 CEDAW Subcommittee Care Infrastructure Audit ● Section 5: 2026 CEDAW Subcommittee Audit of Resources for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence ● Section 6: 2026 CEDAW Subcommittee Next Steps Once Commissioners have reviewed the report in its entirety please discuss the following items (B, C, D): B. Discuss the Proposed CEDAW Implementation Model Commissioners are asked to discuss the following proposed recommendation to the City Council: Proposed CEDAW Implementation and Oversight Model The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council: 1. Direct the City Manager or appropriate staff to establish an interdepartmental staff committee to support implementation of the City’s CEDAW commitments, including regular coordination with the HRC CEDAW Subcommittee; and 2. Establish ongoing CEDAW implementation and oversight as part of the Human Relations Commission’s core responsibilities, with the HRC maintaining a standing CEDAW Subcommittee consistent with applicable procedures; 4     Packet Pg. 124     2 3. Request that the Human Relations Commission provide an annual update to the City Council addressing CEDAW implementation progress, significant findings, data gaps, and recommendations. As a required component of this oversight model, the HRC will incorporate into its annual work plan a. Selection of one CEDAW-related focus area each year for an in-depth review or audit by the HRC CEDAW Subcommittee; and b. Examination of how applicable City human-services funding programs—including HSRAP, CDBG, and the Emerging Needs Fund—support identified CEDAW priorities, consistent with each program’s governing purposes and eligibility requirements. Rationale and public benefit A continuing oversight and coordination structure would help the City move from ordinance adoption to sustained implementation, establish clearer communication between the HRC and relevant departments, and provide Council with a regular opportunity to review progress, challenges, and emerging needs. Implementation considerations Before finalizing the model, relevant staff should clarify: ○ The HRC’s role relative to staff’s administrative and operational responsibilities; ○ Which departments should participate in interdepartmental coordination; ○ Staffing and workload implications; ○ The appropriate frequency and format of meetings and reports; ○ Applicable Brown Act, records, and public-reporting requirements; and ○ Coordination with existing City work plans, committees, and reporting processes. Discussion Questions for Implementation and Oversight Model 1. Does the Commission support the proposed overall oversight structure—ongoing coordination between an interdepartmental City staff committee and a standing HRC CEDAW Subcommittee? 2. Does the Commission support the proposed annual HRC responsibilities: one CEDAW-focused review or audit each year under the CEDAW subcommittee, consideration of CEDAW priorities within applicable human-services funding, and an annual update to City Council? 3. What is the most practical way for HRC to capture CEDAW-relevant data from funding applications, community partners, and reported outcomes as part of our existing HSRAP, CDBG, and Emerging Needs work? C. Provide Feedback on the 2026 Audit 4     Packet Pg. 125     3 Commissioners are asked to discuss the Subcommittee’s 2026 audit of: ● Care infrastructure; and ● Resources for survivors of gender-based violence. ● City’s Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and Emerging Needs funding support these 2026 CEDAW priorities. Discussion Questions for Feedback on 2026 Audit 1. What, if anything, is missing from the audits or requires further examination? 2. Does the review of HSRAP, CDBG, and Emerging Needs funding adequately show how current City investments support—or leave gaps in—the identified CEDAW priorities? 3. What CEDAW-relevant information should HRC look for in future funding applications, grantee reports, and program outcomes? D. Discuss the following recommendations to Council Discussion Questions for recommendations to Council: 1. Does the Commission generally support these proposed recommendations to Council? Are there any recommendations that should be revised, removed, or added? 2. If these recommendations have to be prioritized, which of these recommendations should be considered the highest priority? 3. A number of these recommendations ask staff to "evaluate and return to Council with options" rather than adopting a policy outright. Is this the right approach or should we consider doing the research ourselves and formulating clearer proposals (even though this will take considerably more time from the Commission)? D1. Create a CEDAW Implementation Webpage Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council direct appropriate staff to create and maintain a dedicated webpage explaining the City of Palo Alto’s implementation of its CEDAW ordinance. Rationale and public benefit A dedicated webpage would provide a centralized and accessible source of information about the ordinance, the City’s implementation activities, available reports and data, opportunities for community participation, and relevant City and community resources. It would also promote transparency and public awareness of the City’s CEDAW commitments. 4     Packet Pg. 126     4 Implementation considerations The webpage should: ● Be written in clear, accessible language; ● Include language-access and disability-access considerations; ● Identify the ordinance, implementation structure, reports, and related resources; ● Provide current contact information and opportunities for public engagement; and ● Be assigned to an appropriate department responsible for periodic review and updates. D2. Evaluate CEDAW-Related Grant Opportunities Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council direct appropriate staff to evaluate grant opportunities that could support the City’s implementation of its CEDAW ordinance and related community priorities. Rationale and public benefit Identifying external funding could help the City advance CEDAW-related initiatives while reducing reliance on the General Fund. Potential opportunities may include funding for care infrastructure, gender equity, survivor services, data collection, community engagement, and other activities aligned with the ordinance. Of particular interest are grants supporting the renovation or expansion of childcare facilities to address unmet community needs, including the demand for infant and toddler care. Implementation considerations The evaluation should: ● Identify federal, state, county, regional, philanthropic, and other eligible funding sources; ● Assess eligibility requirements, application deadlines, matching-fund requirements, and ongoing administrative obligations; ● Consider the City’s capacity to apply for and administer potential grants; ● Identify opportunities to partner with qualified community-based organizations or other public agencies; and ● Prioritize opportunities that align with documented community needs, adopted City policies, and available implementation capacity. D3. Incorporate CEDAW Measures into City Surveys and Needs Assessments 4     Packet Pg. 127     5 Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council direct appropriate staff to evaluate opportunities to incorporate CEDAW-related measures into the annual Palo Alto Community Survey and other applicable City surveys and needs assessments. Rationale and public benefit Consistent and appropriately disaggregated data would help the City identify differences in community needs and experiences, evaluate disparities, establish measurable baselines, and assess progress toward its CEDAW commitments over time. It would also support more informed and equitable policy, program, and funding decisions. During the development of the 2026 Human Services Needs Assessment, the Human Services Manager considered feedback from the CEDAW Subcommittee concerning identified data gaps, including the need for additional information about gender-based violence and unpaid family caregiving. This provides an initial example of how CEDAW-related considerations can inform applicable City surveys and needs assessments. Implementation considerations The evaluation should consider opportunities to: 1. Include appropriate demographic and gender-related questions that allow the City to identify differences in community needs and experiences; 2. Collect information addressing CEDAW-related needs and data gaps identified through the City’s implementation process; 3. Establish consistent measures that can be repeated over time to assess changes in community needs, disparities, and implementation progress; 4. Analyze and report findings by gender and other relevant demographic characteristics when methodologically appropriate; 5. Protect respondent privacy and confidentiality, particularly when collecting sensitive information or reporting results from small population groups; and 6. Address survey methodology, accessibility, language access, cost, staff capacity, and coordination with existing City data-collection efforts. D4. Support Living Wages and Sustainability for Care Providers Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council direct appropriate staff to evaluate City-controlled strategies for supporting 4     Packet Pg. 128     6 living wages for care providers and strengthening the long-term sustainability of the caregiving workforce, and return to Council with prioritized options for consideration. Rationale and public benefit Participants in the HRC’s 2025 childcare listening session identified low wages, staffing shortages, inadequate reimbursement, and high operating and facility costs as interconnected threats to the availability and sustainability of childcare. Based on these themes, the Subcommittee finds that supporting the care workforce would help preserve access to essential services, strengthen the local care infrastructure, and advance CEDAW’s objective of addressing structural barriers that disproportionately affect women and caregivers. Implementation considerations The evaluation should distinguish actions within the City’s authority from those requiring state, county, or regional action and consider: 1. Local wage-support strategies; 2. Grants for care infrastructure and facility improvements; 3. Subsidies or other mechanisms that improve the affordability of care while supporting adequate provider compensation; 4. Workforce development, training, and career-advancement pathways for care providers; 5. Advocacy for state and county policies and funding that support living wages, workforce development, and provider sustainability; and 6. The fiscal, legal, administrative, and equity implications of each option. The evaluation should also consider coordination with existing City initiatives and identify which strategies could provide the greatest benefit within available implementation capacity. D5. Reduce Barriers to Opening and Expanding Childcare Facilities Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council direct appropriate staff to review City-controlled land-use, zoning, permitting, parking, fee, and development requirements applicable to childcare facilities and return with recommended amendments or other actions to reduce unnecessary barriers to opening or expanding childcare facilities. Rationale and public benefit Stakeholder input indicates that the cost and complexity of establishing or expanding childcare facilities can constrain the local supply of care. These barriers may be particularly significant for infant and toddler programs, which require specialized facilities, lower child-to-provider ratios, 4     Packet Pg. 129     7 and greater operating resources. Reducing unnecessary City-controlled barriers could expand the range of spaces in which childcare can feasibly operate, support small and community-based providers, and improve families’ access to care. Implementation considerations The review should: ● Give particular consideration to infant and toddler care and small and community-based providers; ● Identify requirements that have the greatest effect on cost, project timelines, and site feasibility; ● Distinguish requirements necessary to protect health, safety, accessibility, neighborhood compatibility, and other public interests from requirements that could reasonably be modified or streamlined; ● Consider opportunities for coordinated or expedited review, technical assistance, fee reductions, or other forms of support; ● Evaluate fiscal, staffing, legal, land-use, environmental-review, parking, and operational implications; and ● Coordinate with related City planning, housing, economic-development, and childcare initiatives. Any proposed amendments should return to the appropriate decision-making body for consideration and approval. D6. Evaluate a Caregiving Stipend for City Council, Board, and Commission Members Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council direct appropriate staff to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a caregiving stipend for City Council members and members of City boards and commissions and return to Council with findings and implementation options. Rationale and public benefit Childcare, eldercare, and other dependent-care responsibilities may create financial barriers to participation in City government, particularly for people who must arrange additional care to attend official meetings or perform other authorized City duties. A caregiving stipend could broaden participation, reduce barriers to public service, and support more representative and inclusive civic decision-making consistent with the City’s CEDAW commitments. Implementation considerations 4     Packet Pg. 130     8 The evaluation should address: ● Eligibility requirements; ● Qualifying City activities; ● Covered caregiving expenses; ● Appropriate benefit amounts and frequency; ● Documentation and administrative procedures; ● Privacy considerations; ● Fiscal impacts and potential funding sources; ● Applicable tax, employment, ethics, and other legal considerations; and ● Comparable programs or practices in other jurisdictions. The evaluation should also consider whether different legal or administrative requirements apply to City Council members and appointed board and commission members. D7. Advocate for Increased Childcare Licensing Capacity and Resources Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council consider incorporating increased childcare licensing capacity and resources into the City’s state legislative advocacy priorities. Rationale and public benefit Participants in the HRC’s 2025 childcare listening session identified state licensing delays as a barrier to opening and expanding childcare facilities. Increasing staffing, resources, and process efficiency within the California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division could reduce licensing backlogs, bring childcare capacity online more quickly, and help providers respond to changing community needs. Implementation considerations The advocacy priority should: ● Align with the City’s adopted legislative guidelines and advocacy process; ● Support sufficient state staffing and resources for childcare licensing; ● Encourage process improvements that reduce unnecessary delays while maintaining health and safety protections; ● Give particular consideration to licensing barriers affecting infant and toddler care; and ● Coordinate, where appropriate, with other jurisdictions, childcare providers, and regional or statewide advocacy organizations. 4     Packet Pg. 131     9 D8. Advocate for Expanded Relocation Assistance for Survivors Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council consider incorporating expansion of state relocation assistance for survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and other gender-based violence into the City’s state legislative advocacy priorities. Rationale and public benefit Relocation assistance can be essential when a survivor must leave an unsafe home. Existing programs may not cover the full range of housing arrangements necessary to meet survivors’ safety, accessibility, family, employment, or community needs. More flexible assistance could reduce barriers to obtaining safe housing and help survivors remain within their communities when doing so is safe and appropriate. Implementation considerations The advocacy priority should: ● Align with the City’s adopted legislative guidelines and advocacy process; ● Identify the state programs or statutory limitations for which changes are sought; ● Support eligibility for a broader range of safe and appropriate housing options; ● Consider the needs of survivors with children, disabilities, limited English proficiency, or other access needs; ● Preserve survivor choice, safety, privacy, and confidentiality; and ● Be informed by consultation with qualified victim-services and housing providers. D9. Study Renter Protections and Anti-Displacement Measures for Childcare Facilities Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council direct appropriate staff to evaluate potential anti-displacement measures and other strategies to improve lease stability for childcare facilities and return to Council with findings and legally feasible options. Rationale and public benefit High commercial rents, significant rent increases, and lease instability may threaten the continued operation of existing childcare providers. The displacement of a childcare facility can reduce local care capacity, disrupt families and workers, and impose substantial relocation and facility-conversion costs on providers. 4     Packet Pg. 132     10 Implementation considerations The evaluation should: ● Document the nature and extent of displacement and lease-stability challenges facing local childcare providers; ● Identify which potential measures fall within the City’s legal authority; ● Consider grants, technical assistance, acquisition or preservation strategies, longer-term lease incentives, and other approaches in addition to regulatory options; ● Evaluate fiscal, legal, administrative, property-owner, and economic effects; ● Consider unintended consequences that could make property owners less willing to lease space to childcare providers; and ● Coordinate with existing land-use, economic-development, and childcare initiatives. D10. Evaluate Family-Friendly Workplace Protections Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council direct appropriate staff to evaluate the feasibility of a local ordinance establishing workplace protections for employees with caregiving responsibilities, drawing upon San Francisco’s Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance and other relevant models, and return to Council with findings and options. Rationale and public benefit Employees with childcare, eldercare, and other family-caregiving responsibilities may face difficulty balancing work requirements with essential caregiving obligations. A right to request flexible or predictable working arrangements, accompanied by appropriate procedural and anti-retaliation protections, could improve workforce participation and stability while advancing CEDAW-related equity objectives. Implementation considerations The evaluation should address: ● The types of flexible or predictable working arrangements that employees could request; ● Whether employers would be required to engage in an interactive review process; ● Protections against retaliation or discrimination; ● Appropriate employer-size thresholds and employee-eligibility requirements; ● Exemptions and permissible grounds for denying a request; ● Complaint, enforcement, and remedy options; ● Applicable state or federal preemption and other legal considerations; ● Administrative and enforcement capacity; 4     Packet Pg. 133     11 ● Impacts on employers, employees, and small businesses; and ● Outreach to workers, caregivers, employers, labor representatives, and business organizations. The evaluation should clarify that a right to request an arrangement would not necessarily guarantee approval when an employer can demonstrate a permissible operational or business reason for denying it. D11. Evaluate Gender-Equitable and Family-Friendly City Procurement Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council request an evaluation of options for incorporating gender-equity and family-friendly employment considerations into City procurement and responsible-contracting policies, with findings and legally permissible implementation options returned to Council. Rationale and public benefit City procurement practices may provide an opportunity to increase transparency regarding the employment practices of City contractors and to recognize or encourage contractors that advance gender equity and support employees with caregiving responsibilities. These practices may promote equitable employment opportunities, pay equity, workforce stability, and labor-force participation while advancing the City’s broader CEDAW commitments. Implementation considerations The evaluation should consider: ● Requiring applicable bidders to disclose gender-equity measures, which could include relevant workforce data and employment policies or practices; ● Appropriate measures of gender equity, such as workforce representation, leadership representation, compensation and pay-equity practices, hiring and advancement practices, workplace-harassment protections, and employee retention; ● Family-friendly practices, including flexible or predictable scheduling, paid family and caregiving leave, childcare or dependent-care assistance, pregnancy and lactation accommodations, and eldercare support; ● Whether disclosures should be used solely for transparency and data collection or incorporated into responsible-contracting standards, bidder qualifications, or solicitation-evaluation criteria; ● Appropriate contract types, values, employer-size thresholds, exemptions, and phase-in periods; ● Privacy, confidentiality, data-quality, and reporting considerations, including protections for employees and small workforce groups; ● Legal requirements governing public contracting, nondiscrimination, and competitive procurement; 4     Packet Pg. 134     12 ● Potential effects on costs, competition, bidder participation, and small or local businesses; ● Reasonable verification, reporting, and contract-administration requirements; and ● The City’s capacity to collect, evaluate, and monitor any required information. Any proposed disclosure or contracting policy should apply only where legally permissible, administratively feasible, and appropriate to the nature and value of the procurement. D12. Establish a Prearranged Emergency Hotel-Lodging Process for Survivors Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission work with the Palo Alto Police Department and appropriate City staff to identify one or two Palo Alto hotels willing to participate in a prearranged emergency-lodging process for survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, or other gender-based violence—and, when applicable, accompanying children or dependents—when an appropriate shelter or victim-services placement cannot be secured promptly. Under this arrangement, authorized PAPD personnel could place a survivor directly into a participating hotel during an urgent situation, with the hotel billing the City through an established payment process. The arrangement should be limited to short-term, last-resort lodging while PAPD and victim-services providers coordinate an appropriate longer-term placement. Rationale and public benefit PAPD reports that the need for emergency hotel lodging is infrequent—historically arising approximately once per year—but that the existing process can be difficult and time-consuming, particularly during nights or weekends. When a survivor has recently experienced violence or trauma, spending hours coordinating payment and locating lodging can delay access to immediate safety and stability. Establishing relationships with one or two local hotels and a direct City billing process would allow authorized officers to secure lodging promptly without relying on personal payment or improvised reimbursement. Implementation considerations The arrangement should address: ● Identification of one or two Palo Alto hotels able to accept emergency placements, including during nights and weekends; 4     Packet Pg. 135     13 ● A simple authorization and direct-billing process available to designated PAPD personnel; ● Eligibility criteria and confirmation that an appropriate shelter or victim-services placement is not immediately available; ● Maximum length of stay and expenditure per incident; ● Procedures for accommodating children, dependents, disabilities, and other access needs; ● Survivor safety, privacy, and confidentiality; ● Coordination with qualified shelter and victim-services providers for follow-up services and longer-term placement; ● Backup procedures when participating hotels have no available rooms; and ● Periodic, non-identifying reporting on utilization and expenditures. The HRC could take the lead in exploring hotel interest and facilitating initial conversations with PAPD and prospective partners. Appropriate City staff would still need to establish or approve any formal billing, contracting, or payment arrangement. D13. Study the Feasibility of a Physical North County Family Justice Center in Palo Alto Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council direct appropriate staff to engage with Santa Clara County, YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley, the Palo Alto Police Department, other North County jurisdictions, and relevant service providers to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a permanent, accessible physical location for the North County Family Justice Center in Palo Alto. Rationale and public benefit The North County Family Justice Center previously operated from a physical location in Sunnyvale but has operated virtually since the COVID-19 pandemic. Although virtual services remain valuable, a physical center could provide survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, stalking, and other forms of gender-based violence with a safe location to obtain coordinated legal assistance, counseling, advocacy, safety planning, law-enforcement support, victim-services navigation, and referrals. Locating a center in Palo Alto could improve access to coordinated services for survivors in northern Santa Clara County, subject to confirmation of regional need, partner interest, and operational feasibility. Implementation considerations 4     Packet Pg. 136     14 The feasibility analysis should address: ● Documented regional demand and existing service gaps; ● County and partner interest in operating or supporting a physical center; ● Potential service and governance models; ● Site requirements, accessibility, transit access, safety, and confidentiality; ● Potential City-owned, County-owned, leased, or partner-provided locations; ● Capital and ongoing operating costs; ● Potential federal, state, county, philanthropic, and regional funding sources; ● Staffing, security, technology, and facility requirements; ● Language access and culturally responsive service delivery; and ● Coordination with existing virtual and in-person services to avoid duplication. The analysis should not commit the City to providing a site or funding before Council reviews the feasibility findings and partnership options. D14. Prioritize Long-Term Stability Services for Survivors Proposed recommendation The CEDAW Subcommittee proposes that the Human Relations Commission recommend that the City Council direct appropriate staff to identify how eligible programs supporting survivors’ long-term safety and stability may be considered within applicable City human-services funding processes, including HSRAP, CDBG, and the Emerging Needs Fund, consistent with each program’s governing purposes, eligibility requirements, and competitive procedures. Rationale and public benefit Stakeholder input from YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley indicates that survivors’ needs extend well beyond immediate emergency shelter. Significant areas of need include long-term housing stability, civil legal assistance, and trauma-informed mental-health support. Supporting these services can help prevent homelessness, reduce prolonged legal and economic vulnerability, and promote survivors’ long-term safety and recovery. Implementation considerations Applicable service areas may include: ● Long-term housing stability, including housing navigation, rental assistance, homelessness prevention, and ongoing case management; ● Civil legal assistance, particularly in matters involving protective orders, child custody, divorce, property division, housing, and related safety concerns; and ● Trauma-informed mental-health services, counseling, and peer support. 4     Packet Pg. 137     15 Staff should also consider opportunities to: ● Strengthen referral pathways connecting Palo Alto survivors with appropriate City-funded and regional resources; ● Improve coordination among qualified community-based organizations, law enforcement, housing providers, and victim-services agencies; ● Identify significant service or funding gaps; ● Apply trauma-informed, culturally responsive, accessible, and survivor-centered practices; and ● Protect survivor privacy and confidentiality in program administration and reporting. Any funding decisions should remain subject to available resources and the established eligibility, application, evaluation, and award requirements of each funding program. Section 1: Background What is CEDAW? ● In 1979 CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) was an international agreement adopted by the United Nations to set a global standard for gender equality. Countries that ratify it agree to actively eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, meaning any distinction or practice that limits women’s rights or opportunities, including in: employment and pay, education, healthcare, political participation, safety, family and caregiving roles. ● If a country adopts CEDAW, it commits to: change laws and policies that discriminate, protect women from violence and inequity, promote equal opportunities in public and private life, report progress regularly to a UN committee. ● Today over 180 countries have ratified CEDAW, but the U.S. is one of only a handful of countries to not ratify, thus CEDAW is not legally binding at the federal level. ● In response to this in 1998 U.S. cities and counties began adopting local CEDAW ordinances. In 1998 San Francisco became the first city in the world to adopt a local CEDAW ordinance. ● Today over 70 cities and counties in the U.S. have adopted similar ordinances. How Have Other Cities Implemented CEDAW? ● Cities have implemented CEDAW through gender equity analyses of City departments, examining workforce, services, and budget impacts. 4     Packet Pg. 138     16 ● Most cities begin with a phased approach, starting with pilot efforts in a small number of departments or issue areas, supported by baseline data collection, oversight structures, and targeted policy changes. ● Over time, implementation expands to include ongoing reporting, integration into policy and budgeting processes, and—where resources allow—dedicated staff, with smaller cities focusing on incremental, practical actions. ● Over 70 cities and counties in the U.S. have taken action on CEDAW. Most have adopted resolutions expressing support for gender equity, while a smaller group—about a dozen—have implemented full ordinances with more comprehensive programs and resources. It’s important to note of those 12 cities, the City of Palo Alto is of a much smaller scale in terms of size and resources. Palo Alto does not have the amount of staff, budget, departments, etc. that cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, have devoted to this. ● HRC previously advanced work related to CEDAW, including a 2018 recommendation to City Council, which was framed around conducting gender equity audits and analysis of City policies, programs, and services to identify gaps and inform action. CEDAW in Palo Alto ● At the March 23, 2026 Council Meeting, the following CEDAW foundational principles were adopted under Palo Alto’s municipal code. Please note that Santa Clara County has its own CEDAW ordinances which focus on topics within the county’s jurisdiction, Palo Alto’s CEDAW ordinance focuses on the topics within the City’s jurisdiction. Staff stated at the March 23, 2026 City Council meeting that this would be folded into city staff’s current priorities. The following policy was adopted as a foundational step. Advocates who had spent the previous nine years urging Palo Alto to adopt a CEDAW ordinance expressed disappointment that the ordinance ultimately adopted was substantially less comprehensive than the policy they had originally proposed. ● In drafting this current presentation the CEDAW subcommittee has sought input from relevant community partners, community members who have historically advocated CEDAW, and former HRC commissioners who worked on CEDAW. Palo Alto Municipal Code 9.73.050 Local CEDAW principles. It is the goal of the city to implement the principles underlying CEDAW to eradicate discrimination against women and girls. The following CEDAW principles will be integrated in the city’s role as a service provider, employer, and community and business partner to the maximum extent possible, and as permitted by law. The city will approach this work through cultivating experiences and appreciation, fostering a welcoming environment, and assessing 4     Packet Pg. 139     17 impacts for all. In implementing the CEDAW principles, the city shall ensure that its actions align with its continued work to end all forms of arbitrary discrimination, as described in this chapter. (a) Economic development. (1) The city shall take appropriate measures to support the economic development of women and girls in the city of Palo Alto through the elimination of any known identified barriers, such as lack of childcare, workplace harassment, and equal pay, in the areas of employment; licenses, permits, and registrations; and public contracting with vendors and others. (b) Housing and homelessness. (1) The city recognizes that the root causes of homelessness and housing insecurity are different for women and girls, and they may include factors such as gender-based violence, substance abuse, mental health, poverty, and the uneven distribution of caregiving responsibilities. It is a priority of the city to support policies and programs that understand the unique housing needs of women and girls. (2) The city shall ensure equal access to the full range of affordable, permanent housing options for women and girls and their families, and to help eliminate discriminatory policies in the housing market, recognizing the even greater adversity faced by those in poverty, released from incarceration, long-term care, survivors of gender-based violence or aging out of the foster care system. (3) The city shall support homelessness prevention and homeless services that are designed to be gender-responsive to the needs of women and girls. (c) Political and civic engagement. (1) It is a priority of the city to educate all individuals, including women and girls, about their voting rights and to encourage civic engagement. (2) The city shall encourage voter registration among all eligible voters, including women. (3) The city shall encourage civic and political engagement among women, including seeking and holding public office, membership in local commissions, boards, or task forces, and participating in community service. (d) Community, library, and transportation services. (1) The city shall take appropriate and timely measures within the scope of its authority to support women and girls’ equal access to community, library, and transportation services and support survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. (2) To the extent it has authority over such services or systems, the city shall remove identified barriers to equal access to community, library, and transportation services whenever the city 4     Packet Pg. 140     18 becomes aware of such barriers. (e) Climate action and sustainability. (1) The city shall, when appropriate, take gender-responsive, culturally responsive measures to address the specific vulnerabilities and needs of women and girls in measures related to climate change adaptation and sustainability, including in vulnerability assessments and other efforts to identify and meaningfully include communities that bear disproportionate risks or other burdens from climate change or other forms of environmental harm. (Ord. 5697 § 3, 2026) Council Direction to HRC ● City Council has adopted a CEDAW-aligned ordinance and directed the Human Relations Commission to: MOTION: Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, to adopt the attached CEDAW Ordinance and refer to the Human Relations Commission to provide recommendations back to Council relating to advancing the ordinance inclusive of appropriate housing options for unhoused individuals and individuals who experience sexual or gender-based violence and childcare. ● Clearest plain-language restatement of Council’s direction would be: Develop recommendations for implementing and advancing Palo Alto’s CEDAW ordinance. The recommendations should include, but need not be limited to, appropriate housing options for unhoused individuals and survivors of sexual or gender-based violence, as well as childcare. ● Develop actionable policy recommendations to implement the ordinance. ● Provide both short-term and long-term strategies. ● Return recommendations to Council by November 2026 (in theory). Guiding Principles of the CEDAW Subcommittee Key takeaway: HRC’s role is to translate a values-based ordinance into practical, implementable policies. ● What does a realistic, high-impact CEDAW implementation look like for a city of Palo Alto’s size and capacity? ● HRC is an advisory body, not an implementing agency. ● Aim for recommendations that Council can realistically adopt. ● Balance long-term systems change with near-term impact. HRC CEDAW Subcommittee Proposed Implementation Model (scaled to Palo Alto) 4     Packet Pg. 141     19 In larger cities, CEDAW implementation is typically owned by a dedicated department with staff and, in some cases, its own commission. To scale this for Palo Alto, The Human Relations Commission recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve an ongoing CEDAW implementation and oversight model under which CEDAW becomes part of the Human Relations Commission’s core responsibilities, supported by a standing HRC CEDAW Subcommittee; 2. Direct appropriate City staff to establish a standing City Staff CEDAW Committee responsible for supporting the ongoing implementation, coordination, and oversight of the City’s CEDAW commitments. The committee should include staff whose existing responsibilities encompass CEDAW-related programs and initiatives, such as staff overseeing the City’s Wellness and Belonging initiatives. The City Staff CEDAW Committee will meet regularly with the HRC CEDAW Subcommittee to share relevant updates, discuss implementation progress, and identify opportunities for further action; and 3. Request that the Human Relations Commission provide an annual update to the City Council on CEDAW implementation progress, findings, and recommendations. As part of this annual process, the HRC CEDAW Subcommittee will: a. Select one CEDAW-related focus area each year for an in-depth audit; and b. Examine how the City’s Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and Emerging Needs funding support CEDAW priorities. 2026 Pilot Focus Areas As the City of Palo Alto doesn’t have the resources to attempt a full gender equity audit (as much larger cities do). Each year the CEDAW subcommittee of the HRC will identify 1 specific focus area for deeper analysis. (We did multiple broad areas this year, that was too much). ● Use this to: ○ Identify gaps ○ Develop recommendations ○ Create a model that could be expanded upon later Focus areas of 2026: Care Infrastructure ● Childcare access and affordability and caregiver support. Resources for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence ● Support for survivors of gender-based violence, access to services, data tracking on 4     Packet Pg. 142     20 incidents. Note: During the development of the 2026 Human Services Needs Assessment, the Human Services Manager considered feedback from the CEDAW Subcommittee regarding identified data gaps. This included the need for additional information about gender-based violence and unpaid caregivers. Section 2: Current City-Funded Care Infrastructure and Survivor Resources: Current investments made through HSRAP, CDBG, and Emerging Needs ● As proposed in the subcommittee’s CEDAW implementation model, examine how the City’s Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and Emerging Needs funding support CEDAW priorities. ● Spreadsheet of what is funded under HSRAP, CDBG, and Emerging Needs ● Sources: ○ https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Housing- Policies-Projects/Community-Development-Block-Grant ○ https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Community-Services/Human-Services/Hu man-Services-Grants ● We included a section on unhoused & homelessness as that was noted in Council’s CEDAW motion to HRC. This category receives the most diverse funding, utilizing all three streams (HSRAP, CDBG, and Emerging Needs) to support shelters, safe parking, RV community outreach, and food/health services. ● Seniors & Youth: The largest category of individual organizations. Primarily funded through HSRAP, with specific childcare support (Upwards/WeeCare) and senior food assistance (La Comida) utilizing CDBG, and senior outreach (Avenidas, Vista Center) utilizing Emerging Needs. ● Domestic Violence Survivors: Both organizations listed (Next Door Solutions and YWCA) are exclusively receiving funding through the CDBG program for FY26-27. ● Reporting requirements to each individual non-profit are tailored based on the services they provide and specific goals that they are working on. The subcommittee should 4     Packet Pg. 143     21 Section 3: Analysis Pending Data: Understanding Palo Alto’s Unhoused Population Through a CEDAW Lens In response to Council’s direction to develop recommendations on appropriate housing options for unhoused individuals. How Is Palo Alto’s Unhoused Population Counted? ● Point-in-Time (PIT) Count ○ A federally required count conducted every two years by the Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) as part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) homelessness data system. ○ Provides a one-night snapshot of people experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness. ○ The unsheltered count uses outreach and enumeration methods to estimate people staying in places not intended for habitation, including vehicles, streets, parks, and encampments. ○ Best used for: estimating the size and characteristics of Palo Alto’s unhoused population at a particular point in time. ● Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) ○ An ongoing administrative database used by homeless-service providers to record information about people who access participating housing and homelessness programs. ○ Can provide information throughout the year on demographics, service use, 4     Packet Pg. 144     22 housing needs, and outcomes among people interacting with the homeless-response system. ○ Unlike the PIT Count, HMIS does not represent everyone experiencing homelessness—people who do not access participating services may never appear in the system. ○ Best used for: understanding the characteristics and experiences of people who are connected to the homelessness service system. PIT = one-night population snapshot | HMIS = ongoing service-system data 2025 Point-in-Time Count: Homelessness in Palo Alto ● 418 people were counted as experiencing homelessness in Palo Alto ● 399 people (95%) were unsheltered — staying in places not intended for regular sleeping accommodations, such as vehicles or outdoor locations. ● 19 people (5%) were sheltered — staying in emergency shelter, transitional housing, or other qualifying temporary shelter. ● Palo Alto accounted for approximately 4% of the 10,711 people counted as experiencing homelessness across Santa Clara County. ● 96% of Palo Alto’s unsheltered population was estimated to be living in vehicles, compared with 53% countywide; approximately 4% were staying outdoors. ● The County noted particularly pronounced increases in vehicle dwelling in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Santa Clara. Important Data Context ● For the 2025 PIT Count, RVs parked on public streets were included without determining in every case whether occupants met HUD’s definition of unsheltered homelessness. The County plans to refine this methodology in future counts. ● An additional 84 sheltered individuals were reported at confidential domestic-violence locations countywide and were not attributed to individual cities, meaning they are not reflected in Palo Alto’s city-specific total. ● In Santa Clara County (requested data at the City level is still in progress): a. 28% of homeless people were female and 2% were neither female nor male. b. 16% were fleeing domestic violence and 1% were pregnant. HMIS Data: Homelessness in Palo Alto In 2025, 154 Palo Alto-affiliated households completed a first-time coordinated-entry assessment / requested housing assistance. 71 Palo Alto-affiliated households were placed into permanent housing. c. Important: 71 out of 154 should not be interpreted as a 46% housing-success rate, because the households housed in 2025 may not be the same cohort that 4     Packet Pg. 145     23 first entered coordinated entry in 2025. ● In 2022, 276 Palo Alto households were unhoused, 207 of which were single adult households. ● 79 of 276 households report a history of domestic violence. ● The most recent publicly reported Palo Alto-specific HMIS gender data identified (2022) found approximately 40% female, 60% male, and <1% identifying outside the male/female categories. Closing the Data Gaps: Additional Information Requested Publicly available HMIS and PIT Count data provide limited Palo Alto-specific information disaggregated by gender. To better understand housing needs and outcomes through a CEDAW lens, the HRC CEDAW Subcommittee is gathering additional quantitative and qualitative data from County agencies and community partners. Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing The Subcommittee is in communication with the County to obtain Palo Alto-specific data on: ● Number of households interacting with the homelessness service system / Coordinated Entry ● Gender breakdown ● Household type, including families with children ● Living situation, particularly vehicle homelessness ● History of or current domestic violence, where available ● Housing outcomes, including placement into permanent housing ● Number of households remaining unhoused or awaiting housing ● Average or median time from Coordinated Entry to permanent housing, if available ● Disaggregation of the above measures by gender, where available Domestic Violence Service Providers The Subcommittee is in communication with YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley and Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence to better understand: ● Barriers survivors face in maintaining existing housing ● Barriers to accessing emergency, transitional, and permanent housing ● Gaps in the current housing and supportive-service system for survivors of domestic and gender-based violence On Friday, August 28th, the subcommittee met with YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley. 4     Packet Pg. 146     24 ● YWCA emphasized that only 2% of its clients countywide require emergency housing. Since opening their doors on Lytton Avenue they have only had 1 case requiring emergency housing. Similarly when the subcommittee met with PAPD, the last time they had a call needing emergency housing was 3 years ago. ● YWCA emphasized long term housing stability was a much greater need. Due to the breadth of what this encompasses it has been difficult for them to capture it in data, for example: survivors may need assistance finding housing, rental payment assistance, understanding rental rights, or addressing financial instability that could lead to displacement. ● The Opportunity Center however, has struggled significantly with the demand for emergency housing, and through meeting with YWCA the HRC was able to connect them. Affordable Housing and Service Providers The Subcommittee has also reached out to the Opportunity Center, LifeMoves, MidPen Housing, Alta Housing, and Eden Housing to better understand their experience serving populations relevant to the CEDAW analysis, including: ● Women and families with children ● Survivors of domestic or gender-based violence ● People transitioning from homelessness to permanent housing ● Barriers these populations face in accessing and maintaining affordable housing With an estimated 96% of Palo Alto’s unsheltered population living in vehicles, protecting vehicle residents from displacement and expanding safe parking are critical to preserving stability while individuals and families work toward permanent housing. From Alta Housing: As of August 2026, Alta serves approximately 672 households and 1,335 residents. ● Approximately 55% of Alta residents are women ● Approximately 59% of Alta heads of household are women ● About 23% of households include minor children, and nearly two-thirds of those households have a female head of household ● Women represent approximately 63% of Alta residents age 62 and older “From our experience, many of the barriers affecting women are connected to the broader shortage of affordable housing. Limited availability of family-sized units, childcare costs, fixed incomes for older adults, and the need for accessible housing can all create additional challenges. For survivors of domestic or gender-based violence, there can also be a significant mismatch between the immediate need to relocate for safety and the length of time it can take to access permanent affordable housing. From a policy perspective, continued investment in deeply affordable housing, particularly family-sized and senior/accessible units, is important. Flexible resources such as emergency 4     Packet Pg. 147     25 rental assistance, deposits and moving costs, temporary housing, childcare support, and stronger coordination between housing and service providers can also help households navigate periods of crisis.” Section 4: 2026 CEDAW Subcommittee Care Infrastructure Audit 2026 CEDAW Subcommittee Care Infrastructure Audit ● For this audit the CEDAW Subcommittee reviewed: ○ HRC’s 2025 Child Care Listening Session ○ 2019 Family Needs Assessment ○ 2022 Avenidas Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults (CASOA) ○ Caregiving benefits for City of Palo Alto employees ○ City lists of caregiving resources, caregiver support resources, and childcare providers ● Key Findings ○ Significant gaps remain in local data on unpaid caregiving. The City and County currently have limited data on who provides unpaid care, whom they care for, the amount and type of care provided, and the economic and health effects of caregiving. This limits the City’s ability to assess caregiving needs through a gender and equity lens or develop appropriately targeted policies. Human Services Manager Sophie Pigman has confirmed that the City’s upcoming Priority Needs Assessment will collect information on unpaid family caregiving, representing an important step toward closing this gap. ○ Childcare affordability and provider sustainability remain the central challenges facing Palo Alto’s childcare system. Families face high costs and limited options, while providers contend with low wages, staffing shortages, high facility and operating costs, and public reimbursement rates that frequently fall below the actual cost of providing care. These pressures threaten both families’ access to care and the long-term viability of local childcare providers. ○ Universal Transitional Kindergarten is reshaping the local childcare landscape. As four-year-olds transition from private and community-based programs into public Transitional Kindergarten, providers are increasingly shifting toward infant and toddler care. This transition requires facility modifications, additional staffing, lower teacher-to-child ratios, and changes to providers’ business models. State licensing delays can leave newly prepared classrooms unused and create additional financial strain during this transition. ○ The City has established meaningful childcare infrastructure, but providers continue to need sustained support. Palo Alto maintains a well-organized 4     Packet Pg. 148     26 collection of childcare information and referrals, convenes childcare providers regularly, and has historically supported childcare through subsidies and infrastructure investments. However, small, home-based, multilingual, and specialized providers continue to report isolation and a need for assistance with business operations, workforce development, mental health, training, and facility costs. ○ Care infrastructure is inseparable from housing affordability and land-use policy. High commercial rents affect the viability of childcare providers, the region’s cost of living makes it difficult to recruit and retain care workers, and older adults identify affordable housing and the ability to age in place among their principal concerns. These findings suggest that childcare, caregiving, housing, transportation, and land-use policies should be considered as interconnected components of the City’s care infrastructure rather than addressed in isolation. ○ Palo Alto appears to offer comparatively strong employer-funded childcare assistance, but its support for employees caring for adults is more limited. Based on a preliminary review of publicly available benefit information, Palo Alto’s employer-funded childcare assistance appears to be among the strongest offered by neighboring municipalities. However, employees caring for adults or older family members do not receive an equivalent employer-funded benefit and instead primarily rely on employee-funded pre-tax accounts, applicable leave, and voluntary leave sharing. Some other major local employers, including Stanford, offer a broader continuum of support, such as subsidized back-up care for children and adults, elder-care navigation, and flexible caregiving reimbursements. Further benchmarking would help the City evaluate whether its benefits remain competitive and equitably address different forms of caregiving. ○ Caregiving should be understood as essential economic and community infrastructure. Reliable childcare and adult-care supports enable residents to participate in the workforce, help employers recruit and retain workers, and allow older adults and people with disabilities to remain connected to their communities. Childcare providers and other care providers are also employers and small businesses in their own right. Investments in care infrastructure therefore advance not only family well-being but also workforce participation, economic stability, and community resilience. ○ The absence of consistent, disaggregated data makes the gendered effects of caregiving difficult to measure locally. Because caregiving responsibilities often affect employment, income, housing stability, health, and access to civic participation, future City assessments should examine these impacts by gender and other relevant demographic characteristics while maintaining appropriate privacy protections. This information will be necessary to evaluate progress under the City’s CEDAW ordinance. 4     Packet Pg. 149     27 Care Infrastructure: Summary from 2025 Childcare Listening Session Economic and Systemic Challenges ● The Funding Gap: Childcare is prohibitively expensive for families, yet providers are underpaid, often earning between $20 and $25 an hour. ● Inadequate Reimbursement: State reimbursement rates for subsidized care are based on outdated market surveys (from 2018), often covering as little as 50-80% of the actual cost of care. ● Staffing Shortages: Providers struggle to recruit and retain qualified teachers because the high cost of living in the area makes it difficult for ECE professionals to sustain themselves on current wages. The Impact of Transitional Kindergarten (TK) ● Enrollment Shifts: The statewide rollout of free Transitional Kindergarten (TK) for four-year-olds has significantly disrupted the business models of local providers. ● Pivot to Younger Ages: Many centers are losing their older students to public TK, forcing them to pivot to infant and toddler care. This shift requires expensive facility renovations and different teacher-to-child ratios, which are harder to sustain financially. ● Licensing Backlogs: Centers attempting to adjust their capacity to serve younger children face state licensing delays of six months or more, leaving prepared spaces empty while they wait for approval. Provider and Community Perspectives ● Diverse Service Models: The session highlighted various provider types, including Spanish immersion programs struggling with rising rents, inclusive programs serving children with disabilities, and the difference between center-based and home-based care. ● Economic Development: Speakers emphasized that ECE providers are small businesses that bolster the local economy by allowing parents to remain in the workforce. ● Isolation of Providers: Many small and home-based providers reported feeling isolated and lacking support for business practices, mental health, and specialized training in languages like Spanish. Recommendations and Future Outlook ● City Support: Advocates recommended that the city continue its unique history of support by providing infrastructure grants, increasing childcare subsidies, and exploring partnerships where seniors might volunteer to assist in classrooms. ● Housing Alignment: There is a critical need to ensure that new below-market-rate housing developments include dedicated space for childcare to support incoming families. 4     Packet Pg. 150     28 ● Workforce Development: Programs like the First 5 apprenticeship were noted as vital for helping assistants and unlicensed providers gain the necessary credentials to enter the professional workforce. Current State of Care Infrastructure ● In 2019, the City of Palo Alto completed a Family Needs Assessment focused on families with children ages 0–12, which echoed several themes from our recent listening session. Since then, the City appears to have responded to key findings—particularly the need for more centralized resources—as reflected in the improved accessibility and organization of family services on the City’s website, along with broader efforts to better coordinate service delivery and support systems. ● The City of Palo Alto does readily keep available a well structured and in depth list of childcare providers, resources and information. The city is very strong in this area! Visit Community Services > Human Services ● The office of Human Services does provide referrals to a wide variety of organizations including this list of resources which also encompass caregiver support and navigating caregiver services. ● The office of Human Services does convene child care providers on a monthly basis. ● The City has employee leave and workplace flexibility policies that may support employees with caregiving responsibilities, including applicable federal and state leave protections, accrued leave, and role-dependent flexibility based on operational needs. ● “City of Palo Alto offers their benefited employees child care assistance, which provides up to $10,000 per calendar year to eligible regular employees. This program is just one of the ways we're building a supportive and family-friendly work environment. We want to help you thrive both at work and at home. To be eligible, you must be a regular employee and have an eligible dependent enrolled in a childcare facility that is located within Palo Alto city limits. Employees can receive $10,000 per year towards the cost of childcare. The first $7,500 will be a pre-tax benefit, which will count towards the IRS child care FSA limit, and will be reimbursed through our FSA provider - Navia. The remaining $2,500 will be a post-tax benefit reimbursed through your paycheck.” ● No similar paid policy for employees caring for an adult. However, employees can sign up for dependent care FSA, up to $7500 pretax of their own funds can be put into this benefit. This gets deducted from employees paycheck pretax and employee can use these funds for adult care as well. Outside of this employees can apply for FMLA to take time off to take care of a family member with a medical condition. And in certain scenario employees can also utilize the voluntary leave sharing program when taking care of a family member. 4     Packet Pg. 151     29 ● Based on a preliminary review of publicly available employee-benefit information, Palo Alto appears to provide one of the strongest employer-funded childcare benefits among neighboring municipalities. ● The subcommittee has asked HR to confirm if the City regularly compares benefits with other local employers to stay competitive. The subcommittee has found that employees caring for adults or older family members do not receive a comparable employer-funded benefit and primarily rely on their own pre-tax contributions, available leave, and voluntary leave sharing. In comparison, employers such as Stanford provide broader supports, including subsidized back-up care for both children and adults, elder-care navigation, and flexible caregiving reimbursements. ● The biggest gap is in data on caregivers in Palo Alto and Santa Clara County, particularly unpaid family members. Human Services Manager, Sophie Pigman has confirmed, the City’s upcoming Priority Needs Assessment survey will capture unpaid family caregiving data. ● In 2022, Avenidas conducted a comprehensive Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults (CASOA). Overall, respondents rated the region highly for health and wellness opportunities, educational, cultural, and arts opportunities, services for older adults, transportation by car and bicycle, the availability of information about senior resources, preventive health services, and lifelong learning opportunities. However, the survey identified affordability as the most significant challenge facing older adults, with respondents citing the cost of living, the availability of affordable, quality housing, and the variety of housing options as their greatest concerns. The survey also found that 36% of respondents identified physical health needs, 25% identified mental health needs, and 24% identified mobility needs. Additionally, the assessment emphasized that supporting older adults' ability to age in place—remaining safely and independently in their homes and communities as they age—was a key priority, underscoring the importance of accessible health, transportation, housing, and caregiving supports within the community ● Following the 2026 Cubberley Community Center Redevelopment Ballot Measure CEDAW subcommittee should revisit the conversation of caregiving space at Cubberley. Section 5: 2026 CEDAW Subcommittee Audit of Resources for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence 2026 CEDAW Subcommittee Audit of Gender-Based Violence and Survivor Services ● For this audit the CEDAW Subcommittee: 4     Packet Pg. 152     30 ○ Reviewed the City of Palo Alto’s Crime Statistics ○ Reviewed the Palo Alto Police Department’s data on domestic violence related calls ○ Reviewed the Palo Alto Police Department’s Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data. ○ Consulted with the OIR Group, which completes Palo Alto’s Independent Police Audit and reviewed their findings. ○ Met with the City of Palo Alto Police Department and the Santa Clara County Victim Services Unit. ○ Review the current survivor resources and services currently promoted by the City of Palo Alto. ○ Met with the YWCA and toured their beautiful new Lytton Avenue location. ○ Reached out to NextDoor Solutions To Domestic Violence and confirmed the resources offered to DV survivors. ● Key Findings ○ Different organizations encounter different survivor populations and, consequently, different levels of demand for emergency lodging. Both PAPD and YWCA reported relatively few recent cases requiring emergency placement. By contrast, the Opportunity Center regularly encounters survivors who are already unhoused and therefore have more immediate shelter and safety needs. These experiences are not contradictory; they reflect different points of entry into the local safety net. ○ The audit demonstrated the value of HRC serving as a connector among public agencies and community organizations. The stakeholder process helped connect the Opportunity Center with YWCA regarding emergency-lodging needs and strengthened communication between PAPD and the Santa Clara County Victim Services Unit. Both examples illustrate how HRC can identify coordination gaps and help organizations establish relationships that improve survivor referrals and services. ○ For future funding decisions HRC should keep in mind survivors’ most substantial and persistent needs extend well beyond emergency shelter. YWCA identified long-term housing stability, legal assistance, and mental and emotional health support as three of the most significant areas of need. Long-term survivor services are difficult to quantify and may consequently be less visible in public data and funding decisions. ○ Housing assistance frequently involves preventing homelessness rather than responding only after displacement occurs. Rental assistance, housing navigation, tenant-rights support, help maintaining existing housing, and assistance resolving legal or financial instability can allow survivors to remain 4     Packet Pg. 153     31 safely housed and avoid having to choose between personal safety and housing stability. ○ The YWCA’s Lytton Avenue office is significant - Commissioners should promote it to their circles. The welcoming and calming location provides free, confidential, in-person and virtual access to a broad range of legal, housing, mental health, advocacy, and case-management services. Greater community awareness could help more survivors obtain assistance earlier. ○ Prevention and community education should remain part of the City’s response to gender-based violence. PAPD emphasized that community trust and education about healthy relationships are critical to prevention. HRC should keep healthy-relationship education, violence-prevention training, and community awareness efforts in mind when considering future nonprofit investments and outreach priorities. ○ Published police data do not provide a complete measure of gender-based violence in Palo Alto. Sexual and gender-based violence are substantially underreported, and police statistics capture only incidents reported to or identified by law enforcement. City data should therefore be interpreted alongside information from survivor-service organizations, County agencies, and other community partners. ○ The City’s public-safety data could be made more accessible and useful through clearer definitions and greater gender disaggregation. The current RIPA dashboard does not summarize enforcement outcomes by gender. The Subcommittee provided this feedback to PAPD, which took the recommendation seriously and added it to its list of dashboard improvements. ○ The City’s crime-statistics categories are difficult for members of the public to interpret. Because the statistics follow FBI NIBRS classifications, the Subcommittee recommended linking offenses to their definitions and providing plain-language explanations. It also recommended exploring the inclusion of stalking, voyeurism or peeping, indecent exposure, and restraining- or protective-order violations. Reporting these offenses could provide a more complete picture of conduct that may signal escalating domestic or gender-based violence. ○ PAPD’s addition of a clinician is a positive development for officer wellness. Officers and detectives regularly respond to traumatic and high-risk situations. The incoming dedicated clinician will strengthen the department’s existing mental health and peer-support resources and help personnel process the cumulative effects of this work. Previously having a psychologist on staff to support officers was very valuable. 4     Packet Pg. 154     32 ○ The absence of a physical North County Family Justice Center remains a significant regional service-access gap. Although virtual services remain available, a restored physical location could provide survivors with a centralized and accessible place to obtain coordinated legal, safety, housing, benefits, and other supportive services. Current State of Gender Based Violence Reporting 2022 - 2025 ● Between 2022 - 2025 the Palo Alto Police Department responded to an average of approximately 40,900 calls for service each year, completed approximately 4,600 crime reports annually, and received approximately 1,200 online police reports filed by community members each year. ● The City of Palo Alto’s Crime Statistics are listed on the City website following the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). For clarity, related FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) offense categories have been consolidated into broader categories for this presentation. *California's Department of Public Health notes that statewide sexual violence data rely on multiple surveys because police reports alone do not capture the full prevalence of sexual violence. The Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey generally finds that roughly half to two-thirds of rape and sexual assault victimizations are not reported to police, although the exact percentage varies from year to year. Offense Amount between 2022 - 2025 Total Number of Offenses 12,954 (average of 3239 a year) Sexual Assault 92 (average of 23 a year) Sexual Assault of a Minor 10 (average of over 2 a year) Fondling 64 (average of 16 a year) Illegal pornography/obscene material offenses 35 (average of more than 8 a year) Human Trafficking of any kind 0 Sex Work 3 (average of less than 1 a year) 4     Packet Pg. 155     33 The City of Palo Alto publishes crime statistics on its website. The CEDAW Subcommittee has reviewed this information and consulted PAPD about how gender-based offenses are classified and reported. Published offense categories follow the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). We have recommended to PAPD: ● Link each reported offense to its FBI NIBRS definition and, where feasible, provide plain-language explanations. The categories are often difficult to understand. ● Expand the public dataset to include: Explore adding more specific, non-NIBRS offenses to public reporting, including: ● Stalking ● Voyeurism/peeping ● Indecent exposure ● Restraining- and protective-order violations Purpose: Improve public understanding and provide a more complete picture of gender-based intimidation, coercion and violence, including conduct that may precede or accompany physical assault. Domestic Violence-Related Calls for Assistance 2016 - 2025 Palo Alto Police receive an average of 84 calls annually for domestic violence related assistance. The subcommittee did flag for PAPD to review if 2022’s data is correct (as it seems to be an outlier.) RIPA data ● Beginning in 2022, the Palo Alto Police Department began collecting Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data, including officers’ perceptions of gender, race, disability, and 4     Packet Pg. 156     34 LGBT status during police stops. While RIPA improves transparency around police contacts, it is not designed to measure the prevalence of gender-based violence. ● Between 2022 and 2025, approximately 20,000 police stops were documented under California's Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). Approximately three-quarters of stops involved men, while one-quarter involved women. Across most racial and ethnic groups, men accounted for a majority of stops. ● The City publicly releases the underlying RIPA data, but the current RIPA dashboard does not present gender-disaggregated summaries of enforcement outcomes such as searches, arrests, citations, or seizures. Additional analysis of the existing data could help assess whether women experience policing differently. We have given this feedback to the department, they do continue to improve upon the dashboard, and have added this suggested change to their wishlist of improvements to the dashboard. IPA ● Since 2006, Palo Alto has contracted with an independent third party to review investigations of public complaints, internal-affairs matters, serious uses of force, incidents in which officers point firearms, and certain discrimination, harassment, and retaliation complaints involving uniformed officers. This type of independent oversight is relatively uncommon, particularly for a city of Palo Alto’s size, and represents a strong police-accountability and transparency mechanism. The auditor assesses whether investigations were thorough, objective, and consistent with policy; recommends additional investigation or policy and training improvements; and publishes reports for the City Council and community. ● Palo Alto’s IPA provides a strong independent mechanism for police oversight, identifying concerns involving discrimination and harassment, complaint intake, de-escalation, injury, dignity, and treatment during vulnerable encounters. However, OIR Group, who completes Palo Alto’s IPA, confirmed that it has not analyzed its Palo Alto findings by gender because its reviews cover a narrow set of alleged-misconduct and use-of-force cases, with sample sizes generally too small for statistically meaningful analysis. Current State of Resources for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence On Wednesday, July 8, 2026, the CEDAW Subcommittee met with representatives from the Palo Alto Police Department and the Santa Clara County Victim Services Unit to inform its audit of the current state of safety and wellbeing support for survivors of gender-based violence. The discussion focused on: ● The resources and services currently available to survivors ● The experience of reporting gender-based violence and being referred to services 4     Packet Pg. 157     35 ● Access to culturally competent mental health and survivor-support services, particularly for disproportionately impacted populations ● Coordination among law enforcement, County agencies, and community-based organizations ● Data collection and tracking of gender-based violence incidents ● Remaining gaps and opportunities for City action Central Audit Question of July Discussion What is it like to report domestic violence, sexual violence, trafficking, or another gender-based violence crime in Palo Alto? The audit examines: ● What support the City, County, and nonprofit partners currently provide ● How survivors are connected to services ● Whether survivors experience barriers during reporting or referral ● Where gaps, blind spots, and opportunities for improvement remain Reporting Domestic Violence to PAPD When an active domestic violence incident is reported through 911: ● Approximately two to four officers respond. ● Officers separate and interview the involved parties. ● Officers determine the relationship between the parties, who lives in the home, whether children are present, and whether a physical assault occurred. ● Medical assistance is provided when needed. ● Officers identify the primary aggressor. ● When a qualifying physical assault has occurred, an arrest will generally be made. ● The suspected aggressor may be removed from the home, allowing the survivor to remain there. PAPD officers are trained in Santa Clara County domestic violence protocols. More specialized cases, including child sexual abuse and human trafficking, are handled by detectives or specialized County partners such as the County Human Trafficking Task Force. Immediate Safety, Risk Assessment and Protective Orders PAPD completes a County-provided Lethality Assessment Form to evaluate the survivor’s level of danger and the potential for escalating or lethal violence. PAPD can contact a confidential YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley advocate while officers are still at the scene. Survivors are asked whether they want an Emergency Protective Restraining Order. ● In especially high-risk situations, police may seek an emergency protective order even 4     Packet Pg. 158     36 when the survivor does not request one. ● A criminal protective order may remain in effect for the duration of a criminal case. Survivors also receive: ● A domestic violence resource card ● Case and safety information ● Information about restraining orders and Marsy’s Law rights ● Contact information for advocates and services ● A connection to the Santa Clara County Victim Services Unit Remaining Concern Both parties generally must receive notice before a longer-term protective order can be issued, which may create safety or logistical complications. Audit of service available for domestic violence survivors These resources are shared via the Domestic Violence Resource Card AACI Community Solutions Maitri Next Door Solutions YWCA Golden Gate 24-Hour Hotline Yes Yes, 24-hr: 1-877-END-SADV (1-877-363-7238) No; helpline M-F 9am-3pm: 1-888-8-MAITRI (13 languages) Yes, 24/7: (408) 279-2962 + Safe Chat online Yes Emergency Housing (provider or referral) ~10 beds, and referral to other resources Yes, La Isla Pacifica confidential shelter, Gilroy area (~14 beds) Referral via helpline; own Anjali transitional home (confidential location) Yes, confidential shelter (~19 beds, pet-friendly); alternatives when full. Regionally provided 6424 nights of shelter. Yes, confidential location Regionally provided 10,193 nights of shelter. Ongoing counseling Yes Yes, individual, family & group counseling (English/Spanish) Yes, peer counseling, therapy & case management in 13 South Asian languages Yes, crisis counseling + support groups (EN/ES; women, men, teens, LGBTQ+) Yes through numerous programs Long-term Housing Assistance Yes Yes, rental assistance + housing search & application help Yes, Anjali transitional housing (up to ~9 months) + affordable housing search help Yes, Housing First rental assistance + HomeSafe long-term housing (48 units) Yes, will help with Section 8 or other housing program applications 4     Packet Pg. 159     37 PAPD Experience with Emergency Placement PAPD reported that it is rare for officers to need to place a domestic violence survivor in emergency shelter. In most cases: ● The primary aggressor is arrested or removed from the residence. ● The survivor is able to remain in the home. ● An immediate move-out order may be issued when the parties live together. Domestic Violence Shelters and Emergency Shelter Beds ● There are no domestic violence shelters in Palo Alto ● The City of Palo Alto has no year-round emergency shelter beds (including for gender-based violence survivors). ● The City funds the Overnight Warming Location, operated by Heart & Home Collaborative, and provides up to 12 people shelter during nights of unsafe cold or rainy weather. ● Regular shelter beds can only be accessed through the Here4You hotline, which sometimes has a long wait time (depends on the person's need/crisis level). ● Heart & Home Collaborative is a women only shelter, but it is not domestic violence focused. ● All of Palo Alto’s shelters have staff trained to care for people in many different situations. Survivors may need to leave Palo Alto to access shelter, specialized services, or hotel placement. When emergency housing has been needed, PAPD has used: ● Hotel vouchers ● Transportation assistance PAPD officers have sometimes personally paid for hotel rooms when resources were unavailable, particularly at night when coordinating with organizations can be slow. Financial and Other Barriers Facing Survivors Legal Aid Yes, and family justice open hours on Thurs Yes, restraining order (TRO) help, legal advocacy & court accompaniment Yes, RO help, court accompaniment, DOJ-accredited immigration aid (VAWA, U/T visa) Yes, DVRO filing help + free attorney consults via Virtual Legal Clinic Yes, during Family Justice Open Hours 4     Packet Pg. 160     38 ● Long processing times Common concerns raised by survivors include: ● Immigration consequences or fears ● Financial dependence the consequences of the household breadwinner being arrested, access to financial assistance ● Food insecurity ● Housing instability ● Managing and navigating multiple resources Financial concerns are a particularly significant issue. Coordination and the Referral Experience PAPD coordinates with: ● Santa Clara County Victim Services Unit ● YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley – the YWCA has an office on Lytton Avenue in Palo Alto, this location should be advertised more. ● Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence ● Asian Americans for Community Involvement ● North County Family Justice Center ● Children’s Advocacy Center ● County Human Trafficking Task Force Survivors may receive both: ● A confidential community-based advocate ● A District Attorney’s Office victim advocate Advocates may assist with: ● Safety planning, Crisis intervention, Emergency hotel assistance, Housing and community-resource referrals, Victim compensation applications, Understanding the legal process, Court accompaniment and testimony support Legal, Language and Immigration Support Services Identified PAPD, County Victim Services, and community organizations provide information or assistance related to: ● Emergency and criminal protective orders ● Marsy’s Law rights ● The criminal court process ● Court accompaniment 4     Packet Pg. 161     39 ● Safety planning ● Victim compensation PAPD and the county use a language line for interpretation. PAPD and the District Attorney’s Office: ● They do not ask immigration status. ● They do not work with ICE. ● Immigration status does not prevent someone from reporting a crime. PAPD emphasized that trust between the department and the community is critical to effective domestic violence prevention work, as well as education on healthy relationships. ● PAPD conducts routine training with the YWCA and refresher training with detectives. This helps ensure that advocates feel comfortable working with PAPD. ● PAPD would like to develop a closer relationship with the Victim Services Unit. Our meeting was helpful in strengthening that relationship. ● Survivors can receive emergency medical care and a forensic exam at Stanford Hospital Reporting ● On the City of Palo Alto website 6 different hotlines related to domestic and sexual violence are listed. ● The YWCA has an office on Lytton Avenue in Palo Alto. People can also: ● Call police dispatch and ask to speak with an officer for advice about their situation ● Contact the Victim Services Unit intake line The Victim Services Unit does not have a large budget for community education or for raising awareness about its services. This could represent a good opportunity for HRC for additional outreach, education, or advocacy. Victim Compensation and Counseling The state’s Victim Compensation Program can cover certain services, including counseling. At the state level, relocation assistance needs to be expanded so that it can cover a broader range of housing options. Mental Health Support for Officers 4     Packet Pg. 162     40 PAPD has a mental health program and a peer-support team for officers and detectives. Approximately 20 years ago, PAPD had a psychologist on staff who worked with officers. PAPD recently received funding to bring in a clinician who can provide a similar form of support. Meeting with YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley On Friday, August 28, 2026, the CEDAW Subcommittee met with Melissa Luke, Chief Program Officer for Healing & Justice at YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley, Melissa has previously also served on the Santa Clara County CEDAW Task Force for many years.. Overview of YWCA Programs and Services YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley provides services and programming across six principal areas: ● Healing and Justice services for survivors ● A Housing Continuum for survivors ● Licensed childcare ● Economic opportunity programs ● Violence prevention education ● Racial justice programming YWCA’s services are free and confidential. Services are available in English and Spanish and may be accessed virtually or in person, depending on the survivor ’s needs and preferences. YWCA emphasized its approach of meeting survivors where they are and helping them navigate interconnected legal, housing, financial, health, safety, and family needs. Healing and Justice Services YWCA provides or connects survivors with: ● Sexual assault advocacy and accompaniment ● Legal services and external legal referrals ● Immigration legal assistance ● Long-term case management and community support ● Therapy and mental and emotional health services ● Peer counseling ● Support groups for survivors, children, caregivers, and families ● Housing navigation and stabilization ● Rental assistance ● Public-benefit navigation, including CalWORKs and food assistance ● Tenant- and rental-rights assistance ● Criminal justice system navigation ● Specialized services for survivors of human trafficking ● Assistance applying for victim compensation through the Santa Clara County Victim 4     Packet Pg. 163     41 Services Unit Sexual Assault Advocacy YWCA can provide a trained advocate to accompany a survivor during a sexual assault forensic examination. The advocate is knowledgeable about survivor rights and can provide information, guidance, and emotional support throughout the process. YWCA provides similar specialized advocacy for children undergoing related examinations or proceedings. Human Trafficking YWCA emphasized that human trafficking does not always resemble common public perceptions of trafficking. Survivors may face overlapping issues involving housing, finances, immigration, employment, personal relationships, and legal rights. As one example, YWCA described assisting a survivor whose housing arrangement was tied to the person trafficking her and who did not have a formal lease. YWCA helped the survivor understand her housing and tenant rights and navigate leaving the situation. This example demonstrates the importance of providing specialized, comprehensive assistance because the needs of trafficking survivors may not fit within a single traditional service category. YWCA’s Experience Serving Palo Alto YWCA has operated its location on Lytton Avenue in Palo Alto for approximately one to one-and-a-half years. During that period: ● Approximately 40–50 Palo Alto clients have received YWCA services. ● Approximately 60 hotline calls have originated from Palo Alto. ● Only one Palo Alto client has required emergency lodging through YWCA. YWCA was kind enough to offer a tour of the beautiful location. Emergency Lodging Is Critical but Represents a Small Portion of Survivor Needs YWCA emphasized a significant difference between common perceptions of domestic violence intervention and the services survivors most frequently use. Emergency shelter or lodging is often the first resource people associate with domestic violence services. Emergency placement remains essential when a survivor must immediately leave an unsafe environment and no other safe option is available. However, emergency lodging represents only approximately 2% of YWCA’s service utilization 4     Packet Pg. 164     42 countywide. YWCA has encountered only one emergency-lodging case through its Palo Alto location to date. The substantially larger and more persistent areas of survivor need are: ● Legal assistance ● Housing stabilization ● Mental and emotional health support Service Needs Identified by YWCA YWCA reported that approximately 59% of clients require external legal referrals. Legal needs may involve: ● Child custody ● Divorce ● Property division ● Restraining orders ● Immigration ● Tenant rights ● Other civil or criminal legal matters YWCA reported relatively even demand across its primary internal service categories: ● Community support and long-term case management ● Legal services ● Therapy ● Housing assistance focused on long-term stability With peer counseling representing a smaller demand (approximately 10%), while emergency lodging accounts for only about 2%. These figures demonstrate that survivors’ needs are broad and extend well beyond immediate emergency shelter. Housing Continuum and Prevention of Homelessness YWCA’s Housing Continuum addresses survivors’ longer-term housing needs. Housing assistance often involves stabilizing a survivor’s existing housing or helping the survivor transition into sustainable housing rather than providing a single short-term placement. Assistance may include: ● Housing navigation ● Help locating and applying for housing ● Rental assistance ● Tenant-rights support ● Public-benefit navigation 4     Packet Pg. 165     43 ● Ongoing case management ● Assistance maintaining existing housing ● Support addressing financial instability that could result in displacement YWCA emphasized that helping survivors remain safely housed can prevent homelessness and reduce the likelihood that they will have to choose between housing stability and personal safety. Challenges Measuring Longer-Term Survivor Needs YWCA identified an important challenge in measuring and communicating the longer-term assistance survivors receive. Emergency lodging is comparatively straightforward to quantify: a survivor needs an immediate placement, and a hotel room or other accommodation can be connected to a specific cost and outcome. Legal assistance, housing stabilization, therapy, peer support, and case management are more difficult to capture through a single metric. A survivor may need assistance over several months while navigating legal proceedings, securing rental assistance, maintaining housing, or receiving counseling. These services can therefore be less visible in public data even though they constitute a substantially larger share of the assistance survivors seek. Different Service Providers Encounter Different Survivor Populations The Subcommittee’s stakeholder discussions indicate that different parts of the local service system encounter different manifestations of domestic violence and housing insecurity. ● YWCA has encountered only one Palo Alto client requiring emergency lodging since opening its Lytton Avenue location. ● PAPD reported that the last case officers recalled requiring emergency lodging occurred approximately three years ago. ● The Opportunity Center encounters individuals who are already experiencing homelessness while also experiencing or fleeing domestic violence, making immediate housing and safety needs more visible within that population. These experiences are not necessarily contradictory. Instead, they may reflect different points of entry into the local safety net. A survivor who contacts YWCA while still housed may primarily need legal assistance, counseling, rental assistance, or help maintaining existing housing. A survivor who is already unhoused may enter through a homeless-service provider with a much more immediate need for shelter and safety. 4     Packet Pg. 166     44 Absence of a Physical North County Family Justice Center YWCA identified the absence of a physical North County Family Justice Center as a significant regional service-access gap. The Family Justice Center is distinct from the family courthouse. It is intended to provide survivors with coordinated access to legal, safety, housing, benefits, and other supportive services. North County previously had a physical Family Justice Center location in Sunnyvale. That location closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and North County Family Justice Center services are currently provided virtually. Although virtual services remain valuable, restoring a physical North County location could provide survivors with an accessible and centralized place to receive coordinated, in-person assistance. Section 6: HRC and CEDAW Subcommittee Next Steps 1. Promote the YWCA’s Palo Alto office on Lytton Avenue through commissioners’ professional and community networks. Commissioners should raise awareness that the location offers free, confidential, in-person and virtual legal, housing, mental-health, advocacy, and case-management services. 2. Apply the audit findings and CEDAW priorities to future HSRAP, CDBG, and Emerging Needs funding decisions. When evaluating future nonprofit funding applications and reviewing grantee outcomes, HRC should consider how proposed services align with the City’s CEDAW priorities and how applicants collect, analyze, and apply relevant data to identify needs, measure outcomes, and address gender-based disparities. Data collection and reporting should be appropriately disaggregated where feasible. HRC should also recognize survivors of gender based violence in Palo Alto’s most substantial and persistent needs include: ● Long-term housing stability, including rental assistance, housing navigation, homelessness prevention, tenant support, and case management; ● Civil legal assistance, particularly involving protective orders, custody, divorce, property division, and housing; and ● Trauma-informed mental-health services, counseling, and peer support. 3. Keep prevention and community education in mind when considering future 4     Packet Pg. 167     45 nonprofit investments and outreach priorities, including: ○ Healthy-relationship education; ○ Gender-based-violence prevention training; ○ Community trust-building; and ○ Public awareness of available survivor services. 4. Consider additional outreach regarding the Santa Clara County Victim Services Unit. The report identifies the unit’s limited community-education budget as a potential opportunity for HRC outreach, education, or advocacy. 5. Revisit the potential inclusion of childcare or other caregiving space at Cubberley following the 2026 Cubberley Community Center redevelopment ballot measure. 6. Ideas proposed for future CEDAW Subcommittee focus areas, ○ Develop a survey for City Council Members Boards and Commissions on the experience, wellbeing, safety and mental health to see any differences by gender. ○ Research on if any City Staff are struggling with the cost of living 4     Packet Pg. 168