AGENDA PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

PAGE 21 extract themes and findings that were city-specific so that the Human Services Commissions of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton could use the data to more accurately implement any resultant interventions. Conducting separate focus groups specific to Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton, then, was a natural organizing practice to produce city-specific results. (As noted above, as data collection and analysis progressed, this evolved to have a more regional- focus). To maximize accessibility and convenience, adult focus groups for all three cities were offered over Zoom and in-person at the Dublin and Livermore public libraries. Each focus group was led by two to three co-facilitators and a notetaker/recorder. In-person sessions were recorded using physical recording devices. The final consideration that influenced the structure of community focus groups was the separation of youth (under 20) from adults. The idea for this division came from EAPAC members, particularly the youth in high school, who felt strongly that the challenges and experiences of young people in the Tri-Valley were fundamentally different from those of older community members. As such, a set of three youth-specific focus groups, two in-person and one virtual, was conducted. Capacity Building through Facilitation. All focus groups for adults and youth were co-designed and co- facilitated by the JSI Project Team and selected EAPAC members. Though this was not originally written into the project design, after several EAPAC members expressed interest, the JSI Project Team led a capacity-building workshop to share best practices in data collection and focus group facilitation. A subset of EAPAC members had experience with community engagement and facilitation and shared their expertise in this training. This was an opportunity for the JSI Project Team to meet its commitment to capacity building. EAPAC members ensured that questions were written with accessible language, follow-up probes were phrased so that they could be naturally introduced into conversation, and the length of the guide was manageable. While selected individuals from the JSI Project Team attended and supported facilitation, the priority was on building the capacity of EAPAC facilitators to use the focus group guides and lead the conversations. It is difficult to overstate EAPAC members’ involvement as co-facilitators effect on the quality of community member focus group data. Their presence allowed participants to share insights and details that they may not have had JSI Project Team members been the only facilitators. Their familiarity with the Tri-Valley community was also crucial to establishing trust between participants, as EAPAC facilitators generally understood context-specific details like places and organizations that participants directly or indirectly referenced. Most importantly, EAPAC facilitators were close, empathetic listeners who offered emotional support to participants who shared intimate, vulnerable stories and anecdotes. Often, participants offered advice, resources, and support to one another, going as far as to give the names of coordinators and organizations. Youth focus groups also benefited greatly from youth EAPAC members as co-facilitators. They brought the same empathy and critical listening skills to an environment that allowed young participants to discuss challenges and experiences that, as predicted, were qualitatively different from those of adults. INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS In addition to focus groups, several individual interviews were conducted with other community members and leaders and selected categories of service providers. Leaders of faith-based organizations were individually interviewed during the qualitative data collection phase, since their organizations were well-known for providing social services related to food and shelter in the community. Additionally, individual interviews were conducted with first responders, who are often called to respond to individuals in crisis and have first-hand knowledge about the types of emergency services needed. Finally, upon initial review of the linguistic representativeness of focus group participants, the Steering Committee felt that it was important to conduct additional outreach to communities that primarily spoke a language other than English. After close collaboration with the EAPAC and select Steering Committee members, it was decided that EASTERN ALAMEDA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES NEEDS ASSESSMENTSS Page 79 of 554