Richmond Department of Children and Youth
2020 Community Needs
Assessment Report
Table of Contents
BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 ABOUT MEASURE E AND MEASURE K........................................................................................................................... 1 GOALS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE RICHMOND FUND FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH ..................................2 OUTCOME AREAS ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING.............................................................................................................................................. 3 WHO IS THE FUND DESIGNED TO SUPPORT?................................................................................................................ 4 LEARNING QUESTIONS...........................................................................................................................................................................................4 PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................... 5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT: ENGAGEMENT IN THE MIDST OF A PANDEMIC RESPONSE.............................5 WORKING WITH COMMUNITY TO INCLUDE MULTIPLE VOICES ..................................................................................................5 CO-DESIGN AND BUILDING ON EXISTING WORK ...............................................................................................................................5 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, DATA COLLECTION, AND ANALYSIS...........................................................................................6 SECONDARY QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ 6 KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS.................................................................................................................................................................... 6 COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUPS AND COMMUNITY LISTENING ........................................................................................................6 COMMUNITY SURVEYS............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 COMMUNITY FORUMS: REFINING ASSETS AND GAPS ANALYSIS AND MAKING MEANING........................................6 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ 7 WHAT WE FOUND: DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................................... 8 ABOUT RICHMOND: OUR ASSETS AND DEMOGRAPHICS .................................................................................................................. 8 DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 RACE AND ETHNICITY ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 AGE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 WHAT WE FOUND: PRIORITY POPULATIONS...........................................................................12 PRIORITY POPULATIONS OF FOCUS ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 YOUNG PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY........................................................................................................................................................ 12 CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND THEIR FAMILIES LIVING UNDER THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL ................................ 12 EMPLOYMENT............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR ADULTS............................................................................................................................................ 14 YOUNG PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS – BASIC NEEDS......................................................................................... 16 HOUSING....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.................................................................................................................................... 17 IMMIGRANT AND UNDOCUMENTED CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES .......................................................................... 20 LGBTQ+ CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES ...................................................................................................................................... 22 TEEN PARENTS AND FAMILIES, INCLUDING SINGLE MOTHERS ............................................................................................... 24
YOUNG PEOPLE WITH POOR PHYSICAL, MENTAL, EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OUTCOMES AND DISABILITIES ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 YOUNG PEOPLE NOT IN SCHOOL................................................................................................................................................................. 27 DISCONNECTED YOUTH..................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
SYSTEM-INVOLVED YOUNG PEOPLE (FOSTER YOUTH AND TRANSITIONAL AGE YOUTH, JUSTICE- INVOLVED YOUTH) ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 JUSTICE-INVOLVED YOUTH.............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 YOUTH IN FOSTER CARE .................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 WHAT WE FOUND: PRIORITY AREAS THAT CROSS MULTIPLE POPULATIONS .............. 30 EDUCATION AND LEARNING: EARLY CHILDHOOD, K-12, COLLEGE AND CAREER (WITH COVID-19 REFLECTIONS) ..................................................................................................................................... 30 EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 30 EDUCATION AND COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS .................................................................................................................. 32 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE ............................................................................................................................................................ 34 CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS................................................................................................................................................................... 35 OUT OF SCHOOL ENRICHMENT PARTICIPATION AND BARRIERS ............................................................................................. 36 NEEDS DURING COVID-19 SHELTER-IN-PLACE ............................................................................................................................... 39 COLLEGE ACCESS..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 STUDENT AID FOR COLLEGE........................................................................................................................................................................... 40 COLLEGE GOING RATES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 HEALTH: MENTAL HEALTH, NUTRITION AND HEALTHY LIVING, ASTHMA AND TOBACCO/E- CIGARETTE RATES, STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES,AND COMMUNITY SAFETY...................................... . 42 MENTAL HEALTH .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM....................................................................................................................... 43 HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING.................................................................................................................................................. 43 ASTHMA RATES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 TOBACCO/E-CIGARETTE RATES ................................................................................................................................................................... 44 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES......................................................................................................................................................................... 45 COMMUNITY SAFETY............................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 POLICE USE OF FORCE......................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES...................................................................................................... 49 PRIORITIES EMERGING FROM THE COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT................................................................................ 49 #1 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLNESS ................................................................................................. 49 #2 EDUCATION SUPPORT AND EMPLOYMENT TRAINING/SUPPORT .................................................................................... 50 #3 OUT OF SCHOOL TIME, AFTERSCHOOL, SPORTS, AND ENRICHMENT ........................................................................... 50 #4 INFORMATION, GUIDANCE, AND CASE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 51 #5 YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 51 #6 ACCESS TO BASIC NEEDS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 52 THE LENS OF COVID 19 AND THE RICHMOND AND NORTH RICHMOND COMMUNITY ......................................... 52 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................... 60 Page | 1
Background
Introduction
This Community Needs Assessment Report has been designed to provide an overview of current data and findings related to children, youth, and their families in Richmond, California – specifically as related to the focus of the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth. Most of these data are from publicly available and reliable sources such as the American Community Survey, the California Department of Education, the California Healthy Kids Survey, and the US Census.
The report also includes focus group, community forum, and survey data collected for the Richmond Department of Children of Youth.
About Measure E and Measure K
On June 5, 2018, Richmond voters approved Measure E and Measure K, known as the Richmond Kids First Initiative, which approved a City of Richmond Charter amendment (Article 15) and authorized the creation of the Richmond Department of Children and Youth (Department) and the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (Fund) to provide increased and dedicated funding for children, youth, and young adult services. The ballot initiative also authorized the establishment of a 15-member Oversight Board and required that the Department conduct a Community Needs Assessment which would guide the development of a Strategic Investment Plan and the first three-year grant cycle of the Fund.
As stated in the Charter of the City of Richmond, Article 15 Section 2, the City is required to allocate $250,000 from the City’s annual General Fund budget in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19, and $700,000 in FY 2019-20 for the purpose of supporting the establishment of the Department and the Fund. There is no allocation in FY 2020-21. The Charter also requires the City to allocate one, two, and three percent of the City’s General Fund in FYs 2021-22, FY 2022-23, and FY 2023-24 respectively, and three percent each fiscal year thereafter through FY 2027-28 to support the implementation and ongoing needs of the Department and Fund. Additional information about the Department can be found at www.richmondyouth.org.
Page | 2
Goals and Guiding Principles of the Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth1
Per the Charter, the goals of the Department and Fund are:
• To ensure that Richmond’s children, youth, and young adults are physically, emotionally, mentally, and socially healthy, educated, successful in school, and live in stable, safe, and supported families and communities
• To increase safety for children, youth, young adults, their parents/guardians, families and the communities in which they live by preventing problems and enhancing the strengths of children, youth, young adults and their families
• To ensure young people are provided with gender responsive, trauma-informed, population specific and culturally-competent services;
• To strengthen collaboration among public agencies and community-based organizations around shared outcomes among all service providers for children, youth, young adults and their parents/guardians;
• To ensure an equitable distribution of resources to all of Richmond’s young people in recognition of the importance of investment in their futures from birth through young adulthood;
• To fill gaps in Services and leverage other resources whenever feasible Creation of this Community Needs Assessment (CNA) is one of the early tasks in the initial funding cycle for the Fund and will be followed by the development of a Strategic Investment Plan (“SIP”). The City of Richmond’s Department of Children and Youth has initiated a needs assessment and strategic planning process that honors community voice, includes a diverse range of youth and adults in order to develop a comprehensive, equitable investment plan that reflects community vision. The City has committed to guiding principles for creating the CNA and the SIP, as follows:
• We will communicate in a way that is accessible and easy to understand • We will be inclusive of all ages, races, ethnicity, gender expressions, languages, abilities/disabilities, and socioeconomic status
• We believe all voices should contribute and we encourage participants to bring their full authentic selves to this process
• We value collaboration and shared ownership
• We believe that community assets are our core strengths • We believe that considerations of race and equity are critical to this process 1City of Richmond. Charter, Article XV, Section 3 Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeI d=CH_ARTXVRIFUCHY O Page | 3
• We believe that Richmond and North Richmond residents are experts in their lived experience and have valuable insight to share, and
• We believe that it is important to be (1) innovative and flexible and (2) transparent and accountable
Outcome Areas Eligible for Funding
The legislation establishing The Fund has nine key investment priorities. While these areas are deeply interconnected, we are reporting on them in the following legislated categories. Eligible populations for funding include children birth to 18, their caregivers when applicable, or disconnected transitional aged young adults ages 18-24, and their caregivers when applicable.
Funding categories include:
• Violence Prevention and Response
• Education and Job Training
• Parent/Guardian Support
• Media, Arts, Culture and Technology
• Youth and Family Leadership, Organizing and Civic Engagement • Health and Well-Being
• Environmental Health and Justice
• Outdoor Education and Recreation
• Deportation Support - Support for those experiencing or being threatened with deportation
Page | 4
Who is the Fund designed to support?
The Fund will prioritize Richmond and North Richmond children (ages 0 -12); youth (ages 13 to 17) and disconnected young adults (ages 18-24) who are most impacted by harm, inequity and lack of access to support services.
The priority populations include, but are not limited to:
• System involved young people
• Young people who have been pushed out of school
• Young people who themselves are homeless, or whose families are homeless or threatened by homelessness
• Young people living in poverty; immigrant and undocumented children, youth, and families • LGBTQ children, youth, and families
• Teen parents and families, including single mothers; young people with poor physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes, and children with disabilities • Families with children and youth who are impacted by the criminal justice system and /or who have family members who are incarcerated; and/ or are involved in or transitioning from the foster care, juvenile justice, criminal justice, or special education systems Learning Questions
The Community Needs Assessment team created guiding learning questions to focus the CNA effort.
• What is working? What are the key assets for children, youth, and their families in Richmond and North Richmond?
• How are resources and services that support youth currently dispersed? • What are the barriers to accessing current and future services? • What resources do families in Richmond and North Richmond need to thrive? • Which families need these resources the most? Where do these families live? What makes these families unique?
• What are the needs of the most hard-to-reach groups?
Page | 5
Process and Methodology
Community Needs Assessment: Engagement in the Midst of a Pandemic Response
The Community Needs Assessment and Strategic Investment Planning process formally began in February of 2020. At this point, the City began to formally plan the needs assessment process with the assistance of consultants from Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates (HTA). This effort built upon the foundations laid by Department staff who had worked for months to build the new Department of Children and Youth and its essential infrastructure. shelter in place at their residence in response to the rising numbers of COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations. On March 17, 2020, the State of California also issued a shelter in place order.
What followed was an unprecedented shift in the way people, community based organizations and public entities conducted their daily work, engaged with the public and colleagues, and communicated. For the needs assessment process, this meant that the planning work continued but meetings normally conducted face-to-face could not be conducted in that manner. Many participants were able to continue working from their homes. Others were considered essential workers and were expected to continue going to their regular workplaces.
In order to adjust the CNA to meet the requirements of social distancing, we engaged the public using live video platforms which most groups became adept at using fairly quickly. The CNA team was able to conduct complex meetings with breakouts groups, interactive discussion, shared presentations, conversations, and multiple forms of shared on-demand data visualization and media such as word clouds and virtual white boards.
This CNA work had been planned as an intensely interactive process with strong community based interaction and hands-on engagement. The Department and HTA had to pivot from best practices in face-to-face community engagement and planning to community planning in online virtual spaces. Community Based Organizations (CBOs), the Department staff and HTA partnered to co-create the needs assessment, recruit participants, and engage the community in a series of virtual focus groups, listening sessions, and forums as part of the CNA process.
Working with Community to Include Multiple Voices
Co-Design and Building on Existing Work
Consultants engaged the CBO community early on with a virtual co-design process that allowed the CNA to be tailored to the community’s values and culture of inquiry at the same time that the pivot to virtual engagement while shelter in place orders were in effect. CBOs and service providers shared invaluable insight for the City staff and consultant team that wasincorporated into the CNA design and implementation.
Page | 6
The City of Richmond, CBOs, and additional organizations have done a significant amount of effective work in Richmond for many years, and there are multiple reports, needs assessments, transcripts, and data sets that were reviewed for the CNA. The CNA built on the work that was already done in the community. The CNA design has worked to reduce redundancy while ensuring that due diligence has been applied for the Department.
Community Engagement, Data Collection, and Analysis
Secondary Quantitative Data Analysis
The CNA data collection began with secondary data related to the priorities of the Richmond Kids First Initiative and the learning questions. The project sought to build on existing resources gathering and analyzing quantitative data from a variety of secondary sources and reviewing existing analysis and reports. As described below, this data was combined with qualitative data gathered by the CNA team some of which was presented to the community during a series of forums.
Key Stakeholder Interviews
The CNA team conducted key stakeholder interviews early on to help shape and inform the process and to deepen understanding of issue areas. Additional key stakeholder interviews were also held to gain a better understanding of resources and barriers to service.
Community Focus Groups and Community Listening
Community focus groups and small group listening sessions were incorporated as key components of the needs assessment. We used these sessions to gather qualitative data directly from groups that are representative of priority populations among local youth, their families, providers, and others. The focus groups drilled down into the themes emerging from the needs assessment, providing insight from the group interactions and feedback.
Stakeholders assisted with moderating these groups and partnered with the CNA team to identify participants and support logistics.
Community Surveys
The needs assessment included a survey that gathers input from a broad sample of youth and their parents and guardians. The survey was brief, digital, and sought to reach a broad subset of individual children, youth and their parents and guardians. The survey gathered input on strengths, needs, and preferences regarding services and programs.
Community Forums: Refining Assets and Gaps Analysis and Making Meaning As part of this analysis, Department staff worked with stakeholders to conduct four community forums that were accessible online to participants across Richmond and North Richmond.
Participants were asked to identify the greatest needs of Richmond children, youth, and their families and to prioritize resource areas.
Page | 7
Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis
All of the quantitative and qualitative data collected in surveys, interviews, focus groups and community forums were analyzed and synthesized. Particularly relevant information was shared at community forums and with governing bodies such as the Oversight Board to support community input and decision making. The resulting priorities found at the end of this document rose to the top after careful analysis that gave weight to community voice and found that the data aligned to support community voice.
Page | 8
What We Found: Demographics
About Richmond: Our Assets and Demographics
The City of Richmond is located 16 miles northeast of San Francisco on the western shore of Contra Costa County. Richmond was incorporated on August 7, 1905, and became a charter city on March 24, 1909.
Today, the City is a unique community with a vibrant culture, strong civic organizations and a number of unique community assets and community-based initiatives promoting community improvement and wellbeing. Civil society in Richmond and North Richmond has been flourishing for many years and networks, relationships and a sense of collective purpose are notable at the time of this needs assessment.
The Richmond and North Richmond community has a number of nonprofit and CBOs that are actively working to make Richmond and North Richmond a community where children, youth, and their families thrive.
Page | 9
The RMAP2 is a collectively generated map of assets in the Richmond and North Richmond Community.
Map 1: The Richmond Living Map
Source: East Bay Center for the Performing Arts. (2019). Richmond Living Map.
Demographics
Like many other places in the San Francisco Bay Area, the demographics of Richmond and North Richmond are changing as affordability and gentrification push some residents further out from the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. That said, the Richmond and North Richmond community remains very diverse.
There are 37,209 households in Richmond, of which 24,474 (66%) are families. 29% of all households (or 44% of family households) have children under the age of 18. 2East Bay Center for the Performing Arts. (2019). Richmond Living Map. Retrieved from:
https://www.eastbaycenter.org/~/media/d74f364dc8eb4af2a196d65c3e5ce5ce.ashx?la=e n
Page | 10
Figure 1. Richmond Households
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2018). American Community Survey 5-year estimates.
Race and Ethnicity
The population in Richmond is growing and shifting: from 2010 to 2018 the population increased from 102,264 109,340 with the African American population rate declining and the Latino/Latinx population rising. Richmond’s largest population is the Hispanic/Latino/Latinx population, which grew from 36% of all residents in 2010 to 41% in 2018. The second largest racial/ethnic group in Richmond is the Black/African American population. The Black/African American population dramatically decreased from 28% in 2010 to 20% in 2018. The White and Asian American populations remained about the same as a percentage of the population with white residents remaining at 18% of the population and Asian Americans declining slightly from 16% in 2010 to 15% in 2018.
Figure 2: Richmond Population by Race/Ethnicity 2010 to 2017 ‡
Source: Richmond Youth Demographic Profile. 2010 and 2017 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates ‡Individuals who identify themselves as American Indian/Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or some other race comprise less than one percent of Richmond’s population and are not shown in this Figure. 66%
Family
Households
44%
Family Households with
Children Under 18 Years Old
37,209
Richmond Households
9%
Family Households with
Single Mothers and
Children Under 18 Years Old
Page | 11
Age
Richmond has a young population. Children and youth under age 24 make up 32% of Richmond’s residents. Children under five years of age make up 6% of residents while children between 5 and 19 made up 19% and young adults 20 to 24 were 7%. Richmond’s median age is
35.9, while this is an increase from 34.5 in 2010, Richmond is still below the median age of Contra Costa County residents (39.4).
Figure 3. Richmond Population by Age
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2018). American Community Survey 5-year estimates.
Language Spoken at Home
Higher percentages of residents in Richmond were born outside of the US and speak a language at home other than English than in Contra Costa County overall. A third (35%) of Richmond Residents were born outside of the U.S., a small increase over 32% in 2010. Just under half of the residents, five years or older, speak English at home (46.6%), followed by 35.8% who speak Spanish at home, 11.6% who speak an Asian or Pacific Islander language at home, and 1.8% who speak some other language at home.3 In 2016, 12% of children and youth enrolled in the West Contra Costa Unified School District lived in linguistically-isolated households, that is, a household in which the adult members do not speak English.4 This often puts an additional burden on children to provide interpretation for family members and can be a barrier to navigating programs and services.
3U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Language Spoken At Home, Table S1601 (5-year estimate), 2014-2018, American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 4As cited on kidsdata.org, “Children Living in Limited English-Speaking Households (65,000 Residents or More).” 2016 Table. Data origins: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey files (Dec. 2017) Retrieved from https://www.kidsdata.org/
Page | 12
What We Found: Priority Populations
Priority Populations of Focus
This needs assessment is informed by legislation that identifies priority youth populations understood to have higher levels of need. The identification of these particular populations and omission of others does not suggest that additional populations do not have needs. Nor does the absence of deep data on some of these populations suggest a lack of need. In most cases, this absence indicates a lack of available data. The populations identified in the legislation intersect and overlap and we share data we have collected relevant to these groups including but not limited to the following:
• Young people living in poverty
• Young people who themselves or whose families are homeless or threatened by • homelessness
• Immigrant and undocumented children, youth and families • LGBTQ children, youth and families
• Teen parents and families, including single mothers
• Young people with poor physical, mental, emotional and behavioral health outcomes • and disabilities
• System-involved young people and their families
Young People Living in Poverty
Children, Youth, and their Families Living Under the Federal Poverty Level Insufficient income has a negative impact on the health, academic achievement, personal development, and well-being of children in Richmond and North Richmond. The San Francisco Bay Area has a high cost of living and many families struggle to make ends meet. Sufficient household income and resources are critical to providing for basic needs of Richmond and North Richmond’s children and youth. As the cost of living has gone up, many households are struggling to provide for basic necessities.
Children and youth whose households are in poverty are one of the priorities of the Department. 15% of Richmond residents have incomes below the federal poverty line, including 22% of all children under age 18.5 Though significant percentages of children and youth in Richmond live below the poverty line, this measure actually underrepresents the number of young people and families struggling with basic needs given the high cost of living in Richmond and North Richmond.
5U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, Table S1701 (5 -year estimate), 2014-2018, American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Page | 13
Figure 4: Percentage of households with income under 100% poverty by race/ethnicity and household structure
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2017). American Community Survey 5-year estimates.
The Federal Poverty Level for a family of four is a combined income of $25,100 per year which is extremely low income in Richmond and North Richmond. In California’s San Francisco Bay Area, where the cost of living is significantly higher than the nationwide average, the more accurate low income threshold is that of a household living under 200% of the Federal Poverty Level. For this reason, many programs in the region provide support for families and youth who are living below 200% of Federal poverty level or a combined income of $50,200 per year for a family of four.
††
As noted in the chart below, single female headed households are more likely to face poverty than married households. The median household income in Richmond is $64,575 per year.
The map below shows the density of households with related children under eighteen years of age living at or below the (100%) federal poverty line or extremely low income. The Iron Triangle, Shields-Reid, Pullman, Park Plaza, Laurel Park, Eastshore, Park View, and Stege neighborhoods have the highest percentage of families with children living in poverty. ††The 2010 Census defined poverty level is based on the number and age of persons in household. For example, the poverty level for a household with two adults and two children is $24,250. (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 15, January 22, 2015, pp. 3236-3237. Also see aspe.hhs.gov/poverty).
Page | 14
Map 2. Map of Families with Related Children Under 18 Years of Age At or Below Federal Poverty Level
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2018). American Community Survey 5-year estimates.
Employment
At this writing, the COVID 19 virus is surging, and the economy and families are suffering. There is significant uncertainty as to how and when the economy will recover. The unemployment rate on September 20, 2020, was 12.20% which is lower than it was at its recent peak of 17.10% on April 30, 2020, but much higher than what it was a year ago, September 2019 when it was
3.2% (California EDD). Unemployment has left many without the resources to pay for housing, food, and power, but the blow of this has been softened somewhat by resources in the community to support renters, provide food, and sustain the community. Richmond and North Richmond residents are likely to require support with basic needs as the economic shock from COVID 19 take their continued toll on the community.
Educational Attainment for Adults
Educational attainment for adults is closely correlated to their employment. Of Richmond residents age 25 years or older, 36% have earned a post-secondary degree, including 8% who received an Associate’s degree, 18% a Bachelor’s degree, and 10% who earned a graduate or
Page | 15
professional degree.6 Educational attainment varies by race with those who are Black/African American, White, or Asian most likely to have a bachelor’s or graduate degree.
Figure 5. 2017 Percent of Adults (25 years and Older) by Educational Attainment < 9th
grade
9th-12th
grade
High
school
diploma GED
Some
college
Associate's
degree
Bachelor's
degree
Graduate
degree
White 0% 6% 6% 3% 18% 9% 34% 25%
Hispanic/Latino 24% 13% 21% 3% 19% 6% 11% 3%
Some Other Race 21% 14% 30% 4% 18% 7% 7% 1%
Black /African
American 3% 6% 21% 4% 32% 10% 18% 6%
Asian 7% 9% 21% 1% 20% 13% 18% 10%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2018). American Community Survey 1-year estimate. 6U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Educational Attainment, Table S1501 (5-year estimate), 2014-2018, American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ “There’s a lot of gentrification and
that affects us in our community.”
- LGBTQ+ Youth Focus Group
“We are grownups and now we have to pay bills.”
- Justice-Involved Youth Focus Group
“Financial literacy. A lot of youth are born in low socioeconomic situations. They don’t come from money sometimes at all. When we receive money we don’t know how to manage it or how use it.”
- TAY/Foster Youth and Emancipated Focus Group
Page | 16
Young People Experiencing Homelessness – Basic Needs
Housing
The San Francisco Bay Area has been experiencing a housing crisis because the cost of housing has moved steadily higher over the last decade. Avoiding homelessness and maintaining healthy, safe housing were identified among the top community priorities in Kaiser Permanente’s 2019 Richmond Community Health Needs Assessment.7 Gentrification and rising rents are an increasing burden on low income residents in Richmond. While policy solutions have been proposed8 , the housing crises continues to grow.
Owner-occupied housing accounts for 51% of all households and renter-occupied housing accounts for 49% of all householders. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino families are more likely to rent than White and Asian Families who are more likely to own their own home.
Housing units in Richmond are generally older, 45% of all housing units were built before 1960 and only 10% of housing units were built after 2000.
As rents have gone up, many Richmond and North Richmond residents have been dislocated. In Richmond, 51% of all units (houses and apartments) are renter-occupied. Additionally, 64% of all owner-occupied homes have a mortgage. In February of 2020, the average rent for an apartment in the U.S. was $1,468, whereas it was $2,648 in Richmond with the average apartment size of 1,152 square feet. About 32% of apartments were renting for between $1,501 and $2,000 per month at this time, while 68% of apartments rented for over $2,000.9 In Richmond, the median monthly mortgage payment is $1,662.10 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers families who pay more than 30% of their income on housing to be cost-burdened, which means they will have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care since so much of their income is committed to housing costs. In Richmond, median household income is $64,575 and over half of all renters and homeowners are cost-burdened: 58% of all renters are cost- burdened and 67% of all home-owners are cost-burdened.11 The result of rapidly rising costs in low income communities is that many households have to double up and triple up and are at risk of homelessness. In addition, the 2019 Richmond Community Health Needs Assessment found that recent increases in housing costs which particularly affect renters and low income residents were more likely to require mental health services – “indicating that the stress of maintaining housing is negatively impacting families including children.” 7Kaiser Permanente (2019). 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment, page 14. Retrieved from:
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/content/dam/internet/kp/comms/import/uploads/2019/09/Richmond-CHNA-2019.pdf 8Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society, U.C. Berkeley (2018). January 2018 Housing Policy and Belonging in Richmond Research Report. Retrieved from: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/56693/2020-Community-Needs- Assessment-Report
9RentCafe.com, (Accessed 7/19/2020). Richmond CA Rental Market Trends. Retrieved from:
https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/richmond/ 10U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs (Dollars) by Mortgage Status, Table B25088 (5-year estimate), 2014-2018. American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 11 U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Income In The Past 12 Months (In 2018 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars), Table S1901 (5-year estimate), 2014-2018. American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Page | 17
Figure 6: Increasing Cost of Rent
Source: Rent Jungle (2017). Average Rents in Richmond.
Individuals Experiencing Homelessness
The county-wide point-in-time count of homelessness12 identified the number of individuals experiencing homelessness and the number of individuals utilizing homelessness services.
There are many more individuals using homeless services than individuals who were identified as currently homeless, suggesting an undercount. The point-in-time count found within Richmond, 270 individuals experiencing homelessness in 2018, and 333 in 2019 representing 71% and 65% respectively of homeless individuals counted in West Contra Costa County. In 2018, there were an additional 1,119 individuals in Richmond who lost housing.
Kaiser Permanente’s 2019 Richmond Community Health Needs Assessment reports that professionals and residents alike “described concerns about the growing numbers of unstably housed and the displacement of families.”13
In 2020, there were 2,277 people experiencing homelessness across Contra Costa County.
Countywide, 7% of those experiencing homelessness were children under 18 and 5% were transitional age youth. There were 154 children experiencing homelessness identified in the county and 92 families with children.14 A 2018 review of data in the County continuum of care found that minors made up a third or more of individuals experiencing homelessness 12Contra Costa Health Services: Health, Housing and Homelessness (2018). Contra Costa County Homeless Continuum of Care 2018 Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/Annual-Report-2018.pdf 13Kaiser Permanente (2019). 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment. Retrieved from:
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/content/dam/internet/kp/comms/import/uploads/2019/09/Richmon d- CHNA-2019.pdf
14Contra Costa Health Services: Health, Housing and Homelessness (2020). Contra Costa County Annual Point in Time County Report. Retrieved from: https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/PIT-report-2020.pdf Average Richmond Rental Costs 2011 to 2019
$2,648
$1,213
2011
2019
Page | 18
identifying as Native Islanders (35%), Hispanics/Latinx (33%), and persons of multiple races (34%).15
County-wide, not all groups access
homelessness services as much as others.
Most notably in 2018, African Americans
were more likely to access services. They
represented 10% of the overall homeless
population but 39% of those receiving
services in Contra Costa County. Key
informant interviewees shared that there
was a need for centralized, simple
information to assist those attempting to
transition from homelessness, and that
case management was critical. The
interviewee expressed that children are
often segregated from parents at shelters
and they also feared that children might
be taken away from the parent as a
consequence of accessing services16.
There are insufficient shelter beds to
meet the needs of individuals and families
experiencing homelessness. In 2018,
there were 558 shelter beds for
individuals and 60 shelter beds for
families Countywide. This leaves 72% of
individuals and 40% of families
experiencing homelessness without
shelter.
15Contra Costa Health Services: Health, Housing and Homelessness (2019). Race & Ethnicity Equity Assessment:
Review of consumer’s 2018 demographic and service utilization data by race and ethnicity across the Continuum of Care Report. Retrieved from: https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/Race-Ethnicity-Assessment.pdf 16Richmond Department of Children and Youth (October 2020). Key Informant Interview: Youth and Families Experiencing Homelessness.
Page | 19
“The biggest fear for a parent experiencing
homelessness is that their child will be
taken away from them.”
- Key Informant Interview: Youth
and Families Experiencing Homelessness
“I would say personally the low income
subsidized housing that is what my family
used for almost all of our entire stay in
Richmond. From the age of ten, that is
when my family was able to afford a
house. We used to live in a small one
bedroom apartment and for a family of
five that was very crowded. Then when I
was ten we got approved for low income
housing, it took us three years being on
the waitlist.”
- Latinx Youth Focus Group
“I do think that rents are getting really high and cost is high and the reason why we stay here is because
Richmond is the most centered place, but everything
is so high like rent, food, and everything has been
raising their prices. It has been a challenge.”
- Parents/Guardians of Youth, Focus Group
“When I was younger I was adopted and they
promised my mom a lot of things for housing and
other resources. At the end they took them away so
once the youth turned eighteen it was as if they
were never in the system. I think this plays a big
part for foster youth, because even if they went to
a family we still need a lot of resources due to what
we went through.”
- Foster Youth and Emancipated, Focus group
“One of the downsides is that I’ve noticed
gentrification going up, prices increasing,
buildings looking more higher up in
comparison to others.”
- Latinx Youth, Focus Group
Page | 20
Immigrant and Undocumented Children, Youth, and Families Richmond and North Richmond has a large immigrant community that has grown in the last decade. The national climate for immigration has been even more difficult for families. Recent national efforts have created confusion as to whether accessing services will impact the pathway to citizenship for immigrants. For those that are undocumented, the threat of deportation has increased and threatened family well-being and mental health. This climate has added to the burdens faced by immigrants including language barriers, limitations on access to work, and discrimination.
Immigrant students reported in focus groups that they faced significant challenges in trying to do well in school while learning the English language. They felt that they needed additional support in order to succeed. Reportedly, this was particularly true of newcomers and unaccompanied minor immigrants who faced challenges not only with language but with navigating new systems often without sufficient family support. In terms of data, 53% of Richmond residents speak a language other than English and 20% of Richmond children and youth aged 5 to 17 speak a language other than English17 .
Figure 7: Foreign-Born Population, in California and WCCUSD by Age Group: 2012-2016 Age Groups
Foreign Born
California Population
Percent
Foreign Born
WCCUSD Enrollment
Percent
Ages 0-4 1.9% 1.6%
Ages 5-17 6.3% 8.1%
Ages 18-24 15.4% 22.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2018). American Community Survey. 17U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Language Spoken At Home, Table S1601 (5-year estimate), 2014-2018, American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Youth Survey
24% said immigration services benefited them or their families 24% said that language translation and interpretation benefited them or their families
Page | 21
“Schools don’t see that there are a
lot of immigrant students who
recently arrived and they don’t put
much focus on them.”
- Immigrant Youth Focus Group
“There is a lack of work and if
there is work you need
documents. I think immigrant
people need a lot of financial
help, because they don’t have
support from a stable job.”
- Immigrant Youth Focus Group
“Something hard that has been because of my
identity. I am Mexican and my mom is
undocumented and when we got to that age
where we started to talk about detention centers
and ICE. All this stuff that is going on in the
community. It was really hard for me to think
what am I going to do if my mom is not here. As a
young person having to constantly think about
what if they take my mom away from me, what if
they take one of my relatives is a struggle.”
- Latinx Youth Focus Group
“A lot of youth come here alone and they don’t have a place to go. Sometimes they live with friends of their family and a lot of them are disoriented or feel alone… I would like to see more support for them and their mental health because a lot of youth that come here have lived through different experiences in their life. Here they are set aside and that is not right.” - Immigrant Youth Focus Group
“I have had bad experiences looking for jobs
being an immigrant. There are places that pay
cash. I haven’t been able to get a job because
we have that barrier of not being able to…
I am in college and trying to get by, but you
can’t.”
- Immigrant Youth, Focus Group
Page | 22
LGBTQ+ Children, Youth and Families
It is difficult to estimate the number of children and youth who are LGBTQ+ in Richmond and North Richmond even though children today are identifying their sexual orientation at a younger age than in previous decades. According to a report by the Trevor Project, which highlights data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 1.8% of the 118,803 high school students surveyed in ten states and nine large urban school districts identified as transgender. The transgender youth who participated in the survey reported “significantly increased rates of depression, suicidality, and victimization” as compared to their peers. One in three of the transgender youth reported having attempted suicide in the previous year18 . Data from the California Healthy Kids Survey shows that those who do identify as Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual in Richmond and North Richmond face a number of challenges. This group reported more harassment than other children and youth who identified their sexuality as straight or “not sure”. Youth participating in focus groups shared that they felt it was difficult to feel like they belonged and that spaces like the RYSE Center were an important but rare resource in Richmond and North Richmond.
Figure 8: WCCUSD Students that were Bullied/ Harassed by Sexual Orientation: 2015-2017 West Contra Costa Unified School District
Students
Percent reporting they were bullied and harassed at
school for any reason in the previous year
Sexual Orientation Some None
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual 53.9% 46.1%
Straight 24.5% 75.5%
Not Sure 32.8% 67.2%
Source: WestEd, California Dept. of Education (March 2019). California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) and Biennial State CHKS.
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual identifying students in grades 9, 11 and in non-traditional programs were more likely to have seriously considered attempting suicide in the previous year (42.5%) than students who identified as “straight” (10.8%) or “not sure” (28.1%). This is also double that of any racial group whose responses ranged from 11.3% to 21.2%.
Figure 9: WCCUSD Students in grades 9 and 11 with Suicidal Ideation by Sexual Orientation:
2017-2019
West Contra Costa Unified School District Percent
Sexual Orientation Yes
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual 42.5%
Straight 10.8%
Not Sure 28.1%
Source: WestEd, California Dept. of Education (March 2019). California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) and Biennial State CHKS.
18TheTrevorProject.org (2019). The Trevor Project Research Brief: Data on Transgender Youth. Retrieved from:
https://www.thetrevorprojec t.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The -Trevor-Project-Research-Brief-February- 2019.pdf
Page | 23
“As a person in the LGBTQ, we were never
given a safe space before. To be
comfortable with one another and not
feeling like they have to fit in.”
- LGBTQ+ Youth Focus Group
“There’s a statistic where it says 25-30% of
LGBTQ youth are homeless and a good
percentage of that is youth of color and
Richmond is majority a community of color, and
one of my big dreams is to have a network of
people that can give resources for housing and
things like that for those in that have found
themselves in that situation. I think something
like that is important given it’s something that’s
been prevalent in our community for like
generations now and can be remedied through
networks in our community.”
- LGBTQ+ Youth Focus Group
Page | 24
Teen Parents and Families, including Single Mothers
The teen birth rate has been declining in much of the San Francisco Bay Area over the last decade. This is also true for Contra Costa County where teen births declined and remained under the state rate
Figure 10: California and Contra Costa County Teen Births per 1000: 1995 to 2016 Source: CDC WONDER, Natality Public-Use Data (Feb. 2019). California Dept. of Public Health, Birth Statistical Master Files.
There are many challenges faced by teen parents. Richmond does have a number of resources for parenting teens but focus group participants indicated there continue to be gaps such as child care support to enable teens to study and remain in school. As noted in Figure 4 on page 13, single mothers or all ages are also more likely to face poverty than households with more than one parent.
Page | 25
“Provide some sort of childcare
support for youth that have kids or
are single parents so they can go
study. Have it be for low income so
they can access it if they need it.”
- Immigrant Youth Focus Group
“[Need to have programs for single parent
households.] I would like to see a program were
there are male and female mentors and tutors
as well because as woman we can parent our
sons but we cannot father them and there is a
difference. So I would like to see a program in
place especially for ages twelve and up.”
- Parents/Guardians Focus Group
“In elementary school my mom couldn’t watch and
I had to be placed in an afterschool program. It
was really engaging, we had tutoring and got to go
to field trips sometimes. That is really beneficial for parents that have to work during the times
children get off of school.” –
- Asian Youth Focus Group
Page | 26
Young People with Poor Physical, Mental, Emotional and
Behavioral Health Outcomes and Disabilities
Kaiser Permanente’s 2019 Richmond Community Health Needs Assessment designated behavioral health, including mental health and substance abuse, as one of the top three needs of the Richmond community. They noted that “Community members from the service area emphasized depression and stress as well as the co-occurrence of mental health and substance abuse.”
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic crisis, many students responding to surveys reported feelings of depression and anxiety.
Figure 11: Percentage of WCCUSD Staff who Believe Student Depression or Mental Health Is a Problem at School: 2015-2017
West Contra Costa Unified School District Percent
Type of School Insignificant
Problem
Mild Problem Moderate
Problem
Severe
Problem
Elementary School 33.4% 45.6% 15.4% 5.5%
Middle School 13.7% 40.3% 30.0% 16.0%
High School 8.8% 39.2% 38.0% 14.1%
Non-Traditional 0.0% 20.7% 44.8% 34.5%
Source: WestEd, California Department of Education (March 2019). California School Staff Survey.
A large number of students reported thinking about suicide. Rates were particularly high for Asian students (21.2%) and multiracial students (19.1%). As noted above, rates for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual students were more than double that of other groups at 42.5%.
Figure 12: Suicidal Ideation (Student Reported), by Race/Ethnicity: 2017-2019 West Contra Costa Unified School District Percent
Race/Ethnicity Yes
African American/Black 11.3%
American Indian/Alaska Native 11.8%
Asian 21.2%
Hispanic/Latino 14.1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 15.6%
White 15.4%
Multiracial 19.1%
Other 12.5%
Source: WestEd, California Dept. of Education (August 2020). California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) and Biennial State CHKS.
Page | 27
Young People Not in School
Graduation rates in Richmond indicate that many youths are not completing school. The schools that primarily serve youth from Richmond have the lowest graduation rates in WCCUSD which include De Anza High School (90%), Richmond High School (82%), and Kennedy High School (71%). This suggests that many young people are not in school and many of those youth are also not employed and therefore defined as “disconnected youth.” Disconnected Youth
Disconnected youth are defined as youth ages 16-19 who are not enrolled in school and not employed. This measure has significant implications for well-being. In 2018, 15% of Richmond youth were disconnected from school and work.19
Figure 13: Percent of Disconnected Youth in Richmond and Contra Costa County Source: Bay Area Equity Atlas (2015). Percent of Disconnected Youth in Richmond and Contra Costa County. 19For more information, see: U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Sex By School Enrollment By Educational Attainment By Employment Status For The Population 16 To 19 Years, Table B14005 (5 -year estimate), 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
Page | 28
System-Involved Young People (Foster Youth and Transitional Age Youth, Justice-Involved Youth)
Justice-Involved Youth
The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) and the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) Consolidated Annual Plan demographics show that 72% of cases referred to the Probation Department between 2015 and 2017 were high school aged youth between the ages of 14 and 17 with over 75% of these being male. The disparities in these data are dramatic. For example, in 2016 approximately 9% of youth in Contra Costa County were Black while 46% of cases referred to Probation in that year were Black.20
The number of youths in Contra Costa County served by probation declined since 2015 from 1,295 to 509 in 2019. The decline is largely attributed to the decrease in misdemeanor probation cases. The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) and the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) Consolidated Annual Plan used a review of quantitative data, and a series of focus groups and interviews with juvenile justice stakeholders to identify the following needs and gaps in services that are key to successful reentry and rehabilitation for Contra Costa youth.
These include the following gaps by issue area:
Behavioral health services
• Insufficient capacity and availability of mental health services that are both culturally and gender-responsive
• Limited youth-appropriate substance use treatment services Housing
• Limited affordable housing for youth and transitional housing for transitional age youth Geographic service accessibility
• Disparities in services by region
Prosocial supports and personal development
• Limited number of and access to prevention programs for youth • Limited mentoring and peer support opportunities for youth Diversion and prevention services
• Limited county-wide approach to informally and formally divert youth • Limited information about available juvenile justice system prevention options 20Contra Costa County Probation Department (2020-21). JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan FY2020-2021, page
12. Retrieved from: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/64393/JJCC-3-12-20-Packet?bidId= Page | 29
Systemwide coordination
• Limited service coordination and information sharing among juvenile justice system partners • Limited data collection at the County and program level Systemic barriers
• Youth experience barriers to employment opportunities • Re-entering youth experience barriers enrolling into traditional schools • Racial disparities exist at various points in the juvenile justice system21 Youth in Foster Care
The number of foster youths enrolled In West Contra Costa Unified School District has been declining for the last four years. There were 119 foster youth enrolled in West Contra Costa Unified School District in 2019 and 157 in 2016.22 In Contra Costa County the rate of children and youth (birth to age 20) in foster care is 3.7 per 1,000. The rate decreases for Asian/Pacific Islander children (0.9 per 1,000), White children (2.7 per 1,000) and Hispanic/Latino children (2.8 per 1,000). The rate more than quadruples for Black/African American children (17.3 per 1,000).23 From 2009 to 2017 the number of African American/Black Children in foster care declined. At the same time, the number of Hispanic/Latino children in foster care has increased.
It is well known that youth in foster care often experience difficulty in transitioning out of foster care given the probability that there may not be ongoing family support as they become independent adults. Transitional age youth are at increased risk of homelessness and are an important priority population.
“I agree that people should be screened if they are working with youth that have certain experiences. There are some people that do care, but there are others that are just there...Through [this] program I felt more supported as a foster youth.”
“At times kids go into the juvenile system because of things they are not able to deal with. Sometimes they are able to become successful but in order to get resources and help it seems like they need to be in the system first. These
resources should be available to them without having to go into the system.”
- TAY/Foster Youth and Emancipated, Focus Group
- TAY/Foster Youth and Emancipated, Focus Group
“Have more connectedness between programs; connecting
juvenile system-involved youth to programs for schooling, jobs, mental health, and mentorship.”
- Justice-Involved Youth Focus Group
21Contra Costa County Probation Department (2020-21). JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan FY2020-2021, page 19-22. Retrieved from: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/64393/JJCC-3-12-20- Packet?bidId=
22As cited on kidsdata.org, “Foster Youth in Public Schools.”, 2015-2019 Table. Data origins: California Dept. of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Unduplicated Pupil Count (UPC) Source Files (Sept. 2019). Retrieved from: https://www.kidsdata.org/ 23As cited on kidsdata.org, “Children in Foster Care, by Race/Ethnicity.”, 2018 Table. Data origins: Webster, D., et al. California Child Welfare Indicators Project Reports. UC Berkeley Center for Social Services Research (Jul. 2019).
Retrieved from: https://www.kidsdata.org/
Page | 30
What We Found: Priority Areas that
Cross Multiple Populations
Education and Learning: Early childhood, K-12, college and career (with COVID 19 reflections)
In the 2019 National Community Survey of Richmond, residents were asked what areas the City should prioritize in order to best support young people in Richmond. Education and Job Training received the highest response rate selecting this as a priority (82% of 308 responses) 24 .
Early Childhood Care and Education
In Richmond, access to early learning is inadequate with insufficient availability of placements for infants, children 3-4 years old, and school aged children. The percentage gap in childcare seats is biggest for infant care though infants make up the smallest group of children in need of care. The gap is biggest for school age children by quantity of seats needed.
Figure 14: Percentage of Child Care Demand Met
Source: Contra Costa County (2018). Contra Costa County Comprehensive Child Care Needs Assessment 2017 - 2027.
24National Research Center and ICMA (2019). The National Community Survey, Richmond, CA Technical Appendices. Retrieved from: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/52256/The-NCS-Technical- Appendices---Richmond-2019
Page | 31
Beyond access to early learning and childcare resources, there are many factors that contribute to a child's readiness for school including getting enough sleep, attending kindergarten and preschool, having higher family income and high maternal education levels, having a two parent household, and activities that prepare the child with information about kindergarten. Black and Hispanic children, English language learners, and children with special needs tend to have lower levels of preparedness. The interplay of these factors suggest that resources targeted to low income households may have a “pronounced impact on school readiness”.25 Figure 15: Percent of West Contra Costa Kindergarten Students who are Ready for School Source Data: First 5 Contra Costa County (2017). “Ready or Not Here We Come!: An Assessment of Kindergarten Readiness in Contra Costa County 2017.” Note: “ready” is defined as a combination of kindergarten academic skills, social expression and self-regulation.
25First 5 Contra Costa County (2017). “Ready or Not Here We Come!: An Assessment of Kindergarten Readiness in Contra Costa County 2017.” Retrieved from: http://www.first5coco.org/
Page | 32
Education and College and Career Readiness
The Diversity of the Student Population in Richmond and North Richmond. The West Contra Costa Unified School District (District) serves 32,143 students, 48% of whom attend a Richmond-based school. The majority of the students are Hispanic/Latino youth (56%), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (15%), Black/African American (14%), White (10%), and Two or More Races (4%). For a complete breakdown of race and ethnicity by school see Figure A.1 in Appendix A.
Figure 16. 2019-20 WCCUSD District Student Demographics (N=32,143) Source: California Department of Education (2019-20). 2019-2020 Enrollment by Ethnicity table.
Academic Success
Two commonly-cited predictors of a young person’s academic success are 3rd grade literacy and 8th grade math proficiency. The California Assessment of Student Performance and Academic Progress determines whether students are performing at grade level; results are reported as Standard Exceeded, Standard Met, Standard Nearly Met, and Standard Not Met. In Figure 17 and 18, we see that in both math and literacy measures, students who were socioeconomically disadvantaged, homeless, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander did not meet the standards.
In the 2018-19 school year, 32% of 3rd graders across the District met or exceeded the English Language Arts standard. Only 21% of students who were socioeconomically disadvantaged and 18% of students who were homeless met the standards. The highest performing subgroup were White students, of whom 60% met or exceeded the standards. Additionally, Asian, Filipino, and students of Two or More Races had higher percentages than the District average. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students had the smallest percentage, 12%, of students meeting or exceeding the English Language Arts standards of any racial/ethnic subgroup, followed by Black/African American students at 16%, and Hispanic/Latino students at 23%.
Page | 33
Figure 17. 2018-2019 Met or Exceeded 3rd Grade English Language Arts Standards (Districtwide)
Socio-
economically
Disadvantaged
Homeless Black / African
American
Asian Filipino Hispanic /
Latino
Native
Hawaiian /
Pacific Islander
White Two or More
Races
Source: California Department of Education (2018-19). 2018-2019 Met or Exceeded 3rd Grade English Language Arts Standards (Districtwide).
In the 2018-19 school year, 17% of 8th graders across the District met or exceeded the Math standard but only 10% of students who were socioeconomically disadvantaged and 7% of students who were homeless met the standards. Black/African American students were the lowest performing racial/ethnic subgroup with only 3% meeting or exceeding the English Language Arts standard, followed by Hispanic/Latino students at 10%. The highest performing subgroup were White students, of whom 45% met or exceeded the standards. Additionally, Asian, Filipino, and students of Two or More Races had higher percentages than the District average.
54%
44%
54%
60%
21%
12%
16%
18%
23%
Page | 34
Figure 18: 2018-2019 Met or Exceeded 8th Grade Math Standards (Districtwide) Socio-
economically
Disadvantaged
Homeless Black / African
American
Asian Filipino Hispanic /
Latino
White Two or More
Races
Source: California Department of Education (2018-19). 2018-2019 Met or Exceeded 8th Grade Math Standards (Districtwide).
High School Graduation Rate
The 2018-19 high school graduation rate by school is in Figure 19 below. The schools that primarily serve youth from Richmond have the lowest graduation rates; De Anza High School (90%), Richmond High School (82%), Kennedy High School (71%). Middle College High is co- located at Contra Costa College and allows students to earn high school and college credit.
Students must apply to attend Middle College High and their graduation rate is 99%.
Figure 19. 2018-2019 Graduation Rate by School
Middle Hercules Pinole Valley De Anza High El Cerrito Richmond Vista High John F. Greenwood College High High High High High (Alternative) Kennedy Academy High (Alternative)
Source: California Department of Education (2018-19). 2018-2019 Graduation Rate by School. 7%
3%
22%
33%
38%
45%
10%
10%
99% 93.7% 90.1% 90.5% 87.0% 82.0% 77.6% 70.5%
45.0%
Page | 35
Chronic Absenteeism
Chronic absenteeism is defined as students who have missed 10% or more of the school days.
The data below refers to the 2018-2019 school year. Districts and schools are rethinking attendance and chronic absenteeism for the 2019-2020 school year as many students missed days due to the COVID-19 shelter in place orders and subsequent distance learning.
Overall, the District has a chronic absenteeism rate of 17%. Pacific Islander students have the highest rate of chronic absenteeism at 32% followed by Black/African American students (26%) and American Indian/Alaskan Native students (24%), see Figure 20 below. Homeless youth and youth in the foster care system also have high rates of chronic absenteeism, 38% and 34%, respectively. Socioeconomic disadvantaged youth have only a slightly higher, 20%, rate than the Districtwide rate. See Appendix A Figure A2. for the chronic absenteeism rate by school.
Figure 20. 2018-2019 Chronic Absenteeism (Districtwide) by Race/Ethnicity Black /
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian Filipino Pacific
Islander
Hispanic or
Latino
White Two or
More
Races
Source: California Department of Education (2018-19). 2018-2019 Chronic Absenteeism (Districtwide) by Race/Ethnicity.
English Language Learners
Students are classified into four primary language groups: English only; Initial fluent English proficient, English learner, and Reclassified fluent English proficient. Districtwide there are 10,045 students classified as English learners, 83% of which speak Spanish. Arabic, Portuguese, Filipino (Tagalog), Urdu, Punjabi, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Mandarin (Putonghua) are each spoken by 1% of the English Learners with dozens of other languages each spoken by fewer than 1% of the English Learners.
Students experiencing homelessness (53%) and foster youth (77%) are more likely to speak English-only compared to the District average (44%). Socioeconomically disadvantaged students (40%) are more likely to be English Learners than the District average (31%). Socioeconomically 8%
19%
11%
16%
8%
24%
26%
32%
Page | 36
17.1%
28.1%
39.8%
33.3%
52.8%
77.1%
disadvantaged students (23%) are slightly more likely to be designated as Reclassified Fluent English Proficient than the District average (20%). See Figure 21 below.
Figure 21. 2019-2020 English Learners (District) by Subgroup
43.7%
Socio Economic
Homeless
Foster
District
4.0%
4.8%
2.7% 1.9%
31.3%
20.1%
3.8%
English Only (EO) Initial Fluent English
Proficient (IFEP)
English Learner (EL) Reclassified Fluent
English Proficient
(RFEP)
Source: California Department of Education (2018-19). 2019-2020 English Learners (District) by Subgroup.
There are 52 schools in the West Contra Costa Unified School District that meet the 15% and above threshold for translation support, all of these schools qualify for Spanish translation.
Out of School Enrichment Participation and Barriers
In the fall of 2019 and January of 2020, Information Technology Academy students at Kennedy High School took part in a collaborative research project with Y-PLAN (Center for Cities + School, UC Berkeley). In total, Kennedy High School students conducted surveys and received 572 English survey responses and 85 Spanish survey responses. Despite the supply of afterschool enrichment activities, many students surveyed as part of Y-PLAN at Kennedy Highschool were not participating in extracurricular activities. When asked if they would if they could, 74% of respondents said they were likely or very likely to participate. When asked what barriers they faced to participation, barriers such as costs, lack of information about the programs, and transportation were some of the top reasons. The figures on the following page are examples from the Y-PLAN Student Survey conducted at Kennedy High School in the fall of 2019 and January of 2020. Students indicated they would participate in after-school programs if they were able to, indicating a need to increase access as well as awareness.
15.9%
22.7%
Page | 37
Figure 22. Participation in After School Programs among English and Spanish Speaking Students
Source: Kennedy High School, IT Academy (2020). Y-Plan Student Survey.
Page | 38
Figure 23. Barriers to Participation among English and Spanish Speaking Students Source: Kennedy High School, IT Academy (2020). Y-Plan Student Survey.
Page | 39
Needs During COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place
During this needs assessment, youth and families in Richmond and around the world were subject to a shelter-in-place and social distancing order. On March 15, 2020, all West Contra Costa Unified Schools closed at noon. The schools moved to distance learning for the remainder of the 2019-20 school year. The Youth Truth Survey administered in the Spring of 2020 during shelter-in-place school closures found the following obstacles to learning among youth surveyed.26
Figure 24. What Resources or Supports Does your Family Still Need Source: YouthTruthSurvey.org (2020). Spring 2020 Youth Truth Survey.
The District has provided several online resources for families, including mobile hotspots via families’ smart phones, however, there are more applicants than mobile hotspots. The District is providing support for staff and families that request technology needs. The District has also aimed to provide Chromebooks and tablets to students and has established a Tech Support Hotline.
“We lack a lot of resources compared to nearby
communities. Teachers leave halfway through
[the school year].”
“I would have to say a lack of funding for
school supplies, like books especially,
because at our school we have used books
from Kennedy High School and De Anza
High School. And sometimes the books are
really damaged so we don’t really have
good adequate books.”
- Asian Youth Focus Group
- Black Youth Focus Group
“Academics now that I work with an
organization that helps students go to college. I
definitely see the difference in what I learned in
school and the classes they offered in my school
versus what they get offered.”
- Latinx Youth Focus Group
26 YouthTruthSurvey.org and West Contra Costa Unified School District (2020). Students Weigh In: Learning and Well-Being During COVID-19 Report. Retrieved from: https://youthtruthsurvey.org/student-weigh-in/
Page | 40
College access
Student Aid for College
In West Contra Costa Unified School District, 61% of all youth in the 2013-14 school year submitted a FAFSA -- an increase of almost 20% from the 2011-12 school year (45%). 75% of youth in the West Contra Costa Unified School District applied for Cal Grants, which is a significant increase from 38% in the 2011-12 school year.
College Going Rates
In the West Contra Costa Unified School District, 82% of the 2018 high school graduating class enrolled in college full time after their senior year (2018-19 academic year). This is an increase from the previous 2017 high school graduating class where only 51% enrolled in college after their senior year. This is in part due to the partnership between the District and Richmond Promise to College, an academic supports and scholarship program for students living in the City of Richmond.
Overall, the 2017 high school graduating class was more likely to attend a two-year college (66%) than a four-year university (34%). The 2017 high school graduating class enrolled full- time were more likely to attend a four-year university (60%) than a 2-year college (40%). The top five schools attended by the 2017 high school graduating class are Contra Costa College, Diablo Valley College, Berkeley City College, San Francisco State University, and University of California, Davis.27
27National Student Clearing House (2017). Richmond/West Contra Costa College Success Learning Convening data.
Retrieved from: https://www.studentclearinghouse.org/
Page | 41
“Education and career guidance
because a lot of people who I know are
first generation going to college and
need support services. Like counseling
and college preparation. I know a lot of
students miss out on that because we
don’t have people to tell us about it.”
- Asian Youth Focus Group
“Programs like college prep or can
help you find mentors in the career
you want to be in really helps you. It
can help people create a network.”
- Asian Youth Focus Group
“In high school …they don’t have programs
that guide or support them so they can go
to college. Because at times they need
some motivation to attend college and they
end up finishing only high school then they
might end up becoming involved in drugs
and stuff like that. I think having programs
for the youth to give them motivation to go
to college or guide them.”
~Immigrant Youth Focus Group
“I want there to be a training program
that helps you apply for college and
scholarships. When I applied I didn't’
know what I was doing. So they can let
you immigrant youth know what you
need to do or have. A lot of people
think that if they are immigrants they
think that they don’t qualify because
they don’t have a social or green card.”
~Immigrant Youth Focus Group
Page | 42
Health: Mental Health, Nutrition and Healthy Living, Asthma and Tobacco/E-Cigarette Rates, Students with Disabilities, and Community Safety
Richmond as a city has made a commitment to health equity, adopting the Health in All Policies Ordinance and Strategy (HiAP) in 2014. The ordinance commits the city to evaluating and prioritizing services that promote health equity.28 Health in All Policies takes the approach of addressing the social determinants of health with multiple departments addressing the stressors that are related to the zip code residents live in. Health in All Policies also provides a piece of the foundation that the Department of Children and Youth can build upon to reduce disparities and promote equity for children and youth.
In 2019, Kaiser Permanente conducted a Richmond Community Health Needs Assessment which included children, youth, and their families in Richmond and the surrounding cities/towns of Crockett, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Hercules, Pinole, Rodeo, and San Pablo in Contra Costa County, as well as the nearby unincorporated areas29 . Overall Richmond accounts for just under half of the population of the needs assessment area. The Kaiser report found that the priority health needs were Economic Security, Health Care Access and Delivery, Behavioral health including mental health and substance abuse.
Mental Health
The Spring 2020 YouthTruth Youth COVID Survey showed that 41% of Elementary and Middle School students and 62% of high school students in Richmond felt depressed, stressed or anxious and that was making it difficult for them to do the at-home learning opportunities.
The stress being felt by children and youth during the COVID-19 pandemic is the most recent manifestation of an ongoing challenge with trauma and mental health among children and youth in Richmond and North Richmond. In the 2019 Kaiser report 30 , a local health expert is quoted as saying, “If young people are coming to school dealing with their own trauma in their neighborhood, it impacts their ability to thrive. The report notes that expulsions in the Kaiser Foundation Hospital- Richmond service area were 375% higher than the state average according to 2016-17 California Department of Education data. 28City of Richmond (2014-2015). Health in All Policies Report. Retrieved from:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/36978/HiAP_Report_Final?bidId = 29Kaiser Permanente (2019). 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment. Retrieved from:
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/content/dam/inter net/kp/comms/import/uploads/2019/09/Richmon d- CHNA-2019.pdf
30Kaiser Permanente (2019). 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment. Retrieved from:
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/content/dam/internet/kp/comms/import/uploads/2019/09/Richmon d- CHNA-2019.pdf
Page | 43
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
In Richmond. 67% of families with children under the age of 18 receive the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 30% of individuals who are Hispanic/Latinx participate in SNAP. Overall, 11% of all households in Richmond receive SNAP.
Healthy Eating and Active Living
Many areas of Richmond are food deserts with limited access to fresh healthy foods. According to a study by Social Compact, Richmond has a ‘grocery gap’ wherein many residents are underserved by food retailers and have to travel longer than average distances to find a store.31 • About 33% of the Richmond study area total population (or 30,878 people) reside in “critical food access areas” - areas considered underserved when compared to the study area as a whole. Their data indicates that many communities demonstrate market potential that could support additional grocery retail development • 18% of the Richmond study area population (or 16,832 people) reside in areas considered underserved – when compared to the study area as a whole – again, these communities demonstrate market potential to support additional grocery retail development. These areas are characterized as “critical food access and market opportunity areas”
Children and youth who attend schools in West Contra Costa Unified School District participate in California Department of Education’s Annual Physical Fitness Test of 5th , 7th and 9th graders.
Districtwide in 2018, 50% of all 5th graders, 45% of all 7th graders, and 43% of all 9th graders were overweight or obese.32
Figure 25. Percent of District Youth Who Are Overweight or Obese by Grade and Race/Ethnicity.
Source: California Department of Education (2018-19). Annual Physical Fitness Test. 31Social Compact (Accessed July 17, 2020). Richmond Grocery Gap. Retrieved from :
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7976/FINAL -GroceryGap_Report_Richmon d 32As cited on kidsdata.org, “Children’s Physical Fitness in California”. Data origins: California Department of Education, 2018-2019 Physical Fitness Testing Research Files downloaded. Retrieved from:
https://www.kidsdata.org/
Page | 44
Districtwide in the 2018-19 school year, 13% of 5th graders met all six of the physical fitness standards as defined by the California Department of Education. 27% of 7 th graders and 9th graders also met all six standards.33 Districtwide in 2018, 60% of 9th graders and 61% of 11th graders reported exercising for at least sixty minutes per day.
Figure 26. Percent of District Youth Who Reported Exercising for at least sixty minutes by Number of Days
0 days 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days
Grade 9 14% 6% 7% 15% 12% 19% 8% 21%
Grade
11 24% 7% 10% 13% 13% 15% 5% 28%
Source: California Department of Education (2017-18). California Healthy Kids Survey School Reports.
Asthma Rates
In 2016, 15.2% of all children in California were diagnosed with asthma. The percent of children with asthma (23.6%) is significantly higher in Contra Costa County, which has the state’s fourth highest county asthma rate.34 The asthma hospitalization rate in Contra Costa County is
9.8/10,000. Children ages 0-4 are the most impacted with an asthma-related hospitalization rate of 17.6/10,000.35 It is likely that asthma in Richmond and North Richmond is linked to the overall air quality which is impacted by the location of Richmond and North Richmond near major freeways and the siting of polluting industries in the area.
Tobacco/E-cigarette Rates
The California Healthy Kids Survey is distributed to every school in the West Contra Costa Unified School District. The survey asks students to self-report the number of times they have smoked or vaped on school property. Districtwide, the rates are relatively low. Only 2% of 5th graders reported smoking a cigarette or vaping on school property. The vast majority of 5th graders (92%) reported that cigarettes were very bad for your health, and 79% indicated that vaping was very bad for your health. In 7th , 9th , and 11th grades, 2-3% of students reported 33As cited on kidsdata.org, “Children’s Physical Fitness in California”. Data origins: California Department of Education, 2018-2019 Physical Fitness Testing Research Files downloaded. Retrieved from:
https://www.kidsdata.org/
34As cited on kidsdata.org, “Childhood Asthma in California”. Data origins: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (Mar. 2018), California Health Interview Survey. Retrieved from: https://www.kidsdata.org/ 35As cited on kidsdata.org, “Childhood Asthma in California”. Data origins: California Dept. of Finance, and U.S.
Census Bureau: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (Feb. 2019), California Breathing.
Retrieved from: https://www.kidsdata.org/
Page | 45
Native Pacific Hispanic Black /
Asian Multi African- White
having smoked a cigarette on school property. The percentage of older students who reported vaping were higher; 5-6% of 7th , 9th , and 11th graders.36 Students with disabilities
In the 2018-19 school year, the District served 4,167 students with disabilities. Students who identify as Black/African American represent 22% of all students with a disability; however, they represent only 14% of students’ Districtwide. Approximately, 29% of all students with a diagnosed intellectual disability are Black/African American more than double their representation in the total student body.
Figure 27. 2018-2019 Students with Disabilities by Race American Islander / Latino American
Intellectual Disability * 21 * * 148 75 12
Hard of Hearing 0 20 0 * 53 13 *
Deaf 0 * 0 * 13 * *
Speech or Language
Impairment * 75 * 57 610 149 81
Visual Impairment 0 * 0 0 20 * *
Emotional Disturbance 0 * 0 * * 27 *
Orthopedic Impairment 0 * * * 37 14 *
Other Health Impairment 0 12 * 13 92 80 33
Specific Learning Disability∗ * 83 * 47 1,005 437 151
Deaf- Blindness 0 0 0 0 * 0 *
Multiple Disability * * 0 0 * * *
Autism * 131 * 41 260 125 77
Traumatic Brain Injury 0 * 0 0 * * *
* Denotes values of 10 or less
Source: 2018-19 California Department of Education
36West Contra Costa Unified School District and California Department of Education (2017 -18). California Healthy Kids Survey, 2017-18: Main Report, San Francisco: WestEd Health & Human Development Program for the California Department of Education. Retrieved from:
https://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib/CA01001466/Centricity/Domain/11/West_Contra_Costa_Unified_1718_Sec_CH KS.pdf
∗Specific Learning Disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
Page | 46
“Another program that I would like to see
in the Asian community is one where we
talk more about mental health and mental
health awareness. I feel like mental health
is still a very taboo topic and some Asian
American communities.”
- Asian Youth Focus Group
“I think having health resources
like psychologists for the youth
because sometimes they are
dealing with different things in
their life like problems at home,
or experiencing bullying at
school, and depression.”
- Immigrant Youth Focus Group
“We need more mental health services for
children, in California a lot of them qualify
for ACES. My younger daughter scored ten
out of ten in ACES and that is the highest
you can go. It was hard navigating and
finding support for her so our kids need
that.”
- Parents/Guardians Focus Group
“There are oil refineries near
the schools which kind of affects
the students and their health.
One time it exploded and we
couldn’t leave school because of
that.”
- Asian Youth Focus Group
Page | 47
Community Safety
In the Kaiser 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment, participants prioritized community and family safety. “Crime, violence, and intentional injury are related to poorer physical and mental health for the victims, perpetrators, and community at large.” Participants expressed concern for children and youth in particular because of issues such as witnessing or being a victim of violence, trauma, and bullying/cyber bullying. The 2019 National Community Survey of Richmond asked residents what areas the City should prioritize in order to best support young people in Richmond. Violence prevention and response received the second highest response rate with 73% of respondents (275 responses) selecting this as a priority37.
We know that exposure to violence can result in trauma for children and can interfere with their development and their learning. Violence was reported by focus group participants as a negative factor impacting the ability of children and youth to access resources, move freely, and to feel safe. In North Richmond, the 2019 Quality of Life Plan identified the need for “supportive environments that are conducive to their learning and education” and “that promote message of social cohesion and belonging. The North Richmond Quality of Life Plan (Plan) process also identified public safety as a priority. As stated in the Plan, "Ultimately we envision a safe and prosperous environment that is home to healthy and engaged residents and creates positive opportunities and outcomes for young people."38 37National Research Center and ICMA (2019). The National Community Survey, Richmond, CA Technical Appendices. Retrieved from: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/52256/The-NCS-Technical- Appendices---Richmond-2019
38Healthy Richmond (2019). North Richmond Quality of Life Plan, (Richmond , CA). Retrieved from:
https://healthyrichmond.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/QoL-digital-english.pdf 39Aran Watson, Kanwarpal Dhaliwal, and Kimberly Aceves (2016). The RYSE Center’s Listening Campaign:
Community-engaged inquiry of young people’s experiences and articulations of trauma, violence, coping, and healing report. Retrieved from:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ece61644024383be911a95/t/593e57012e69cf4a3e12ec6d/1497257742 081/RYSE+Listening+Report+2016.pdf
The RYSE Center’s Listening Campaign Report from 2016 identified 56 types of violence that participating youth identified as most significant in Richmond.39 The RYSE report identified “five categories of violence most commonly identified by youth as most impactful”. Of the 1020 responses, the following were the most frequent.
• Gun violence and gang or turf related forms of violence (456 responses) • Peer-based forms of violence, including fighting, getting jumped, bullying, dating violence, and forms of harassment (147 responses)
• Drug-related violence, including violence connected to the use and sale of drugs as well as violence seen as committed because of using drugs (155 responses) • Family-based or in-home forms of violence, including intimate partner violence, physical, sexual, verbal and emotional abuse, as well as neglect (139 responses) Page | 48
The documentation of youth voices in the RYSE reports also describes continuing threads shared by youth in the listening sessions: the familiarity with violence and the consistent presence of tension created by the risk of violence.
“From self-harming and giving up on oneself through larger forces of violence and oppression, youth shared repeated themes of feeling overwhelmed and marginalized at every level of exposure. One of the most significantly challenging aspects of exposure to ongoing and multi- formed violence is attempting to address one’s trauma/s while still relationally and ambiently submerged in a context of violence.”41
Police Use of Force
In 2016-2017 there were 18 incidents of Police use of force per 100,000 people in Richmond.
The rate is slightly higher at 20 incidents per 100,000 people who are Latino/Hispanic and more than doubles at 41 incidents per 100,000 people who are Black/African American. The rate decreases by half at 10 incidents per 100,000 people who are White.42 40Aran Watson, Kanwarpal Dhaliwal, and Kimberly Aceves (2016). The RYSE Center’s Listening Campaign, ibid, p.
15. 41Aran Watson, Kanwarpal Dhaliwal, and Kimberly Aceves (2016). The RYSE Center’s Listening Campaign, ibid, p.
19. 42Bay Area Equity Atlas (2016-2017). Police use of force. Retrieved from:
https://bayareaequityatlas.org/indicators/police-use-of-force#/ ““The safety in some areas, it is
sad that the majority of low
income areas the parks are
unsafe and it is the area where a
lot of families are but we have to
go farther away to parks or other
safer places. Throughout the
years I’ve been here I have seen
this.”
- Parents/Guardians Focus Group
“I just went back home to Richmond and
saw some of my close friends at the park
where I grew up and they told me about
nearly being shot during a police raid
and/or have been caught during the
crossfire of a shoot-out. It truly broke my
heart hearing their stories. In my ideal
Richmond, I would like to see less police
militarization and more mental health
counselors. I would like to make the
mindset of going to college a reality and
not a far-fetched goal.”
- Latinx Youth Focus Group
• Sexual violence, including sexual harassment, sexual molestation, rape, date rape, sexual abuse, incest, and larger community and societal pressures on female sexuality (80 responses)40 Source: RYSE Center Listening Campaign
Page | 49
Recommended Priorities
Priorities Emerging from the Community Needs Assessment Youth and Family Voices: surveys, focus groups, forums and secondary data The Community Needs Assessment (CNA) included interviews, focus groups, community forums, secondary data review, and a synthesis of multiple existing reports and resources in the community. It was challenging to adapt the process to a virtual environment and, like much under the conditions of social distancing and virtual interaction, the result is imperfect.
Nevertheless, there is significant convergence within the data and among the youth and community voices that participated in and guided the process.
We listened carefully and noted that there was strong convergence around a number of topics.
The following are the top priorities emerging from the CNA. #1 Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness
The issue of mental health and well-being was a concern across all of the focus groups that were conducted. Given high levels of violence and need across Richmond and North Richmond, we would expect many children and youth in Richmond and North Richmond to score high on the Adverse Childhood Experience Assessment (ACES) signaling high levels of trauma. This is particularly true for Black and Latinx residents who are disproportionately exposed to violence leading to long term impacts on health and well-being. Trauma-informed programming, as well as mental health programs, emerged as a significant need for children youth and families along with the need for that programming to consider the rich diversity of residents, many of whom are experiencing the trauma of the constant threat of family deportation, violence in the community, discrimination and more. Coinciding with these stressors on youth, there is a concern that some youth are turning to alcohol and drug abuse. Also, the need for culturally fluent approaches is central to filling this gap as many of Richmond and North Richmond’s children, youth, and families come from non-western cultures where there may be barriers and stigma attached to western approaches to mental health and wellness programming.
Page | 50
#2 Education Support and Employment Training/Support
The need for education support and employment training emerged across surveys, focus groups, forums and other sources. Richmond and North Richmond children and youth want the chance to excel in school and move successfully to college and career. There was a strong desire for college access programs, tutoring, wraparound support for those who may be struggling such as transitional age youth or new immigrants arriving as unaccompanied minor children. The latter group also needs accelerated language learning. In addition, participants identified mentoring, internships, and job skills training as key to their success. In addition, access to resources such as high-speed internet and computer equipment such as tablets has become a priority in the current distance learning environment. Participants often pointed to disparities between nearby, wealthier districts outside of Richmond and North Richmond that are better resourced and have programs, tools, and infrastructure that allow for students to excel.
#3 Out of School Time, Afterschool, Sports, and Enrichment Low cost or no cost out-of-school and after-school sports and enrichment programming scored high as both desired and needed for youth to thrive across groups. Sports were a popular suggestion as were outdoor activities such as gardening and hiking. The arts were very often mixed in with responses to sports but also were often singled out as highly desirable (music, dance, visual arts were all mentioned). Culturally relevant arts and other programming to help them to build awareness, strengthen self-esteem, and create a sense of belonging. Some groups stated there were few or no respectful and safe spaces to be with others like them. For example, Asian focus group participants felt that they were marginalized in many programs where their cultural differences were not recognized. This group discussed the solution of a “club” or space where multiple Asian cultures could be celebrated, practiced, and shared.
A persistent challenge facing youth in North Richmond is the scarcity of places where they can experience joy and happiness. Youth need supportive environments that are conducive to their learning and education and promote messages of social cohesion and belonging. Indoor and outdoor gathering spaces should provide for the civic, educational, social, and recreational needs of the community.
Page | 51
#4 Information, Guidance, and Case Management
For children, youth, and families, there were a number of voices across the spectrum of youth residents that reported on how difficult it is to navigate the Richmond and North Richmond environment of youth services. Almost all community engagement activities during the CNA identified the need for support that would assist community members in understanding what resources were out there and whether they qualified to access them. Many of those surveyed said they did not access services because they did not know about them. Young people expressed the need for help, including coaching or case management, in navigating the turn toward independence or the journey to college success. Case management or at the very least guidance from a caring adult is needed so that children, youth, and their families can understand and access the services available. Parents and guardians need more support with understanding what was offered and how to make the best use of these programs and services for their children. Information and case management was also mentioned as critical to individuals experiencing homeless successfully regaining housing. This information needs to be in multiple languages with extra effort to reach marginalized children, youth, and their families. #5 Youth Violence Prevention
Violence in the community came up as a barrier to participation and even as a significant barrier to everyday activity for all priority populations. This came out most strongly in the focus groups with African American youth saying they couldn’t go to many places in Richmond out of fear. They expressed that they couldn’t comfortably go out with groups of friends, often because someone felt they were not safe in a particular neighborhood. Others spoke of witnessing violence and being afraid to be in particular locations. Bullying is also a concern for a number of populations. Some participants also reported the fear of gender-based violence as a barrier to movement and participation in the community.
Page | 52
#6 Access to Basic Needs
Many of the focus group participants reported that they had difficulty or needed support with meeting basic needs (housing, food, medicine, utilities, and transportation) for their families:
for homeless participants housing and wraparound support was identified; for TAY the need for assistance in supporting their own household after they turned 18 was mentioned (see #3); for immigrant children, the need for financial support for families who were often barred from working full time was mentioned; justice-involved youth suggested that they needed access to support that they said was often contingent on having been in Juvenile Hall; and for some parents and youth who wanted to access particular programs, transportation was identified as a barrier.
The Lens of COVID 19 and the Richmond and North Richmond Community With COVID 19 and the resulting economic disruption influencing the lives of California residents for upcoming months and possibly years, the issues of the digital divide, mental health, education, basic needs, and many of the above priorities have been exacerbated, and solutions may need to take on new forms and meaning. This situation and its impacts are likely to persist for some time and systemic changes are likely to result. The Richmond and North Richmond community is deeply engaged in both action and ongoing conversations related to this new challenge. Ongoing collaboration, community engagement, and partnership will be essential in moving to the Strategic Investment Planning and Implementation phase.
Page | 53
References
Footnotes:
1City of Richmond. Charter, Article XV, Section 3 Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH_ARTXVRIF UCHYO
2East Bay Center for the Performing Arts. (2019). Richmond Living Map. Retrieved from:
https://www.eastbaycenter.org/~/media/d74f364dc8eb4af2a196d65c3e5ce5ce.ashx?la=en 3U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Language Spoken At Home, Table S1601 (5-year estimate), 2014- 2018, American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
4As cited on kidsdata.org, Children Living in Limited English-Speaking Households (65,000 Residents or More).” 2016 Table. Data origins: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey files (Dec. 2017) Retrieved from https://www.kidsdata.org/
5U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, Table S1701 (5-year estimate), 2-14-2018, American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
6U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Educational Attainment, Table S1501 (5-year estimate), 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 7Kaiser Permanente (2019). 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment, page 14. Retrieved from:
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/content/dam/internet/kp/comms/import/uploads/2019/0 9/Richmond-CHNA-2019.pdf
8Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society, U.C. Berkeley (2018). January 2018 Housing Policy and Belonging in Richmond Research Report. Retrieved from:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/56693/2020-Community-Needs- Assessment-Report
9RentCafe.com, (Accessed 7/19/2020). Richmond CA Rental Market Trends. Retrieved from:
https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/richmond/ 10U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs (Dollars) by Mortgage Status, Table B25088 (5-year estimate), 2014-2018, American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Page | 54
11U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Income In The Past 12 Months (In 2018 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars), Table S1901 (5-year estimate), 2014-2018. American Community Survey 5-year estimates Retrieved from:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
12Contra Costa Health Services: Health, Housing and Homelessness (2018). Contra Costa County Homeless Continuum of Care 2018 Annual Report. Retrieved from:
https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/Annual-Report-2018.pdf
13Kaiser Permanente (2019). 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment. Retrieved from:
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/content/dam/internet/kp/comms/import/uploads/2019/0 9/Richmond-CHNA-2019.pdf
14Contra Costa Health Services: Health, Housing and Homelessness (2020). Contra Costa County Annual Point in Time County Report. Retrieved from: https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/PIT- report-2020.pdf
15Contra Costa Health Services: Health, Housing and Homelessness (2019). Race & Ethnicity Equity Assessment: Review of consumer’s 2018 demographic and service utilization data by race and ethnicity across the Continuum of Care Report. Retrieved from:
https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/Race-Ethnicity-Assessment.pdf 16Richmond Department of Children and Youth (October 2020). Key Informant Interview: Youth and Families Experiencing Homelessness.
17U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Language Spoken At Home, Table S1601 (5-year estimate), 2014- 2018, American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
18TheTrevorProject.org (2019). The Trevor Project Resear ch Brief: Data on Transgender Youth.
Retrieved from: https://www.thetrevorproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-Trevor- Project-Research-Brief-February-2019.pdf
19U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Sex By School Enrollment By Educational Attainment By Employment Status For The Population 16 To 19 Years, Table B14005 (5-year estimate), 2014- 2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
20 and 21Contra Costa County Probation Department (2020-21). JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan FY2020-2021, page 12, 19-22. Retrieved from:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/64393/JJCC-3-12-20-Packet?bidId= 22As cited on kidsdata.org, “Foster Youth in Public Schools.”, 2015-2019 Table. Data origins:
California Dept. of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Unduplicated Pupil Count (UPC) Source Files (Sept. 2019). Retrieved from:
https://www.kidsdata.org/
Page | 55
23As cited on kidsdata.org, “Children in Foster Care, by Race/Ethnicity.”, 2018 Table. Data origins: Webster, D., et al. California Child Welfare Indicators Project Reports. UC Berkeley Center for Social Services Research (Jul. 2019). Retrieved from: https://www.kidsdata.org/ 24National Research Center and ICMA (2019). The National Community Survey, Richmond, CA Technical Appendices. Retrieved from:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/52256/The-NCS-Technical-Appendices-- -Richmond-2019
25First 5 Contra Costa County (2017). “Ready or Not Here We Come!: An Assessment of Kindergarten Readiness in Contra Costa County 2017.” Retrieved from:
http://www.first5coco.org/
26YouthTruthSurvey.org and West Contra Costa Unified School District (2020). Students Weigh In: Learning and Well-Being During COVID-19 Report. Retrieved from:
https://youthtruthsurvey.org/student-weigh-in/
27National Student Clearing House (2017). Richmond/West Contra Costa College Success Learning Convening data. Retrieved from: https://www.studentclearinghouse.org/ 28City of Richmond (2014-2015). Health in All Policies Report. Retrieved from:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/36978/HiAP_Report_Final?bidId= 29 and 30Kaiser Permanente (2019). 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment. Retrieved from:
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/content/dam/internet/kp/comms/import/uploads/2019/0 9/Richmond-CHNA-2019.pdf
31Social Compact (Accessed July 17, 2020). Richmond Grocery Gap. Retrieved from:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7976/FINAL- GroceryGap_Report_Richmond
32As cited on kidsdata.org, “Children’s Physical Fitness in California”. Data origins: California Department of Education, 2018-2019 Physical Fitness Testing Research Files downloaded.
Retrieved from: https://www.kidsdata.org/
33As cited on kidsdata.org, “Children’s Physical Fitness in California”. Data origins: California Department of Education, 2018-2019 Physical Fitness Testing Research Files downloaded.
Retrieved from: https://www.kidsdata.org/
34As cited on kidsdata.org, “Childhood Asthma in California”. Data origins: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (Mar. 2018), California Health Interview Survey. Retrieved from:
https://www.kidsdata.org/
Page | 56
35As cited on kidsdata.org, “Childhood Asthma in California”. Data origins: California Dept. of Finance, and U.S. Census Bureau: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (Feb. 2019), California Breathing. Retrieved from: https://www.kidsdata.org/ 36West Contra Costa Unified School District and California Department of Education (2017-18).
California Healthy Kids Survey, 2017-18: Main Report, San Francisco: WestEd Health & Human Development Program for the California Department of Education. Retrieved from:
https://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib/CA01001466/Centricity/Domain/11/West_Contra_Costa_Uni fied_1718_Sec_CHKS.pdf
37National Research Center and ICMA (2019). The National Community Survey, Richmond, CA Technical Appendices. Retrieved from:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/52256/The-NCS-Technical-Appendices-- -Richmond-2019
38Healthy Richmond (2019). North Richmond Quality of Life Plan, (Richmond, CA). Retrieved from: https://healthyrichmond.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/QoL-digital-english.pdf 39, 40, 41Aran Watson, Kanwarpal Dhaliwal, and Kimberly Aceves (2016). The RYSE Center’s Listening Campaign: Community-engaged inquiry of young people’s experiences and articulations of trauma, violence, coping, and healing report. Retrieved from:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ece61644024383be911a95/t/593e57012e69cf4a3e1 2ec6d/1497257742081/RYSE+Listening+Report+2016.pdf
42Bay Area Equity Atlas (2016-2017). Police use of force. Retrieved from:
https://bayareaequityatlas.org/indicators/police-use-of-force#/ Figure, Graph, Map Sources:
Map 1.
East Bay Center for the Performing Arts (2019). Richmond Living Map. Retrieved from:
https://www.eastbaycenter.org/~/media/d74f364dc8eb4af2a196d65c3e5ce5ce.ashx?la=en Map 2.
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, Table B17001(5-year estimate), 2-14-2018, American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
Figure 1.
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Households and Families, Table S1101 (5-year estimate), 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Page | 57
Figure 2.
U.S. Census Bureau (2013-2017). Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race, Table B03002, 2013- 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
Figure 3.
U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS Demographics and Housing Estimates, Table DP05 (5-year estimate), 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
Figure 4.
U.S. Census Bureau (2017). Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months of Families, Table S1702 (5- year estimate), 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
Figure 5.
U.S. Census Bureau (2017). Sex by Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years and Older, Tables B15002, B15002A, B15002B, B15200D, B15002H, B15002I (1-year estimate), 2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
Figure 6.
Rent Jungle (2017). Average Rents in Richmond. Retrieved from:
https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-richmond-ca-rent-trends/ Figure 7.
As cited on kidsdata.org, “Foreign-Born Population, by Age group (10,000 Residents or More).” 2012-2016 Map. Retrieved from https://www.kidsdata.org/ Figure 8.
WestEd, California Dept. of Education (March 2019). California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) and Biennial State CHKS. Retrieved from https://www.kidsdata.org/ Figure 9.
WestEd, California Dept. of Education (August 2020). California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) and Biennial State CHKS. Retrieved from https://www.kidsdata.org/ Figure 10.
CDC WONDER, Natality Public-Use Data (Feb. 2019). California Dept. of Public Health, Birth Statistical Master Files; California Dept. of Finance, Population Estimates and Projections, 2000- 2009, 2010-2060.
Figure 11.
WestEd, California Department of Education (March 2019). California School Staff Survey.
Page | 58
Figure 12.
WestEd, California Dept. of Education (August 2020). California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) and Biennial State CHKS.
Figure 13.
Bay Area Equity Atlas (2015). Percent of Disconnected Youth in Richmond and Contra Costa County. Retrieved from: https://bayareaequityatlas.org/indicators/disconnected-youth#/ Figure 14.
Contra Costa County (2018). Contra Costa County Comprehensive Child Care Needs Assessment 2017-2027. Retrieved from Contra Costa County Comprehensive Child Care 2017-2027 Figure 15.
First 5 Contra Costa County (2017). “Ready or Not Here We Come!: An Assessment of Kindergarten Readiness in Contra Costa County 2017.” Retrieved from http://www.first5coco.org/
Figure 16.
California Department of Education (2019-20). 2019-2020 Enrollment by Ethnicity table.
Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/
Figure 17.
California Department of Education (2018-19). 2018-2019 Met or Exceeded 3rd Grade English Language Arts Standards (Districtwide). Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ Figure 18.
California Department of Education (2018-19). 2018-2019 Met or Exceeded 8th Grade Math Standards (Districtwide). Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ Figure 19.
California Department of Education (2018-19). 2018-2019 Graduation Rate by School. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/
Figure 20.
California Department of Education (2018-19). 2018-2019 Chronic Absenteeism (Districtwide) by Race/Ethnicity. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ Figure 21.
California Department of Education (2018-19). 2019-2020 English Learners (District) by Subgroup. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/
Figures 22. and 23.
Kennedy High School, IT Academy (2020). Y-Plan Student Survey. Retrieved from 2020 Y-Plan Policy Brief
Page | 59
Figure 24.
YouthTruthSurvey.org (2020). Spring 2020 Youth Truth Survey. Retrieved from https://youthtruthsurvey.org/
Figure 25.
California Department of Education (2018-19). Annual Physical Fitness Test. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/
Figure 26.
California Department of Education (2017-18). California Healthy Kids Survey School Reports.
Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/
Figure 27.
California Department of Education (2018-19). Students with Disabilities by Race. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/
Page | 60
Appendix: Acknowledgments
The Richmond Department of Children and Youth would like to thank all Richmond and North Richmond community members that participated in the co-design and development of the 2020 Community Needs Assessment Report. The Department would especially like to extend its gratitude to all youth, parents and guardians, and service providers that voiced their input for the purpose of envisioning a Richmond and North Richmond in which all children, youth, and their families may thrive.
Richmond Department of Children and Youth Staff
LaShonda White
David Padilla
Patrick Seals
Guadalupe Morales
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Oversight Board Members (Current and Former) Geselle Alvarado
Khalieghya Dandie-Evans
Guadalupe Enllana
Teyona Galloway
Angel Godinez
Carol Hegstrom
Kapris James
Zeonta Johnson
Katherine Lee
Kristin Kilian Lobos
Madiha Qader
Stephanie Sequeira
Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates
Lorene Allio, PhD
Kweli Kitwana
Aurelio Rivera
Nandi Peterson
Jes Montesinos
Chandreve Clay
Sahar Petri
Page | 61
Richmond Department of Children and Youth Interns
Cali Luke
Dante Angel Miguel
Jonathan Alvarado Salinas
Letitia Carpenter
Anna Leversee
Sarah Ferrell
Peter Godslaw
Yessica Gonzalez Reyes
Nabil Aziz
Community Needs Assessment Partners
Service Provider Working Group
Interdepartmental Working Group
Richmond Kids First Committee
Information Technology Department, City of Richmond
West Contra Costa Unified School District
Department Partners
Oakland Fund for Children and Youth
San Francisco Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families Community Services Department, City of San Pablo
Richmond City Council
Tom Butt
Nathaniel Bates
Ben Choi
Demnlus Johnson, III
Eduardo Martinez
Jael Myrick
Melvin Willis
Consultants and Student Researchers
Y-PLAN (Youth – Plan, Learn, Act, Now), Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley Information Technology Academy, Kennedy High School
AnnMarie Baines
Lujain Al-Saleh
Jamon Franklin
Kekoa Lopez
Enrique Ramirez
Grace Sheeran
Rafael Velazquez
Page | 62
Appendix: Summary of Community Input
As part of the development of the Community Needs Assessment and Strategic Investment Plan, the Department conducted a community engagement process, as outlined below. The goal of gathering community input was to identify gaps and opportunities in programming for children and youth in addition to soliciting perspectives on community strengths and barriers for children, youth and their families in Richmond and North Richmond.
Community and Stakeholder Input Activities
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Oversight Board meetings to provide Community Needs Assessment updates and receive feedback on community engagement best practices.
Service Provider Working Group meetings to provide a focus group training for community partners and receive feedback on the development of Strategic Investment Plan priorities.
Community forums to provide all Richmond and North Richmond community members an opportunity to participate in the Community Needs Assessment development and provide their feedback on what services are needed for youth and their families to thrive.
Focus groups for the following areas:
• Asian Youth
• Black Youth
• Parents and Guardians of Children
• Latinx Youth
• LGBTQ+ Youth
• Justice System-Involved Youth
• Immigrant Youth
• Youth with Foster Care Experience: Transitional Age & Emancipated Youth The Department would like to thank the following community partners for their support with focus group recruitment and/or facilitation:
• Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
• Literacy for Every Adult Program (LEAP)
• Building Blocks for Kids Richmond (BBK)
• RYSE Center
• Office of Neighborhood Safety, City of Richmond
• YES Nature to Neighborhoods
• Independent Living Skills Program
• Richmond YouthWORKS
• Richmond Promise
Community surveys through the following methods to deepen understanding of community strengths and barriers as identified by community members. • Youth survey (25 responses)
• Parent/Guardian survey (89 responses)
Page | 63
Key Stakeholder Interviews with community-based organizations, West Contra Costa Unified School District staff, and community leaders to help shape and inform the process and to deepen understanding of issue areas.
Collaboration with Y-PLAN and 12th Kennedy High School students who developed and conducted their own survey (~650 responses) among Richmond students Appendix A: Educational Data By School
Figure A1. 2019-20 District Demographics by School
Richmond Schools
School Total
Black /
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian /
Pacific
Islander
Hispanic
/ Latino White
Two or
More
Races / Not
Reported
Aspire Richmond Ca. College
Preparatory Academy 549 13% 0% 10% 74% 1% 2%
Aspire Richmond Technology Academy 375 12% 1% 6% 63% 1% 17% Cesar E. Chavez Elementary 524 3% 0% 2% 92% 2% 1%
Coronado Elementary 401 24% 0% 3% 67% 3% 3%
De Anza High 1,401 21% 0% 19% 49% 8% 3%
Ford Elementary 452 3% 0% 11% 81% 3% 1%
Grant Elementary 550 4% 0% 4% 88% 3% 2%
Greenwood Academy 288 20% 0% 7% 65% 7% 1%
Highland Elementary 472 21% 0% 15% 58% 3% 4%
John F. Kennedy High 953 25% 0% 7% 67% 2% 1%
Lincoln Elementary 381 16% 1% 2% 79% 1% 1%
Lovonya DeJean Middle 446 19% 0% 6% 72% 0% 2%
Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary 473 26% 0% 10% 56% 4% 3% Middle College High 279 11% 0% 32% 50% 7% 2%
Murphy Elementary 449 19% 1% 20% 41% 11% 8%
Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 89 27% 0% 8% 27% 33% 6% Nystrom Elementary 490 17% 0% 4% 75% 4% 1%
Olinda Elementary 371 15% 1% 30% 30% 17% 8%
Peres Elementary 553 13% 1% 3% 81% 1% 2%
Richmond Charter Academy 267 2% 0% 3% 94% 0% 1%
Richmond Charter Elementary-Benito
Juarez 488 4% 0% 3% 90% 2% 1%
Richmond College Preparatory 554 24% 0% 1% 73% 0% 1%
Richmond High 1,494 6% 0% 6% 86% 1% 1%
Sheldon Elementary 315 18% 0% 21% 39% 14% 8%
Stege Elementary 268 48% 1% 13% 30% 3% 5%
Stewart Elementary 432 16% 1% 22% 40% 16% 6%
Summit Public School: Tamalpais 446 13% 0% 14% 60% 4% 8% Valley View Elementary 364 18% 0% 17% 32% 26% 6%
Verde Elementary 348 9% 0% 2% 87% 1% 1%
Vista High (Alternative) 239 25% 0% 16% 46% 10% 3%
West County Mandarin 211 10% 0% 34% 32% 8% 17%
Wilson Elementary 421 13% 1% 17% 59% 6% 6%
Non-Richmond Schools
Bayview Elementary 496 22% 0% 15% 57% 4% 3%
Collins Elementary 304 20% 0% 25% 37% 11% 7%
Crespi Junior High 371 19% 0% 21% 47% 9% 5%
District Office 44 9% 0% 7% 61% 18% 5%
Dover Elementary 655 3% 0% 4% 89% 2% 1%
Edward M. Downer Elementary 542 7% 0% 4% 86% 2% 1%
El Cerrito High 1,605 16% 0% 19% 30% 31% 4%
Ellerhorst Elementary 376 8% 1% 10% 46% 28% 7%
Fairmont Elementary 504 6% 0% 28% 33% 20% 12%
Fred T. Korematsu Middle 708 16% 0% 19% 29% 31% 6%
Hanna Ranch Elementary 419 13% 0% 44% 25% 8% 10%
Harding Elementary 454 6% 0% 22% 21% 40% 12%
Helms Middle 851 8% 0% 6% 82% 4% 1%
Hercules High 856 22% 0% 46% 23% 5% 4%
Hercules Middle 601 17% 0% 41% 26% 7% 9%
John Henry High 328 3% 0% 1% 95% 0% 0%
Kensington Elementary 506 3% 0% 15% 12% 56% 14%
Lake Elementary 390 9% 0% 11% 76% 3% 2%
Leadership Public Schools: Richmond 599 2% 0% 2% 94% 0% 3% Lupine Hills Elementary 416 15% 1% 40% 25% 9% 10%
Madera Elementary 480 6% 0% 21% 17% 42% 15%
Manzanita Middle 119 6% 0% 0% 87% 5% 3%
Mira Vista Elementary 608 16% 0% 12% 38% 24% 9%
Montalvin Manor Elementary 539 15% 0% 13% 66% 5% 1%
Ohlone Elementary 468 16% 0% 37% 24% 9% 15%
Pinole Middle 514 20% 0% 18% 43% 14% 5%
Pinole Valley High 1,261 17% 1% 20% 47% 13% 3%
Riverside Elementary 367 19% 1% 17% 55% 5% 4%
Shannon Elementary 365 11% 1% 30% 43% 10% 6%
Tara Hills Elementary 429 19% 1% 14% 53% 9% 5%
Voices College-Bound Language
Academy at West Contra Costa County 172 2% 0% 2% 94% 0% 2% Washington Elementary 453 10% 1% 2% 70% 14% 3%
Source: 2019-20 California Department of Education
Figure A2. 2018-2019 Chronic Absenteeism by School
Richmond Schools
School Chronic Absenteeism
Eligible Enrollment
Chronic Absenteeism
Count
Chronic Absenteeism
Rate
Cesar E. Chavez Elementary 612 167 27.3%
Coronado Elementary 468 116 24.8%
De Anza High 1,439 219 15.2%
Ford Elementary 476 110 23.1%
Grant Elementary 564 116 20.6%
Greenwood Academy 436 309 70.9%
Highland Elementary 479 51 10.6%
John F. Kennedy High 977 304 31.1%
Lincoln Elementary 459 116 25.3%
Lovonya DeJean Middle 507 160 31.6%
Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary 512 135 26.4%
Middle College High 288 5 1.7%
Murphy Elementary 507 94 18.5%
Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 0 0 0.0%
Nystrom Elementary 558 163 29.2%
Olinda Elementary 379 28 7.4%
Peres Elementary 593 134 22.6%
Richmond High 1,640 244 14.9%
Sheldon Elementary 369 52 14.1%
Stege Elementary 296 118 39.9%
Stewart Elementary 470 66 14.0%
Valley View Elementary 367 48 13.1%
Verde Elementary 368 79 21.5%
Vista High (Alternative) 309 120 38.8%
West County Mandarin 140 20 14.3%
Wilson Elementary 417 81 19.4%
Non-Richmond Schools
Bayview Elementary 564 158 28.0%
Collins Elementary 330 46 13.9%
Crespi Junior High 484 79 16.3%
Dover Elementary 682 104 15.2%
Edward M. Downer Elementary 621 120 19.3%
El Cerrito High 1,557 209 13.4%
Ellerhorst Elementary 364 24 6.6%
Fairmont Elementary 547 63 11.5%
Fred T. Korematsu Middle 715 100 14.0%
Hanna Ranch Elementary 469 24 5.1%
Harbour Way Elementary Community Day 14 12 85.7%
Harding Elementary 471 32 6.8%
Helms Middle 917 168 18.3%
Hercules High 897 115 12.8%
Hercules Middle 615 49 8.0%
Kensington Elementary 485 14 2.9%
Lake Elementary 410 58 14.1%
Lupine Hills Elementary 435 55 12.6%
Madera Elementary 485 15 3.1%
Mira Vista Elementary 600 71 11.8%
Montalvin Manor Elementary 524 67 12.8%
Ohlone Elementary 465 45 9.7%
Pinole Middle 574 112 19.5%
Pinole Valley High 1,191 185 15.5%
Riverside Elementary 423 68 16.1%
Shannon Elementary 369 71 19.2%
Tara Hills Elementary 485 106 21.9%
Washington Elementary 476 78 16.4%
Source: 2018-2019California Department of Education
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
ARTICLE XV - Richmond Fund for Children and Youth
(Added by election June 5, 2018)
Sec. 1. Fund: Beginning July 1, 2018 there is hereby established in the treasury of the City of Richmond (the "City") a special fund to expand children's services in the City, which shall be called the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (the "Fund").
(Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
Sec. 2 . Amount and Source of Funding. The City shall set aside a portion of the annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues of the City to be transferred to the Fund in the amounts specified below subject to the conditions set forth in subdivision (i).
During f iscal year 2018-2019 (July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019) there is hereby set aside for the Fund, the amount of $250,000 from the City's annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues for the express purpose of establishing and supporting the infrastructure of the Fund and the newly created Department of Children and Youth, as described in Section 7, including the development of the Strategic Investment Plan, as described in Section 8.
For f iscal year 2019-2020, there is hereby set aside for the Fund, the amount of $700,000 from the City's annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues for the express purpose of establishing and supporting the infrastructure of the Fund and the newly created Department of Children and Youth, including the development of the Strategic Investment Plan.
For f iscal year 2021-2022, there is hereby set aside for the Fund, an amount equal to one percent (1%) of the City's annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues, together with any interest earned on the Fund and any amounts unspent or uncommitted by the Fund at the end of any fiscal year.
For f iscal year 2022-2023, there is hereby set aside for the Fund, an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the City's annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues, together with any interest earned on the Fund and any amounts unspent or uncommitted by the Fund at the end of any fiscal year.
For f iscal year 2023-2024, and each fiscal year thereafter through fiscal year 2027-2028, there is hereby set aside for the Fund, an amount equal to three percent (3%) of the City's annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues, together with any interest earned on the Fund and any amounts unspent or uncommitted by the Fund at the end of any fiscal year.
The F und shall be maintained separate and apart from all other City funds and shall be appropriated annually at the time of the City's budget adoption, and by supplemental appropriation, when necessary as determined by the City Council.
The a nnual amount of actual unrestricted general purpose revenues shall be calculated by the City Manager and shall fully include all of the following sources of revenue received by the City: (1) Property Taxes, (2) General Sales and Use Taxes (including locally approved general sales taxes and the City's portion of the Bradley-Burns Sales and Use Tax), (3) Utility Users Tax, (4) Property Transfer Tax, (5) Transient Occupancy Tax, (6) Fines, forfeitures and penalties, (7) Interest from general fund reserves, and (8) other revenues that the City can use for any lawful, municipal purpose. The City shall not define which revenues are to be considered unrestricted general purpose revenues in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this section. Errors in calculation for a fiscal year shall be corrected by an adjustment in the set aside for the next fiscal year.
Before t he end of the initial ten-year period, the Fund's effectiveness shall be evaluated and the funding and terms of the Fund shall be presented to the voters for renewal or revision, unless renewed by the City i.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
a.
i.
ii.
Council.
The r equirements to set aside funds pursuant to subdivisions (c), (d) and (e) shall not become effective unless and until a general tax measure is approved after the effective date of this Act which levies a new tax or increases an existing tax to make additional funding available for the unrestricted general purposes of the City of Richmond. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to require the revenues from such a general tax measure to be dedicated to the purposes of this Act or the "Richmond Kids' First Initiative: The Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Act." In the event that a general tax measure meeting the requirements of this subdivision is not passed by December 31, 2020, the City Council shall pass enabling legislation to delay the effective dates in subdivisions (c), (d) and (e) until the fiscal year following the passage of a general tax measure, and making any other necessary adjustments to the times set forth in this Act. (Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
Sec. 3 . Goals. The goals of expenditures from the Fund shall be:
To e nsure that Richmond's children, youth and young adults are physically, emotionally, mentally and socially healthy, educated, successful in school, and live in stable, safe and supported families and communities; To i ncrease safety for children, youth, young adults, their parents/guardians, families and the communities in which they live by preventing problems and enhancing the strengths of children, youth, young adults and their families;
To e nsure young people are provided with gender-responsive, trauma-informed, population-specific and culturally-competent services;
To s trengthen collaboration among public agencies and community-based organizations around shared outcomes among all service providers for children, youth, young adults and their parents/guardians; To e nsure an equitable distribution of resources to all of Richmond's young people in recognition of the importance of investment in their futures from birth through young adulthood; To f ill gaps in services and leverage other resources whenever feasible. (Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
Sec. 4 . Eligible Uses.
The C ity shall only use monies from the Fund for services provided to children and youth from birth to 18 years old and their caregivers, and, as defined in Section 4.b., disconnected transitional-aged young adults from ages 18 to 24 years and, when relevant, their caregivers, or as part of programs that predominantly serve children, youth and disconnected transitional-aged young adults within those ages and their caregivers, including:
Violence P revention and Response: including restorative and transformative justice; programs that support positive communication and relationships between young people and within families; programs that train young people, adult allies and parents/guardians in de-escalation; programs that address domestic and sexual violence, including child abuse prevention; emergency relocation; programs that address homophobia and bullying; alternatives to incarceration including diversion and re-entry programs.
Education a nd Job Training: including programs that help youth stay in school; promote academic success and college and career readiness; language services; support parents/guardians in advocating for their young people's education; assist in developing life skills and gaining work experience; and provide job training and placement.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Parent/Guardian Support: including fostering positive child-adult and youth-adult relationships that support people's safety, self-esteem, well-being and positive futures.
Media, Arts, Culture and Technology: including artistic and cultural expression and education, and job and life skills development.
Youth and Family Leadership, Organizing and Civic Engagement: including community organizing and support that amplify the voices and engagement of children, youth and family in how Richmond prioritizes its resources; and builds youth civic engagement and leadership.
Health and Well-Being: including physical, mental, emotional, behavioral and social health services that support health and well-being and reduce drug-related harm, violence and self-harm, and harmful and disrespectful sexual behavior.
Environmental Health and Justice: including programs that improve the environmental health of children and youth and their right to live free of pollution, toxins and lead, and increase access to healthy food, safe and accessible outdoor and recreational spaces and other places to be physically active.
Outdoor Education and Recreation: including sports, recreation centers, play, camps, gardening and urban agriculture.
Deportation Support: support for young people and families experiencing or being threatened with deportation.
The Fund will prioritize three groups of young people living in Richmond and adjacent unincorporated North Richmond: children ages 0 to 12; youth ages 13 to 17; and disconnected young adults ages 18 to 24, who are most impacted by harm, inequity and lack of access to support and services. The priority populations include but are not limited to: system-involved young people; young people who have been pushed out of school; young people who themselves or whose families are homeless or threatened by homelessness; young people living in poverty; immigrant and undocumented children, youth and families; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) children, youth and families; teen parents and families, including single mothers; young people with poor physical, mental, emotional and behavioral health outcomes and disabilities; and families with children and youth who are impacted by the criminal justice system and/or who have family members who are incarcerated; and/or are involved in or transitioning from the foster care, juvenile justice, criminal justice or special education systems.
Entities eligible to receive funding shall be public agencies and non-profit community-based organizations, including organizations with a non-profit fiscal agent, that serve children, youth and disconnected transitional-aged young adults.
Commencing in fiscal year 2021-2022 and each fiscal year thereafter through fiscal year 2027-2028, (1) a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the Fund can be used for costs related to administering the Fund, including staff support, basic infrastructure, support for the agencies administering the contracts, and overhead costs; and (2) an additional maximum of five percent (5%) of the Fund may be used to evaluate the results of this Article.
A maximum of ten percent (10%) of the amount used to administer the Fund (as described in Section 4.d.) can be used for City overhead.
Entities eligible to receive funding include those (1) located outside but in close proximity to Richmond to the extent that those entities serve children, youth and disconnected transitional-aged young adults who reside in Richmond or unincorporated North Richmond, and (2) located in Richmond or unincorporated North a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
a.
b.
Richmond t hat serve children, youth and disconnected transitional-aged young adults in Richmond or unincorporated North Richmond, regardless of the residence of the children or youth. (Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
Sec. 5 . Excluded Services. The Fund shall not fund the following services or types of expenditures:
Services p rovided by the Police Department, Sheriff, other law enforcement agencies, Courts, District Attorney, Public Defender, City Attorney or Fire Department; detention or probation services mandated by state or federal law; or public transportation, except to the extent that transportation may be needed to access eligible services supported by the Fund;
Services p rovided by the West Contra Costa Unified School District, Richmond libraries, Office of Neighborhood Safety, Richmond Promise College Scholarship Program, Richmond Housing Authority and Youth Works, except for collaborations between the above mentioned entities and community-based organizations and programs that meet the goals and eligible uses of the Fund; Any s ervice that primarily benefits adults over 24 years; Any s ervice for which a fixed or minimum level of expenditure is mandated by state or federal law, to the extent of the fixed or minimum level of expenditure;
Acquisition o f any capital item not for primary and direct use by children or youth; acquisition, other than by lease for a term of ten years or less, of any real property; or maintenance, utilities or any similar operating costs of any facility not used primarily and directly by children or youth, or of any recreation or park facility, library, or hospital;
Capital e xpenditures for housing, or rent subsidies;
Primary a nd specialized medical and direct mental health services; however, prevention, education, and other behavioral and mental health support services are eligible for funding; Income s upports that supplant state or federal benefits or post-secondary tuition assistance; Administration o f other funds; or
Replacing e xisting funding for children and youth services as set forth in the Children's Baseline Budget in Section 6, except to the extent that the City ceases to receive federal, state, county, or private foundation funds that the funding agency required to be spent only on these services. (Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
Sec. 6 . Children and Youth Baseline Budget. The City shall ensure that the Fund is used exclusively to increase overall City expenditures for eligible services for children, youth and disconnected transitional-aged young adults.
The C ity Manager shall calculate the City's total actual unrestricted general purpose revenues in fiscal year 2017-2018, and shall calculate the percentage of those revenues that were allocated in fiscal year 2017-2018 to services that would be eligible uses for monies from the Fund, excluding allocations for services mandated by state or federal law (the "Base Percentage").
Commencing i n fiscal year 2019-2020 and each fiscal year thereafter through fiscal year 2027-2028, the City shall allocate at least the Base Percentage of total actual unrestricted general purpose revenues to services that would be eligible uses of the Fund, excluding allocations for services mandated by state or federal law, and excluding any allocation of revenue required by this Article. (Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
a.
b.
c.
d.
i.
ii.
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. iii.
iv.
e.
f.
g.
Sec. 7. Administration and Oversight. The Fund shall be administered by staff in a newly established Department of Children and Youth within the City Manager's office. Oversight of the Fund shall be provided by a fifteen-member Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Oversight Board (the "Oversight Board") that shall be composed as follows:
Each member of the Richmond City Council shall appoint two City residents as members — one over 24 years old, and one who is 15 to 24 years of age.
The Mayor of Richmond shall appoint three City residents as members, at least one of which shall be 15 to 24 years of age.
The Mayor and City Council members shall use their best efforts to coordinate their appointments so that the members of the Oversight Board represent Richmond's diverse geographic communities, including unincorporated North Richmond.
The Oversight Board shall have the following responsibilities, powers, and functions:
The role of the Oversight Board will be to develop written policies regarding the Fund, monitor the Fund, ensure that the Fund is managed in a manner accountable to the community, and ensure the highest standards of care and transparency.
Responsibilities of the Oversight Board shall be:
Strategic planning: (a) creating an initial Strategic Investment Plan as described under Section 8, and (b) updating the Strategic Investment Plan every three years.
Reviewing applications for funding from the Fund through a transparent and fair application process.
Recommending to the City Council a list of grants to be awarded for each funding cycle.
Facilitating an annual evaluation: working with a third-party, external independent evaluator to identify relevant evaluation measures and ensure that programs funded through the Fund are impactful and meet established outcomes. Evaluation reports shall be provided to the City Council and the Mayor's office and made available to the public.
Reviewing financial reports and audits to confirm that spending from the Fund is consistent with all provisions of this Article, and that the funds are being managed responsibly.
The Oversight Board shall adopt rules and regulations to govern its procedures, which shall, among other things, include the manner of calling and giving notices of meetings. The Oversight Board shall meet a minimum of six times per year. Its meetings shall be open to the public and subject to the Ralph M.
Brown Act open meetings law. A majority of the regular members shall constitute a quorum. Minutes of the meetings shall be filed with the city clerk.
The Oversight Board shall be responsible for reporting to the public the services and outcomes supported by the Fund.
The Oversight Board members serve two-year terms, provided that members under age 24 may serve a one- year term. There shall be no limitation on the number of consecutive terms served. The terms of the initial appointees to the Oversight Board shall commence on the date of the first meeting of the Oversight Board, which may occur when at least ten members have been appointed and are present. Oversight Board members shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
If a vacancy occurs during the term of office of any Oversight Board member, the appointing authority shall appoint a successor to complete the unexpired term in the same manner as the selection of the initial member.
In order to provide for staggered terms, eight members shall be chosen by lot, from among those able to h.
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
serve f or two years, to serve for an initial term of two years, with the remaining members to serve for an initial term of one year. Except for appointments to fill a vacancy, all subsequent appointments shall be for a term of two years, provided that members under age 24 may serve a one-year term.
Oversight B oard members that are over 24 years of age shall not be a paid employee of an organization funded from the Fund or applying for funding from the Fund. (Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
Sec. 8 . Strategic Investment Plan. Each Strategic Investment Plan shall set forth funding priorities for a three-year period, and shall set forth a plan for overseeing and evaluating the Fund and the programs supported by the Fund. The Department of Children and Youth shall work with the Oversight Board to complete the Strategic Investment Plan and conduct a needs assessment.
The n eeds assessment shall involve community meetings throughout the City, gathering input on the service needs of various populations.
The f unding priorities in the Strategic Investment Plan shall be based on the community needs assessment and input from the community.
The i nitial Strategic Investment Plan shall be approved by a majority of the Oversight Board and presented to the City Council for its review and approval by December 30, 2020. The Strategic Investment Plan shall take effect no later than June 1, 2021.
Any c hange in an approved Strategic Investment Plan shall be based on the community needs assessment and input from the community.
(Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
Sec. 9 . Application Process. In order to ensure a stable, fair and effective service delivery system, the Fund shall be implemented as follows:
There s hall be three-year planning and funding cycles, with funding beginning in the 2021-2022 fiscal year.
Funds s hall be allocated through an open and fair application process administered by the Department of Children and Youth in the City Manager's office in compliance with the policies adopted by the Oversight Board. Unless the conditions set forth in subdivision (i) of section 2 have not been met, the first application process shall begin no later than January 1, 2021 with funding available for encumbrance no later than July 1, 2021.
Recommendations f or a list of grants to be awarded shall be made by the Oversight Board to the City Council. The City Council shall review and consider the recommendations of the Oversight Board. The City Council may reject the recommendations only if it determines that one or more recommendation is inconsistent with this Article or the priorities identified in the Strategic Investment Plan. The City Council shall accept or reject the Oversight Board's recommendations in their entirety and may not partially accept or partially reject the recommendations.
In t he event the City Council rejects the list of grants proposed by the Oversight Board, it shall set forth its rationale for such rejection and recommend revisions to the Oversight Board for its consideration and action.
The C ity Council shall review and consider the amended recommendations of the Oversight Board, provide final approval of the list of grants to be awarded, and appropriate all necessary monies from the Fund. All grants and appropriations shall be consistent [with] the provisions of this Article and the Strategic Investment Plan.
(Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
Sec. 10. Fiscal Emergencies. Commencing with fiscal year 2022-2023, if a moderate fiscal emergency, as defined in this section, or a severe fiscal emergency, as defined in this section, is deemed to exist by the City Council, the portion of the City's annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues to be allocated to the Fund shall be reduced as provided in this section. The City Council may deem a moderate fiscal emergency to exist in the event that the City's annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues for a given fiscal year decrease by greater than ten percent (10%) but less than twenty percent (20%) from the level of such revenues during the previous fiscal year (defined as the "Benchmark Year"), and it may deem the moderate fiscal emergency to continue until the City's annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues are no longer ten percent (10%) less than the level of such revenues during the Benchmark Year. If the City Council deems a moderate fiscal emergency to exist for a fiscal year, the amount required to be allocated to the Fund shall be reduced to two percent (2%) of the City's total annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues for that particular fiscal year. The City Council may deem a severe fiscal emergency to exist in the event that the City's annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues for a given fiscal year decrease by twenty percent (20%) or more from the level of such revenues during the Benchmark Year, and it may deem the severe fiscal emergency to continue until the City's annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues are no longer twenty percent (20%) less than the level of such revenues during the Benchmark Year. If the City Council deems a severe fiscal emergency to exist for a fiscal year, the amount required to be allocated to the Fund shall be reduced to one percent (1%) of the City's total annual actual unrestricted general purpose revenues for that particular fiscal year. Allocations to the Fund shall return to the level required in Section 2 for the first fiscal year in which a fiscal emergency no longer exists. There shall be no reductions in the allocation to the Fund pursuant to this Section 10 prior to fiscal year 2022-2023. (Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
Sec. 1 1. Reauthorization. The provisions of this Article may be extended without amendments for additional ten-year terms by a simple majority vote of the City Council. If the City Council does not act to extend the provisions of this Article before December 31, 2027, the City Council shall be obligated to place a measure on a 2028 election ballot seeking voter approval of whether to extend the term for an additional ten years. This process shall be repeated every ten years, or until reauthorization is rejected by a vote of the electorate. (Added b y election of 6-5-2018 )
CERTIFICATE
Whereas, t he City of Richmond a city containing a population of more than three thousand five hundred and less than ten thousand inhabitants on the twelfth day of October, 1908, at a special election held under and in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, did elect F. E. Adams, C. L. Abbot, C. R.
Blake, L. Boswell, L. D. Dimm, E. A. Gowe, E. J. Garrard, G. A. Follett, L. S. Higgins, I. E. Marshall, I. M. Perrin, E. M. Tilden, H. H.
Turley, H. E. Wyatt, and John Roth a Board of Freeholders to prepare and propose a charter for said city; Be I t Known, That pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and within a period of ninety days after said election, said Board of Freeholders has prepared and does propose the foregoing as and for the charter for the City of Richmond.
In W itness Whereof, We have hereunto set our hands this 23rd day of December 1908.
H. E. WYATT
President of the Board of Freeholders
C. L.
ABBOTT,
E. A. GOWE,
F. E.
ADAMS,
I. E. MARSHALL,
L.
BOSWELL,
JOHN ROTH,
L. D.
DIMM,
H. H. TURLEY,
G. A.
FOLLETT,
E. M. TILDEN,
E. J.
GARRARD,
CHAS. R. BLAKE,
L. S. HIGGINS.
Attest:
J. S. CHANDLER,
Secretary Board of Freeholders
Filed this 28th day of December, 1908, at 12:30 p.m.
J. B. WILLIS
President of the
Board of Trustees of the
City of Richmond, California
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa, ss.
City of Richmond
I, H. H. Turley, City Clerk in and for the City of Richmond, hereby certify that the Board of Trustees of said City, did by Resolution No. 158, order the foregoing charter published in the manner and form required by law.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of the City of Richmond, this 29th day of December, 1908.
H. H. TURLEY
City Clerk
(SEAL)
MEMORANDUM
The first publication of the foregoing charter was made on Tuesday, December 29, 1908, in accordance with a resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the City of Richmond, in the "Richmond Record," a daily newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in said city.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa, ss.
City of Richmond
I, J. B. Willis, President of the Board of Trustees of the City of Richmond, State of California, and I, H. H. Turley, Clerk of said Board, do hereby certify that the Board of Freeholders, whose names appear signed to the foregoing proposed charter, were on the 12th day of October, 1908, at a special municipal election held in said City of Richmond on said day duly elected by the qualified electors of said city to prepare and propose a charter for said city; that each of said freeholders had been a qualified elector in said city for more than five (5) years previous to said election; that the foregoing is a true copy of said charter prepared and returned to the president of said Board of Trustees within ninety (90) days after said election, as required by Section 8 of Article XI of the Constitution of this State; that said proposed charter was then published in the "Richmond Record," which then was a daily newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in said city, and that publication was made for more than twenty (20) days, and that the first publication of said proposed charter was made within twenty (20) days after the completion of said charter; that within thirty (30) days after the publication of said charter, as required in said section 8, to-wit, on the 9th day of February, 1909, said charter was submitted at a special election duly called and held therein for the purpose of ratifying or rejecting said proposed charter; that by a majority of the votes of the qualified electors voting at said election said proposed charter was ratified as a whole; that the returns of said election were duly canvassed by the Board of Trustees of said City of Richmond on the 9th day of February 1909, and the result thereof declared as above set forth; and that in all matters and things pertaining to said proposed charter, all provisions of said section of the Constitution and the laws of the State of California pertaining to the adoption of the charter have been fully complied with in every particular.
In Witness Whereof, We have hereunto set our hands and caused the corporate seal of said City of Richmond to be affixed this 9th day of February, 1909.
(SEAL) J. B. WILLIS
President of the Board of Trustees
of the City of Richmond
H. H. TURLEY,
Clerk of said Board of Trustees and
said City of Richmond.
And, Whereas, said proposed charter, so ratified, has been duly presented and submitted to the Legislature of the State of California for approval or rejection, without power of alteration, or amendment, in accordance with section 8 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Assembly of the State of California the Senate thereof concurring (a majority of all the members elected to each house voting for the adoption of this resolution and concurring therein) that said charter of the City of Richmond, as presented to, adopted and ratified by the qualified electors of said city, be, and the same is hereby approved as a whole as and for the charter of said City of Richmond.
P. A. STANTON,
Speaker of the Assembly.
W. R. PORTER,
President of the Senate.
Attest:
C. F. CURRY,
Secretary of State.
Filed in the office of the Secretary of State the 4th day of March, A.D. 1909, at 10:50 o'clock A.M.
C. F. CURRY, Secretary of State
By J. HOSCH, Deputy
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa, ss.
City of Richmond
I, J. B. Willis, President of the Board of Trustees of the City of Richmond and chief executive officer of said city, do hereby certify that the foregoing charter was submitted to the qualified electors of said city at a special election duly called and held therein for the purpose of ratifying or rejecting same on the 9th day of February, 1909, and that by a majority of votes of qualified electors, voting at said election, said charter was ratified as a whole; that the returns of said election were duly canvassed by the Board of Trustees of the City of Richmond on the 9th day of February 1909, and the results thereof declared as above set forth; that in all matters and things pertaining to said proposed charter, all provisions of section 8 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, pertaining to the adoption of the charter, have been fully complied with in every particular.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the corporate seal of the City of Richmond to be affixed this 24th day of March, 1909. ;b0;(SEAL);lf;J.B. WILLIS, President of the Board of Trustees and
Chief Executive Officer of the City of Richmond.
Attest:
H. H. TURLEY
City Clerk of said City of Richmond.