Community Action Partnership of Orange County Community Action Plan

Transcription

1 Community Action Partnership of Orange County Community Action Plan for the COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Prepared by: Alan H. Woo, Director of Planning & Program Development Natalie Verlinich, Planner Marleen Morrill, Administrative Assistant Heather Sutherland, Planning Research Intern Sarah Guiamelon, Planning Research Intern Nisa Solis, Planning Research Intern June 2013

2 Community Action Plan Checklist The following is a check list of the components to be included in the CAP. The CAP is to be received by CSD no later than June 30, 2013: Cover Page and Certification Table of Contents Vision Statement Mission Statement Community Information Profile Needs Assessment Statewide Priority Federal Assurances State Assurances Documentation of Public Hearing(s) Monitoring and Evaluation Plan CSBG/National Performance Indicators (NPI) CAP Projections Appendices (Optional) Page 1 of 130

3 I. Cover Page and Certification The Cover Page and Certification captures the CSBG eligible entity name, address, contact person, and certification signatures from the Board Chair and Executive Director. This form must be completed in its entirety and attached to the CAP. Signatures certify the governing body of the agency agrees to comply with federal and state mandates set forth in the document. Page 2 of 130

4 State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan CSD 410--Vision (01/13) COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 2014/2015 PROGRAM YEAR COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN COVER PAGE TO: Department of Community Services and Development Attention: Field Operations Unit 2389 Gateway Oaks Drive #100 Sacramento, CA FROM: Community Action Partnership of Orange County Monarch Street Garden Grove, CA Agency Contact Person Regarding Community Action Plan Name: Alan Woo Title:Director of Planning and Development Phone: (714) Ext Fax:(714) CERTIFICATION OF COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN AND ASSURANCES The undersigned hereby certify that this agency complies with the Assurances and Requirements of this 2014/2015 Community Action Plan and the information in this CAP is correct and has been authorized by the governing body of this organization. Board Chairperson Date Executive Director Date Page 3 of 130

5 1. Table of Contents I. Cover Page and Certification... 2 II. Table of Contents... 4 III. Vision Statement... 5 IV. Mission Statement... 5 V. Community Information Profile... 6 VI. Needs Assessment VII. Statewide Priority VIII. Federal Assurances IX. State Assurances X. Documentation of Public Hearing(s) XI. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan XII. CSBG/NPI CAP Projections XIII. Appendices (Optional) The Table of Contents is to be arranged in the order above. Please include the appropriate page numbers for reference. Additional attachments are to be added as appendices. Page 4 of 130

6 III. Vision Statement The Vision Statement describes a desired future based on your agency s values. The vision is broader than what any one agency can achieve; the agency collaborates with others in pursuit of the vision. Provide your agency s Vision Statement. The Community Action Partnership of Orange County believes that poverty in all its forms and manifestations is degrading to the individual and represents a clear threat to the continued health and prosperity of our nation. I. Mission Statement The Mission Statement describes the agency s reason for existence and may state its role in achieving its vision. Provide your agency s Mission Statement. Community Action Partnership of Orange County s mission is to enhance the quality of life within Orange County by eliminating and preventing the causes and effects of poverty by mobilizing and directing resources to assist, educate and promote selfsufficiency. Page 5 of 130

7 Community Information Profile State law requires each CSBG eligible entity to develop a CAP that will assess povertyrelated needs, available resources, feasible goals, and strategies to prioritize its services and activities to promote the goals of self-sufficiency among the low-income populations in its service area (Government Code 12747(a)). Community Information Profile: This section captures the problems and causes of poverty in the agency s service area, based on objective, verifiable data and information (Government Code 12754(a)). Community Information Profiles shall identify the following: 1. The service area in terms of related factors, such as poverty, unemployment, educational achievement, health, nutrition, housing conditions, homelessness, crime rates, incidents of delinquency, the degree of participation by community members in the affairs of their communities and/or similar factors deemed appropriate by the agency. Factors described in the Community Information Profile must be typical for baseline data and substantiated by corroboration gained through public forums, customer questionnaires, surveys, statistical data, evaluation studies, key informants, anecdotal sources and/or other sources deemed reliable by the agency. This Community Action Plan (CAP) is a multi-task document that includes problem statements, strategies and proposed goals for the agency in 2014 and The CAP provides a snapshot of conditions and circumstances at the time of its preparation and submission. However, the CAP and subsequent Community Services Block Grant contract are dynamic and expected to change as circumstances change in the community. GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION Orange County is located in the heart of Southern California with Los Angeles County to the north, San Diego County to the south, and Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to the east. There are currently 34 cities within the county. The county of Orange is situated along 42 miles of southern California coast and extends 15 miles inland, comprising square miles. The unincorporated areas of Anaheim Independencia (or La Colonia), El Modena and Midway City are undergoing annexation. Orange County qualifies as an Urban County. COUNTY PROFILE Orange County faces enormous challenges because it has a substantial amount of inequality and contrast. Orange County suffers from an increasing gap between its Page 6 of 130

8 wealthy areas, mostly located in the southern and coastal regions and the poorer areas, mainly located in the central and northern areas. This gap was described by Joel Kotkin in his 1997 report Orange County: The Fate of a Post Suburban Paradise. Kotkin s report describes the new Orange Curtain as the psychological, political, and sociological barrier that separates the prosperous parts of the county from its economically challenged core. Media depictions of life in Orange County have led the general public to believe that Orange County is mostly white, wealthy, and without poverty and social diversity. These portrayals have turned Orange County into an icon. Many who live outside of the county think of the O.C. as the epicenter for the young, hip, good-looking and wealthy (Chang, 2007). This Community Needs Assessment finds that overall Orange County is a prosperous, socially diverse, multicultural, and densely populated area. Overall, the county has a higher median income, lower unemployment, and lower crime rate than many other California counties. On average, Orange County ranks favorably compared to the state and nation. However, a deeper look within the county helps explain the 40% of residents who report they are struggling. A review of Orange County s congressional districts shows wide disparities (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2011): The south county area (CA-48) which includes Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Tustin, Foothill Ranch, Portola Hills, San Joaquin Hills, Tustin Foothill, and Newport Coast, ranks at the top of the Composite Well-being Index in second place, while another (CA-47) ranks at the bottom at 430 th. Congressional District 48 ranks in the top 10 for Basic Access, Physical Health, Healthy Behaviors, and Life Evaluation. In contrast, the central counties (CA-47) that includes Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove and Santa Ana, ranks last for Life Evaluation and 432 nd for Healthy Behaviors. However, hidden behind the general statistics one will find large disparities and inequalities along ethnic lines and geographic location. In all key socio-economic indicators income, employment, poverty, health, education, and public safety problems are overshadowed by the few prosperous regions in the county. There are large portions of the county that face challenges which are not seen when the county s average statistics are compared to other counties. Because Orange County is densely populated, the social issues highlighted in this assessment affect a large number of people including children, families, seniors, and ethnic minorities. POVERTY Definition The government typically defines poverty using the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Poverty Guidelines. These guidelines are used to determine eligibility Page 7 of 130

9 for a number of federal programs. There are some programs which use a percentage multiple of the guidelines to determine eligibility. The Department of Health and Human Services is required to update the guidelines to account for inflation. It should be noted that the official poverty rate reported in the state of California does not take into account California s higher cost of living. Nonetheless, the poverty rates described herein refer to the federal poverty line, as calculated by the Department of Health and Human Services. Prevalence The 2009 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) conducted by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research estimates that 30.0% of Orange County residents survive on income that is between 0% and 199% of the federal poverty line. Although this percentage is less than the state estimate (36.4%), it does represent approximately 903,000 residents of Orange County who are in desperate need. Data estimates from 2011 indicate that 12.9% of Orange County residents lived in poverty. Census 2011 data reveals that Orange County has the fourth largest number of people in California counties living in poverty. This number is 344,869 more people than the number living in poverty in Imperial County, which has a poverty rate of approximately 26.8%. The large number of people living in poverty in Orange County should not be overlooked even though the percentage of people seems, on the surface, to be relatively lower than other California counties (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). There are substantial poverty rate differences based on geographic location and race/ethnicity. According to the 2011 Census American Community Survey 5-year estimates from , the percentage of families below the federal poverty level within the county ranged from a low of 3.6% to a high of 13.5%. Higher poverty rates were found primarily in the northern and central areas of the county including Santa Ana (19.5%), Stanton (15.9%), Garden Grove (14.3%) and Anaheim (14.3%). In addition, ethnic minorities are substantially more likely to live in poverty. The table below reports the ethnic distribution of poverty based on the 2011 Census in the county: Distribution of Poverty by Ethnicity American Indian / Alaska Native African American White Other All Poverty Level Latino Asian Less than 50% 6.7% 10.0% 5.7% 7.3% 4.6% 7.8% 5.3% Less than 100% 20.4% 17.2% 12.2% 14.8% 11.0% 23.4% 12.9% Less than 125% 27.9% 19.0% 15.9% 18.3% 15.2% 31.0% 17.4% SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey As previously mentioned, Orange County has a large Latino population. Therefore, it is troublesome that there are a disproportionate number of Latino persons who live in poverty. CHIS data indicates that only 21.9% of the Latino population had an income Page 8 of 130

10 three times or higher than the federal poverty line, compared to 52.8% of the Orange County population. Children are also severely affected by poverty. Children who live in poverty are at risk for poor health outcomes and developmental delays, both physically and psychologically. Also disconcerting is that nearly three-fourths of all Orange County children living in poverty are Latino (Campbell, 2011). An accurate and current measure of the number of children at or near the poverty level is the percentage of children receiving free or reduced school lunches through the national school lunch program. To be eligible for a free/reduced lunch, a child s household income must be below 185% of the federal poverty level (Center for Community Collaboration, 2012). During the 2010/11 school year, there were 228,121 students or 45% of Orange County s total public school enrollment that participated in the free/reduced lunch program (Center for Community Collaboration, 2012). There is substantial variation in participation rates across Orange County school districts from a low of 10% to a high of 86% as indicated in the following tables that show the school districts with the highest and lowest percent of students participating in the free/reduced lunch program. Orange County School Districts with Highest and Lowest Percentage of Students Participating in Free/Reduced Lunch Program /2011 School Year School District Percent School District Percent Anaheim City Elementary 86% Los Alamitos Unified 10% Santa Ana Unified 84% Irvine Unified 11% Magnolia Elementary 80% Laguna Beach Unified 13% La Habra City Elementary 73% Huntington Beach City Elementary 16% Buena Park Elementary 73% Fountain Valley Elementary Source: Report on the Conditions of Children in Orange County, % School districts with the highest proportions of low-income students are located mostly in the northern area of the county. Unfortunately, school districts with a high percentage of children receiving free/reduced lunches are more likely to have lower reading scores (Center for Community Collaboration, 2008). The students in these school districts face additional educational challenges as demonstrated on achievement tests and discussed further in the Education Section of this report. The geographic distribution of low income students is another example of the inequality that is pervasive in Orange County. Hunger Hunger is a severe form of poverty. The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines food security as having enough food at all times for an active and healthy life, therefore the phrases low food security and very low food security are used to describe hunger (2013). In food insecure households, adults must adjust the household budget and often forgo other household needs like rent, utilities, and health care. Despite the county s image of overall apparent wealth and prosperity, there are a large Page 9 of 130

11 number of people at risk of going hungry including children, seniors, single-parents, the working poor, the disabled, the temporarily unemployed, and the homeless. According to the 2009 CHIS Study, Orange County ranks second with the highest percentage of food insecure adults among California counties. It is estimated that there are 379,000 food-insecure adults or about 52.4% living at or below the federal poverty level. This percentage is substantially higher than the statewide average of adults living at or below the federal poverty level with food insecurity at 40.4% (UCLA Center for Health Policy Research). In addition, this number does not include other persons residing in the household. Additionally, since the Great Recession, hunger in Orange County has become more complicated. TerryLynn Fisher, a public information officer for the Orange County Social Services quotes: We have people who formerly made six figures, people living in mansions who do not have any food to eat (Walker, 2011). The California Food Policy Advocates estimated that nearly 379,000 adults in Orange County struggled to put adequate food on the table during the recent recession (California Food Policy Advocates, 2012). More troubling is that donations are down and demand has risen in food banks, food pantries and other social service agencies (Walker, 2011). Lack of food deprives children and adults of the nutrition and energy they need for an active daily life. At mild to moderate levels, food insecurity contributes to anxiety. Longterm food insecurity alters the behavior of adults and children, taking away from children s ability to perform well in school and for adults to be productive workers. Children in food-insecure households tend to do not as well in school and have increased absences, increased tardiness, and poorer cognitive functioning. Children in food insecure households also tend to have more health problems than children in food secure households. Children and adolescents in food insecure households have an increased risk of developing emotional problems (Harrison et al., 2005). Food insecurity may add another consequence for some populations: obesity. Ironically, food insecurity may be related to obesity due to the consumption of inexpensive but high-fat food or overeating to compensate for times of food scarcity. The BMI guideline in adults define that those whose BMI is between 25.0 to 29.9 would be considered overweight, while those whose BMI fell over 30.0 would be considered obese (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2012). In Orange County, it is estimated that approximately 33% of residents are overweight or obese. The top three leading cities with the highest obesity rates across the county include Stanton (51.8%), Santa Ana (46.5%) and Anaheim (43.5%) (California Center for Public Health Advocacy, 2012). Racial disparities exist as well as Latinos (57.6%) and Blacks (55.6%) are more likely than Asian (21.6%) peers to be overweight or obese (UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, 2009). In addition, an examination of 2009 CHIS data reveals that the likelihood of being overweight or obese is associated with poverty as illustrated in the table below. An examination of weight status and food insecurity confirms that the two variables are related. Page 10 of 130

12 According to the 2009 CHIS study, the food insecure poor are more likely to be overweight or obese (58.8%) than the food secure poor (43.9%). Targeting nutrition and food supplemental programming to Latinos, African Americans and the poor is justifiable in light of this data. Welfare Despite Orange County s image of wealth and prosperity, there are still a large number of persons who require government and public assistance to survive. The number of persons enrolled in public assistance programs were as follows (Orange County Community Indicator Project, 2012): The number of people receiving CalWorks cash assistance increased 10% in one year, rising to a monthly average of 58,007 in 2010/11 CalFresh (formerly Food Stamps) enrollment jumped 24% during the same time period, on top of a 37% rise in 2009/10 Enrollment data reveals a monthly average of 185,489 residents receiving CalFresh in 2010/11, equivalent to 6.1% of the county s total population Medi-Cal enrollment grew 7%, while Healthy Families enrollment grew 1% The increasing enrollment in public assistance programs may reflect current economic conditions, expanded eligibility, and greater efforts to enroll incomeeligible residents The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) reveals that it serves an average of 1 in every 7 residents or 476,664 people every month (2012). Of those residents, a majority reside in the Central (30%), North (27%), and West (21%) regions of the county. Each month, there are a number of welfare recipients who reach their lifetime time limit and are dropped from the CalWorks rolls. Orange County CalWORKs recipients who have reached the end of their time limit have to face a considerable reduction of benefits in addition to extraordinarily high housing and child care costs. Many low income persons in Orange County will also be challenged with limited English skills. This increasing group of working poor residents will be at increased risk of food insecurity and homelessness. It is likely that the demand for anti-poverty services will increase as an increasing number of poor residents become ineligible for public benefits or subject to work requirement sanctions yet remain unable to earn enough to lift their families into self-sufficiency. DEMOGRAPHICS Population Growth Between 2000 and 2010, Orange County s population grew by 5.8% (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2012). The County s population growth is expected to continue until the year 2050 when it will stabilize at 4 million residents (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2012). Page 11 of 130

13 Over the past 10 years, the City of Irvine experienced the greatest population growth at 48.4%, followed by Lake Forest (31.6%), San Clemente (27.2%), Newport Beach (21.6%) and Aliso Viejo (19.2%) (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2012). Historically, immigration has contributed the most to population growth in Orange County. In fact, the county s proportion of foreign-born persons has increased from 6% in 1970 to 30% in 2010 (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2012). The county s foreign-born residents were primarily born in Latin America (47.3%), Asia (43.6%), Europe (5.3%), Africa (1.7%), Northern America (1.7%) and Oceania (0.5%) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). However, Orange County is no longer a major destination for residents of the 49 states, and more people are moving out of Orange County to other counties than moving into the county. Currently, Orange County s population growth is mainly generated from natural increase (births minus deaths) rather than through migration (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2012). Orange County s steady population growth has continued to create challenges. Orange County is one of the most densely populated areas in the nation ranking 18 th among all U.S. counties and second in California (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Orange County s population density in 2010 was 3,808 persons per square mile, an average increase of 6% annually since 2000 (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2012). Population density does vary by location within Orange County, from a low of 1,984 persons per square mile in Seal Beach and 2,429 in San Juan Capistrano to a high of 12,360 in Stanton and 11,913 in Santa Ana; Orange County s population is densely populated in the northern and central regions. Population density in combination with high housing costs contributes to overcrowding conditions and household stress. The average Orange County household size had 2.97 persons and was ranked as the 37 th highest household size in the United States among larger counties. Orange County s average household size is higher than the California average (2.89) and national average (2.59). The city of Santa Ana has the 11 th highest household size (4.43) in the nation when compared to other large cities. In addition, the cities of Garden Grove (3.68), Buena Park (3.53), Stanton (3.35), and Anaheim (3.32) all have higher than average household sizes. Overcrowding can have negative consequences that impact family well-being (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2012). In addition to geographic differences in household sizes, there are also differences along racial and ethnic lines. Latinos tend to have the highest household sizes (4.29), followed by Asians (3.23) and African-Americans (2.72) (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2012). However, there is variation within the Asian population segments: Vietnamese (3.7) and Filipino (3.4) households are largest on average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Among the Pacific Islander groups, the average Hmong, Samoan and Page 12 of 130

14 Laotian household include five or more persons, the largest of all major racial and ethnic groups in the county (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Age Distribution In 2010, Orange County s median age was 36 years. This is slightly younger than the national median age of 37 years. In 2010, 24% of Orange County s population was under 18 years of age (compared to 27% in 2000) and 12% were 65 years and older in 2010 (compared to 10% in 2000) (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2012). Around 27.6% of the population is under the age of 19 years old, 61% is aged between years old and the population 65 years and older represents 11.6% of the total (Orange County Business Council, 2012). Data from the 2011 American Community Survey reveals a bell curve, where a large proportion of the population is between years old (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). 500, , , , ,000 0 Population by age distribution, 2011 There is, however, substantial variation of the median age by geographic location. The four youngest cities ranked by median age are as follows: Santa Ana (28.7 years), Anaheim (32.1 years), Stanton (32.7 years) and La Habra (33.0 years). The five oldest communities ranked by median age are the following: Laguna Woods (77.1 years), Seal Beach (58.1 years), Villa Park (43.6 years), Laguna Beach (48.9 years) and Villa Park (48.7 years) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Orange County s median age is expected to increase. Population projections reveal that the county will grow significantly older over the next fifty years as residents in every age group except 65 or older will decline (Joseph, 2013). The county s nice weather attracts affluent retirees, but the high cost of living drives a younger population away (Joseph, 2013). For example, if two college graduates wanted to buy a house, and they each were earning $43,596, the average annual salary for a recent college graduate, the household would not have the ability to purchase a home in Orange County because the median price of $502,500 for a single-family home in 2013 is beyond what they could afford (Milbourn, 2012), (DataQuick News, 2013). Large numbers of young adults are leaving Orange County for less expensive housing. Many, however, may continue to work in Orange County, therefore contributing to the problem of increased traffic congestion. Page 13 of 130

15 Although the county s median age is expected to increase, that increase will vary by ethnicity. Over the next 25 years, the Latino/Hispanic population will see moderate increases among the youth populations and dramatic increases among the older adult and senior populations (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2007). As a result, the median age of the Latino population is expected to increase from 26 years to 35 years between 2005 and 2030 (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2007). In contrast, the Asian population will experience dramatic increases in the numbers of older adults and seniors but little change in the number of children and young adults. As a result, the Asian population s median age is expected to increase from 39 years to 47 years between 2005 and 2030 (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2007). Orange County s White population will experience a considerable decrease in the child population and a moderate increase in older adults and seniors resulting in a median age change from 41 years to 46 years (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2007). Ethnicity Orange County continues to be a minority majority county where no single racial or ethnic group comprises more than 50% of the total population. Fully 45% of Orange County residents over the age of five speak a language other than English at home (Center for Community Collaboration, 2012). The ethnic distribution of Orange County s population according to the 2011 American Community Survey is as follows: 66.4% White, 34.1% Hispanic, 19.8% Hispanic; 13.4% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, 2.2% African American, and 0.9% American Indian/Alaska Native. State demographers predict Latinos will surpass Whites as Orange County's largest ethnic group by 2027 (Joseph, 2013). Since 2005, Latinos have accounted for more than 50% of the total births in the county, followed by Asians at 25%. The growth rate of the Asian population, while smaller in total numbers, outpaces the Latino growth rate. From , Orange County s Asian population increased by 115.8%, while Latinos increased by 79.3% (Orange County Business Council, 2012). Ethnic minorities already make up the majority of Orange County's central cities including, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Westminster, Garden Grove, and Stanton. Significant Differences across Ethnic Groups According to Census data, between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population in the county grew by almost 16%. The city of Santa Ana has the largest concentration of Hispanics and has become one of the nation's most Hispanic cities (Ennis, Rios-Vargas, & Albert, 2011). Census 2011 data indicates that Hispanics made up 34.1% of Orange County s population and 79.5% of Santa Ana s population, ranking Santa Ana as the seventh city with the highest concentration of Hispanics in the nation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Orange County has the third largest Asian and Pacific Islander population in California Page 14 of 130

16 (Asian Pacific American Legal Center, 2005). According to the 2011 Census, the Asian & Pacific Islander population comprises almost 19.8% of the county s population and includes more than half a million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The Asian and Pacific Islander population grew by 38.7% from 2000 to The City of Westminster has the largest concentration of Asian/Pacific Islander persons (48.4%). Other cities with large concentrations of Asians & Pacific Islanders include La Palma (47.5%), Irvine (40.3%), Garden Grove (38.9%), Fountain Valley (36.4%) and Cypress (33%) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). It is important to note that the Asian & Pacific Islander community in Orange County is not homogenous in fact, it is one of the most diverse and complex in Southern California. According to the 2011 American Community Survey, the breakdown of Orange County s Asian population is as follows: 1.5% Asian Indian, 2.8% Chinese, 2.4% Filipino, 1.1% Japanese, 2.9% Korean, 6.2% Vietnamese and 1.4% other Asian populations. Orange County is home to the nation s largest Vietnamese community with more than 180,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The county s Vietnamese population makes up more than 30% of the Vietnamese population statewide (APALC, 2005). The Vietnamese population is concentrated in Garden Grove and Westminster, but has been fanning out into wealthier areas signaling successfully assimilation of this refugee population. One-fourth of the county's Chinese-American population lives in Irvine; the cities of Anaheim and Huntington Beach also have large Chinese populations. The cities with large Korean populations include Fullerton, Irvine and Garden Grove. Orange County has the fourth largest Pacific Islander population in California with Anaheim containing the largest number, followed by Santa Ana, Garden Grove and Huntington Beach. In addition to geographic location differences, there are also differences in population growth, household size, income, poverty rates, education and English proficiency that are evident within the Asian & Pacific Islander population. The diversity and complexity of the Asian & Pacific Islander population adds to the social diversity in Orange County. However, many socio-economic disparities discussed later in this report exist along ethnic lines. As the County continues to grow more diverse, there is a need for services to become more culturally and linguistically appropriate. Spanish and Asian language components within social services are a continuing need in Orange County. ECONOMICS Household Income Orange County is one of the more affluent counties in the state of California. The 2010 median household income was $73,380, which was 22.9% higher than the state ($59,659) and 41% higher than the nation ($52,041) a trend that goes back several decades (Orange County Business Council [OCBC], 2012). All higher earning counties are Page 15 of 130

17 in the Greater Bay area (Gittelsohn, 2007). By 2000, the proportion of Orange County workers making under $75,000 shrank to 63%, while the two largest income categories grew to 37%. The largest growth occurred in the income group making over $125,000 (9%), while the largest decrease occurred in the below $30,000 income category (7%) (OCBC,2012). These trends continued in the last decade, with the proportion of lower income groups shrinking further and the top two income categories growing steadily (OCBC, 2012). However, the above information reveals only part of the story. In a high-cost area such as Orange County, $60,000 a year cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment (OCBC, 2012). When data is analyzed by the 86 of 89 zip codes with tax data in Orange County there is a large gap ($361,571) between the lowest income area (Santa Ana, $27,029) and the highest income area (Newport Coast, $388,600). The range of income for the ten lowest areas is from $27,029-$34,091; the range of income for the ten highest areas is $126,589-$388,600. The wealthiest zip code in Orange County was in Newport Coast, which ranked seventh in California. Of the top ten wealthiest zip codes, only one was in Orange County (Gittelsohn, 2007). There are geographic differences in average reported household income. A review of the Income by Zip Code Map reveals that all of the ten lowest income areas are in the inland and northern portion of the county. A comparison to the Population Map reveals that these lower income areas are highly populated suggesting that a large number of people are surviving on modest incomes. A review of the Income Change Map reveals that many areas in Orange County experienced income changes that were below the rate of inflation. The Income by Zip Code Map and the Income Change Map are presented in the Appendix. Darker regions indicate higher income or income growth. The red areas in the Income Change Map indicate a net income loss after adjusting for inflation. Within Orange County, inequality is not limited to total household income but also income gains. Eight out of the ten of the largest income increases occurred in zip codes where household incomes exceeded $100,000. The five zip codes which had the highest income rose an estimated two to four times higher than the county average (26%-45%). Indeed, the rich got richer, primarily through capital gains (Gittelsohn, 2007). In contrast, all of the lower income areas experienced income gains less than the county and state average. In fact, when inflation is taken into account, two of the ten lowincome areas experienced income loss, seven of the low-income areas experienced minimal gains between 1.0% and 2.6%, and one low-income area experienced a modest income increase of 5.95%. Finally, there are racial and ethnic differences in household income. Hispanic and African-American ethnic groups have substantially lower household income than the county s average. The percent of families below the poverty level is also found higher in these ethnic groups. Below is a table outlining the gaps in income by gender and Page 16 of 130

18 ethnicity across the United States: Median Weekly Earnings and Gender Gap for Full-Time Workers, 15 years and older by Race and Ethnicity Race and Ethnicity Male ($) Female ($) All races 48,202 37,118 White only, not Hispanic 52,318 40,335 Black 39,483 33,501 Asian 55,080 40,882 Hispanic 31,843 29,020 Source: Institute For Women s Policy Research, 2012 Income varies substantially across Asian ethnicities. Even though on average, U.S. born Asians out-earn Whites as indicated in the table, some Asian & Pacific Islander ethnic groups are among the county s poorest residents (Asian Pacific American Legal Center, 2005). The substantial income variations in the Asian population should not be overlooked. Despite Orange County s image of prosperity and wealth, data from the 2011 U.S. Census reveals income disparities among ethnical groups. Median income among ethnicities, 2011 Race and Ethnicity Median Income ($) White 75,500 Black 62,186 American Indian & Alaskan Native 52,437 Asian 78,889 Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 49,827 Hispanic 54,964 County median income 72,293 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2011 While Asians earned the highest income among ethical groups, a review reveals Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaskan Native, followed by Hispanics earned the lowest. As mentioned earlier, Orange County has a large population of ethnic minorities and many of these groups can be found concentrated in the poorer northern and central areas of the county. Census data revealed that the median household income in 2011 Orange County was $72,293 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). However, a review of the distribution of household income confirms that there are large numbers of households with modest income levels. For example, approximately 24% of Orange County households have income less than $35,000 per year according to the Census data. Overall, the data confirms that there is substantial income disparity, resulting in a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Three years after the Great Recession, Page 17 of 130

19 incomes have not bounced back to pre-recession levels. Specifically, the number of middle-class families has declined slightly, while the upper and lower classes are growing. Between 2006 and 2011, there was a 26,000 deficit in households in the $35,000 to $100,000 income bracket, a growth of 14,000 households in the low-income bracket and a growth of 34,000 households in the $100,000+ income bracket. Economists warn that declines in consumer spending and housing, coupled with inflation outpacing wage gains are likely factors that have contributed to the widening gap. Furthermore, average earnings for the lowest fifth of households plummeted to 18% (Campbell, 2012). The decline in the number of middle-class families and neighborhoods is an indicator of the challenge of and capacity of lower income individuals to move up to middle-class status. EMPLOYMENT OVERVIEW Unemployment In 2013, Orange County's labor force numbered approximately 1.6 million people according to data from the State of California Employment Development Department (EDD) (2013). From 2007 to 2010, Orange County experienced a loss of 162,000 jobs (Orange County Business Council, 2012). The county's unemployment rate in March of 2013 was 6.3%, considerably lower than the state's unemployment rate of 9.4% (EDD, 2013). In fact, Orange County's unemployment rate has been consistently lower than the state average, ranking 4 th in the state (EDD, 2013). It should be noted that official unemployment numbers do not include discouraged workers and underemployed workers. As a result, the true unemployment rate is actually notably higher. In a telephone survey conducted by the Orange County United Way, unemployment and underemployment challenges were mentioned by notable proportions of residents and service providers in the lower-income areas. Unemployment rates within the cities of Orange County vary substantially. In March of 2013, the entire county had an unemployment rate of 6.3% or 103,300 people (EDD, 2013). However, according to EDD data, the unemployment rate throughout Orange County varied from 2.0% to 10.3% (EDD, 2013). The areas with the highest unemployment rate included Stanton (10.3%), Santa Ana (10.1%), Laguna Woods (8.8%), Anaheim (8.2%), Garden Grove (7.9%) and Buena Park (7.9%). The areas with the lowest unemployment included Foothill Ranch (2.0%), Coto de Caza (2.7%), Las Flores (3.1%), Aliso Viejo (3.3%), Portola Hills (3.4%), Los Alamitos (3.5%) and Villa Park (3.6%) (EDD, 2013). EDD reports that the agency is swamped by 2 million calls a day, compared to 1.1 million at the height of the last recession in In March of 2013, the EDD processed 219,763 unemployment claims; this number has been decreasing since December 2008 when the EDD processed 376,000 (EDD, 2013). Major Employers A list of Orange County s major employers and the number of persons employed in 2010: Walt Disney Company (22,000 employees), University of California at Irvine Page 18 of 130

20 (21,291), County of Orange (17,321), St. Joseph Health System (12,048), Boeing Company (7,700), Bank of America Corporation (6,300), Yum Brands Inc (6,300), Kaiser Permanente (5,968), Target Corporation (5,527) and Cedar Fair LP (5,200). The distribution of industry sectors represented in Orange County in 2010 is a follows: Professional and Business Services (18.3%); Trade, Transportation and Utilities (18.2%); Leisure and Hospitality Services (12.8%); Educational and Health Services (11.6%); Government (11.1%); Manufacturing (10.9%); Financial Activities (7.4%); Construction (4.8%); Other Services (4.7%); Farm, Mining and Logging (0.2%) (County of Orange, 2012). Job Growth While Orange County s industry employment has observed slight increases and fluctuations, with some industries performing better than others, overall growth remains slow due to impacts associated with the Great Recession (Orange County Workforce Investment Board, 2012). In 2010, California s Employment Development released its employment projections for Orange County. Projections estimated that Orange County s industry sector employment would grow by 8.4%, but since the beginning of 2008 industry employment has fallen by 6.8%. This gap between the current and projected employment growth is a result of the uncertainty and lasting impacts of the Great Recession. Though the professional, scientific and technical services industry was projected to increase the most in terms of absolute growth, it instead lost 6,100 jobs. The administrative and support services followed with a 4,900 loss in employment. In terms of percentage growth, hospitals (private) and warehousing and storage were projected to be among the top 10 fastest growing industries, yet experienced an 11.6% and 10.2% decrease, respectively. Other industries are on track to exceed EDD projections, such as ambulatory healthcare services and social assistance industries, which saw gains of 9,100 and 15.6%, respectively (OCBC, 2012). Furthermore, the largest growth occurred in leisure and hospitality (+4,600 jobs), manufacturing (+3,200 jobs), education and health (+3,200 jobs), and professional services (+3,200 jobs) (California Department of Transportation, 2012). In terms of percentage growth among occupations, biomedical engineers (52.2%), home health aides (47.5%), medical scientists (45.7%) and personal and home health aides (42.8%) were projected to be the fastest growing occupations from 2008 to 2018 in Orange County (OCBC, 2012). The following table demonstrates the county s top ten fastest projected net job growth occupations between 2010 and 2020 as forecasted by EDD (EDD, 2012). Page 19 of 130

21 Occupation Top Ten High Numerical Growth Occupations Orange County, Growth Rate (%) Minimum Degree Required Median Hourly Wage ($) Biomedical Engineers 6.4 Bachelors degree $45.21 Home Health Aides 4.7 Less than high school $10.86 Logisticians 4.0 High school diploma $35.58 Personal and Home Care Aides 4.0 High school diploma $10.27 Health Educators 3.9 Bachelor s degree $16.23 Occupational Therapists Assistants/Aides 3.8 High school diploma $29.79/$23.10 Physical Therapists Assistants 3.8 Associate s degree $29.28 Audiologists 3.6 Master s degree $33.62 Physical Therapist Aides 3.5 High school diploma $14.00 Meeting and Convention Planners 3.4 Bachelors degree $24.52 Note that half of the occupations pay the hourly salary required to be able to afford the average rent of a one-bedroom apartment in the area ($26.62) (OCBC, 2012). Moreover, three positions pay less than half of the hourly salary required. It is also noted that a majority of the positions require a high school diploma and on-the-job training (OJT). The retail sector is also expected to produce a substantial number of jobs in the county from 2012 through 2017 (California Department of Transportation, 2012). The lack of high paying wages in combination with the lack of affordable housing has the potential to drive young families out of the county, according to Wallace Walrod, author of the 2006 Orange County Workforce Report. Ultimately, these job trends may have the long-term effect of impeding Orange County s future job growth and economy. State & Local Finances Orange County is a donor county meaning that it sends to Sacramento more tax revenues than it receives in services. In fact, Orange County receives from the State the least amount of property taxes per capita among the state s most populated counties. The county general fund receives the lowest share of its property tax from the state of California; only 14.1% of property tax dollars support general county services (Orange County Department of Finance, 2012). In comparison, the County of San Francisco receives 70.0% and the County of Los Angeles receives 24.2% of their local property taxes for county services. This situation also applies to the cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana who receive less in per capita property taxes than the statewide city average despite having lower average income and higher poverty rates. This inequity between tax dollars sent and services received is based on formulas developed in 1979 that reflected the county s rural character at the time (California Legislative Analyst s Office, 1996). Today, however, the county is much more developed, urbanized, and densely populated. Page 20 of 130

22 As a result of its donor county status, Orange County is disadvantaged in financing a variety of social services, community services, and health care services for the community. This situation is exacerbated by the debt incurred during Orange County s bankruptcy in June Resources to help the poor and disenfranchised are strained. Consequently, local organizations must collaborate and link services to make use of their limited resources. However, many social needs go unmet or underserved. Currently, the proposed 2013 Federal Budget proposes significant reduction or elimination of several domestic programs designed to address poverty and food insecurity. The FY2013 budget was proposed to Congress totaling $350 million, nearly half of the FY2012 budget of $677 million. However, the proposal was rejected and CSBG funding has maintained at its current level of $677 million. In early 2013, the effect of the sequestration took effect on all federal programs, including the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) with across the board spending reductions to all federal programs. Reductions are also being proposed in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that provides utility assistance and weatherization programs to low income persons (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2012) and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) which assists municipalities in revitalizing their lowincome communities (Office of Management and Budget, 2013). The ability of the working poor to achieve self-sufficiency may be affected because of the administration s proposal to cut the inflation-adjusted funding for employment and training services under the Workforce Investment Act and reductions in education spending (Office of Management and Budget, 2013). If these budget actions materialize, the Community Action Partnership of Orange County s Board of Directors will be challenged to meet the growing needs of the community s poor with more limited resources. HOUSING Housing Affordability The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) defines affordability as a sale where estimated house payments, assuming 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage (average 4.9% in 2010) with 10% down payment, ran less than 28% of income. Orange County s home affordability is arguably one of the lowest throughout the nation, ranking 222 out of the 225 U.S. metros (Krueger, 2012). Consequently, the high cost of living decreases overall migration into the county and continues to push some residents out of the region (Orange County Business Council, 2012). Orange County is ranked as the third least affordable county in the nation (National Low Income Housing Coalition [NLIHC], 2012). Just one in three Orange County households Page 21 of 130

23 can afford to buy a median-priced, single family home (Hardesty, 2012). In June 2012, the median price of an existing single-family detached home was $567,910 (OCBC, 2012). Within the cities of Orange County there are considerable differences with lows of $200,000 (Santa Ana) to a high of $1,820,000 (Newport Coast) (Lansner, 2013). As of July 2011, Orange County s median price was nearly $260,000 more than the state s median price for a comparable home (Orange County Community Indicators Project, 2012). Furthermore, the median prices are expected to increase to 7% for 2013 (The Orange County Register, 2012). Home value appreciation does vary significantly by zip code. Nevertheless, home ownership remains unaffordable for many residents. Nearly 23.0% of Orange County households are contributing half of their income towards housing (The Orange County Register). Housing Crisis The consequences of the housing crisis have different implications for the various segments of the Orange County community. Banks increased late mortgage notices to Orange County homeowners. The number of late notices had doubled from 2008 to 2009, the number of default notices was increasing from 2005 to 2009 and foreclosures previously increased 512% from January 2006 to January From the start of 2011 however, the number of foreclosures has decreased by 3% (including 24% in the city of Irvine) from a year ago with notices of defaults down nearly 12% from a year ago as well (Lansner, 2011). While this is the case, remember that the median home sale price is still 30% of what it was in However, because home prices are still substantially higher than wages, many potential homebuyers are still priced out of the market. Families making the median income are not able to afford median priced single-family homes in the county. For example, the minimum household income required to afford a median price single-family home in Orange County was $60,180 (OCBC, 2012). The vast majority of Orange County s Hispanic households roughly one in three of our population are priced out of the local housing market, according to a new study of race, ethnicity and housing economics in 276 U.S. markets by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) (Lansner, 2011). Only 15.7% of Orange County homes sold in 2010 were affordable to those local Hispanic households earning this demographic s $55,400 median income. That compares to 42% of Orange County Homes sold in 2010 being affordable to the entire Orange County population earning its median income of $87,200 for the year. Other Orange County affordability measures, by demographic include: Whites: 58% of Orange County homes sold in 2010 were affordable to those in this demographic earning their median income of $108,100 for the year. Page 22 of 130