FES Workgroup

June 22 , 2004
12-2pm – EBAYC

NOTES

Attendees:

Carl Pascual, EBALDC; Chanda May, ???; David Kakishiba, EBAYC; Deb Montesinos, TARC; Don Davenport, SACDC; Dung Tran, ???; Evangelina Lara, ???; Fred Blackwell, AECF; Genevieve Raymond, USC; Hedy Chang, Haas Jr.; Isabel Toscano, EBAYC; Junious Williams, USC; Leu Chu, ???; Owusu Amoakohene, USC; Pat Constantine, SACDC; Rosa Vicente, ???, Sandra Chapin, AECF; Susie Smith, Lao Family CDC.

1. Welcome, introductions, agenda review

Staff changes: Randy Tillery has left EBALDC; Carl Pascual has filled his position. Owusu is leaving USC at the end of June.

EITC status: Until recently, much of the work has been focused on EITC, which is largely finished. At the last meeting, the group concluded that the EITC campaign had gone well (measured by an increase in tax assistance). However, it was also noted that logistics should be improved for next year. Specifically, outreach should begin earlier, as people begin receiving their W-2s. Junious noted that the EITC site and campaign reports will be released today ( June 22, 2004).

2. Purpose of the meeting

FES Survey: The other area of work has been the FES resident survey, designed to identify key barriers to residents’ ability to improve their economic welfare with specific attention to employment and housing. The survey was designed less as a research project (it did not involve a statistical sample) and more as a means of identifying emerging leaders in the community.

In April and May, EBAYC collected data from its members, their friends and family, and a handful of ESL students. Over 415 surveys were completed, the majority taking place in a one-on-one format. EBAYC had hoped to identify at least 50 people with whom to follow up—they ended up with many more than expected.

The surveys were then passed on to Urban Strategies Council whose staff performed the initial analysis. This meeting marks the first time that the FES workgroup has seen any survey results.

3. FES Residential Survey Initial Analysis

Junious introduced the survey results, noting that USC has not yet performed in-depth analysis of the results. The preliminary analysis includes frequencies only. USC hopes to receive feedback on questions and issues which merit further analysis.

Owusu presented the survey results. The following questions and comments were raised:

Comments:

• The number of respondents identifying a current or prior criminal record and those with family with criminal records appears low. This may be due to several factors: gender (the survey population was heavily women); documentation (many are undocumented and unable/unwilling to risk arrest); race (little representation of African Americans; age (most were over ???).
• There were no respondents who identified as African (which was also not an option on the survey).

Questions for further analysis:

• What is the correlation between people identified as undocumented and those who are foreign-born? (There appears to be some discrepancy.)
• Where do the respondents live? What is the relationship between where respondents live and demographic, housing, income, and other factors?
• What is the relationship between interest in different employment sectors and current employment status?
• What is the relationship between interest in different employment sectors and current job?
• What is the relationship between interest in different employment sectors and presence of children in the household?
• Is there any other variable which explains why documentation services provided by a job training program were a disincentive for some? (One possible answer is that undocumented persons worry about their documentation status being discovered by authorities if they were to enter a job training program.)
• What is the relationship between documentation status and employment status?
• How does this data compare to the data from the Cross-Site Survey?

Feedback on the survey results from interviewers:

• Many people do not like to discuss their income.
• People may be scared to talk about their incomes because of a fear of tax consequences.
• People are reticent to talk about their or their family members’ criminal records.
• Despite assurances of confidentiality, many respondents were not forthcoming with certain types of information.
• Conversely, confidentiality “opened the floodgates” for others, and interviewers heard a number of sad stories about rsepondents’ situations.
• Some respondents reported monthly expenses greater than their monthly incomes. Some said that they borrowed money from family and friends; others did not explain the discrepancy.
• Domestic violence was raised as an issue by some respondents, though most were hesitant to talk about it.
• There was a gender-based difference between attitudes towards work among Vietnamese respondents (with many women expressing an interest in working, while some men believed women should stay home). (Did I hear this right? I don’t want to misrepresent it…)
• The survey has created expectations among many interviewees, with some asking questions about issues such as when job training programs will begin or when their housing situation will be improved.
  

4. Next Steps

a. Further data analysis:
(Within 2 weeks ???)

USC will perform further analysis of the survey on the questions raised above. USC will also cross-tabulate demographic information with key data from the five major issues areas: small business development, homeownership, affordable rental housing, construction employment, and health services employment.

b. Convene residents and neighborhood-based allies/CBOs
(Within 6 months)  

A convening will be held to present and analyze the survey results. In addition, the group will work to identify both research questions and research targets. The FES workgroup decided that this meeting should include local CBOs and allies who can both provide additional context and to provide additional subjects for the survey. The possibility of creating a condensed, issue-specific version of the survey for these CBOs to administer was raised.

c. Conduct targeted research
(Within 6 months)

Based on the outcomes of the convening, the workgroup will then conduct targeted research to develop a plan of action based on the survey results. Such research would analyze LSA with regard to the five major program areas. It would also identify best practices of different service organizations, (e.g., what makes a good job training program?). Such research may also include the creation of a resource map for LSA with the locations of job training organizations, language classes, documentation services, etc.

d. Develop and ratify policy/program agenda
(No timeline established)

Finally, based on the research findings, the group will define a policy agenda and demand set, e.g., a guarantee of local jobs and affordable housing from the Port of Oakland and Oak-to-Ninth, subsidized job training, etc.