Laserfiche WebLink
PAGE 19 <br />QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION EFFORT <br />PEOPLE <br />INVOLVED <br />9 community focus groups <br />(adults + youth) <br />81 <br />2 nonprofit focus groups <br />•executive staff <br />•direct service staff <br />19 <br />Community tabling <br />•Dublin St. Patrick’s Day Festival <br />•La Familia Dia de los Muertos event <br />•Tri-Valley NonProfit Alliance Poverty <br />webinar <br />110+ <br />Interviews with community members 29 <br />Interviews with nonprofit leaders <br />and faith-based organizations <br />26 <br />Interviews with first responders 3 <br />Intercept interviews <br />•Axis Health Center <br />•Livermore Senior Center <br />•La Salud Health Fair: Salud y Sol End <br />of Summer Health Fiesta <br />70 <br />TOTAL 338 <br />Table 5. Data Collection Activity and Sample <br />DEMOGRAPHICS <br />For the majority of the primary data collection efforts, <br />demographic data were not collected in recognition <br />of: 1) the discomfort of many individuals when <br />asked personal information, potentially resulting <br />in lower levels of engagement; and 2) the desire to <br />lessen the burden of participation, particularly for <br />those engaged through tabling events and intercept <br />interviews. <br />The exception to this was focus groups, in which <br />individuals had the option of providing demographic <br />information. Of the 81 individuals who participated <br />in focus groups, 63 elected to provide demographic <br />information. This information is summarized below. <br />These data points should be interpreted with caution <br />and with the reminder that they do not reflect <br />the demographics of people engaged in individual <br />interviews, intercept surveys, or tabling events. <br />Participants were asked how to describe themselves <br />(capturing racial and ethnic demographics), and the <br />response category allowed for multiple selections <br />to capture individuals who self-identified as <br />multiracial. The largest proportion of participants <br />self-identified as white (41.9%), followed by East <br />Asian (20.9%) which includes Chinese, Filipino, and <br />Japanese ancestry. Hispanic, Latino, and Spanish <br />origin represented 9.7% of respondents. The other <br />participants included South Asian (e.g., Indian, <br />Pakistani, Bangladeshi) at 8.1%; and Black or African <br />American, including Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, and <br />Ethiopian at 8.1%. 6.5% of respondents selected <br />multiple racial or ethnic categories while 4.8% of <br />respondents indicated that they preferred not to <br />answer this question. <br />The majority of participants (40.3%) had less than a <br />high school diploma, while 8.1% had a high school <br />diploma or an associate’s degree (3.2%). 22.6% had a <br />bachelor ’s degree, and 17.8% had a master ’s degree <br />or higher. Annual household income ranged from <br />$35,000 to more than $200,000, with the majority <br />(40.3%) indicating that they preferred not to answer. <br />Languages spoken by focus group participants <br />included English, Hindi, Spanish, Mandarin, and <br />Cantonese. <br />REPRESENTATION AND IMPLICIT BIAS <br />Throughout this project, the JSI Project Team <br />collaborated closely with city staff, the Steering <br />Committee, EAPAC, and other partners to inform the <br />approach to data collection, analysis, and <br />recommendations. Key considerations, including <br />representation across the three cities, as well as <br />distinctions within and between cities, were revisited. <br />As mentioned, when discussing priority populations <br />and the data collection design, the focus was on <br />understanding the complexity of lived experiences for <br />individuals most in need of human services, balanced <br />against the need to ensure broad representation. <br />Throughout this process and in close collaboration <br />with the EAPAC, the JSI Project Team often questioned <br />its own implicit biases and the potential biases of <br />those involved. In addition to this ongoing internal <br />work, the findings were triangulated with census data <br />and regional reports to determine the extent to which <br />lived experiences were reflected in existing data. <br />Additionally, a recurring question arose of whether <br />there were substantive differences between cities or <br />whether findings and the resulting recommendations <br />were experienced regionally. Initially, distinct efforts <br />were made to collect within-city data, as significant <br />EASTERN ALAMEDA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES NEEDS ASSESSMENTSS Page 77 of 554