Introduction

The Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County (CAB) is celebrating the 40th anniversary of its founding in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's declaration of the "War on Poverty" in 1964. To mark this 40th anniversary; -CAB's 15-member board is releasing the "Report on the Status of Poverty in Santa Cruz County-2005." This on-line version is the complete report. A summary, hard copy of this report is available upon request.

We believe this report will provide our readers with an understanding of the status and nature of the circumstances that are driving some Santa Cruz County residents into poverty, some others out of the County, and how the programs administered and the advocacy conducted by the Community Action Board are helping some avoid falling further into poverty.

Included in the acknowledgement section of this report are the names of individuals and organizations without whom this report could not have been produced. We call special attention to them as we thank them and ask you to honor them for their individual and collective contributions as they truly represent all that it means to be a community.

--- Be assured that the Community Action Board will continue its work to improve the lives of Santa Cruz County residents in need.

The Community Action Board of Santa, Cruz County would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions to this report:

A hard-copy Summary Report on Poverty in Santa Cruz County - 2005 is available upon request – Matt Carlton, Graphic Designer - Community Printers, Printer

The mission of the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. (CAB) is to conduct, administer, or coordinate community programs to combat poverty and the causes of poverty in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. Programs shall collaborate with private and public partners to establish a continuum of services and involve low-income persons in program development and advocacy.

The Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, along with 1,100 similar agencies across the country, was founded following passage of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s declaration of “War on Poverty” in his first State of the Union speech on January 8, 1964.

Following it’s start in October of 1965, the Santa Cruz County Community Action Program applied for and received federal funding to launch local initiatives to combat poverty. Programs that were started by CAB to address local needs included Head Start, the Emergency Food Bank (now Second Harvest Food Bank), the Legal Aid Society of Santa Cruz County (now part of California Rural Legal Assistance), Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County, state pre-school programs including COPE Centro Familiar, WIC, Senior Citizens Legal Services, Foster Grandparent Program and many others. In addition to the accomplishments of this effort, CAB also successfully pushed for establishment of bilingual education in public schools and family planning services that are now operated by the County of Santa Cruz.

As a result of these efforts poverty was reduced as was infant mortality. More Santa Cruz County residents, including those disadvantaged by income status, disabilities, age, ethnicity and gender, for the first time received services promoting independence and self-sufficiency. In addition, the safety net for the neediest individuals was strengthened.

Unfortunately, these efforts slowed significantly. The failure was not the War on Poverty. The failure was that the war was cancelled. Funding for Community Action and other Great Society Programs dwindled as the Vietnam War escalated.

As funding declined during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s CAB functioned largely as a flow-through agency directing resources to delegate agencies providing services. CAB ceased to be a county program in October of 1977 and became a private non-profit organization. From this time forward, CAB’s commitment and focus on advocacy for and with low-income people expanded. Such efforts included a focus on protection of immigrant, homeless and welfare rights, development of living wage initiatives in three local jurisdictions, and North Coast farm worker organizing efforts.

In 1987 CAB created a Community Development Plan which resulted in the use of federal resources to leverage and diversify funding to build long-term programmatic stability. This resulted in the move to provide services directly by a focus on housing and homelessness, employment, and community development.

Today CAB offers seven programs, four with a focus on employment –Women Ventures Project that provides training, workforce preparation and referral in non-traditional employment for women; the Natural Resources & Employment Program, providing employment and training through environmental restoration; CalWORKs Emergency Payment Program assisting CalWORKs participants with emergency payments to retain employment; and, Youth Community Restoration Program that provides work experience and work readiness for at-risk youth. Others include the Santa Cruz County Immigration Project, Davenport Resource Service Center, and The Shelter Project.

The Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. has demonstrated a strong history of identifying and responding effectively to meet emerging and unmet needs.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines poverty as, ‘ The condition of having little or no wealth or material possessions; indigence, destitution, want’, and suggest its first use was in AD 1075. In recent years, research tapping the perspectives of poor people has recognized that poverty involves a wider set of deprivations, including vulnerability and exclusion from society, in addition to material destitution.

A person is “poor” or “in poverty” if they reside in a household with income below the U.S. poverty threshold, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Poverty thresholds differ by family size and are updated annually for inflation using the consumer price index. However, they do not take into account geographic differences in the cost of living.

· In 2003 27,059 Santa Cruz County residents have an income below the US Poverty Guidelines ($18,850 for a family of four)

· In 2000 the percentage of County residents living in poverty was 11.9%, a 1.2% increase since 1990. The U.S. Census poverty estimate for 2003 was 11.2%

· Poverty rates are highest for Hispanic/Latinos (18.7%) & African Americans (22.8%) and lowest for Caucasians (8.4%)

· Hispanic/Latino households with children under age 18 in Santa Cruz County comprise 36% of those living at or below poverty

· Children have the highest poverty rate (19%) in Santa Cruz County while seniors over 65 have the lowest rate (6.3%) of poverty.

· Nearly half of all female-headed households with children in Watsonville live in poverty.

· Housing costs in Santa Cruz County are not only among the most expensive, but are also among the least affordable in the nation.

· Of county residents earning less than $35,000, 70% pay half of their income on housing .

· Two Santa Cruz County cities, Watsonville and Capitola, have median household incomes, ($37,617 and $46,048 respectively) that were in 2000 lower than the rest of the state ($47,493)

· There is a wide wage disparity in Santa Cruz County between men and women: men earn $46,291 and women earn $33,514 for comparable work

· Studies show that to be self-sufficient in Santa Cruz County in 2003, a family of three needs an hourly wage between $21.84 - $28.51 per hour (California’s minimum wage rate is $6.75 per hour)

President George W. Bush has declared war on people in poverty. His administration's budget proposes widespread reductions, as well as elimination of programs that provide the safety net from children's healthcare to public housing, from anti-drug and treatment efforts to vocational education programs. Very low-income people bear most of the brunt of the cuts and are least able to afford the impact.

Under this administration's budget, Community Service Block Grants (CSBG) are set to be eliminated. Instead, a new bureaucracy of 18 programs will be consolidated with only 66% of the money allocated in the past. This cut of 34% and re-organization will mean that the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. (CAB) would no longer be able to provide critical emergency as well as preventive services. The result would be a greater burden on local governments at a time when they have little ability to step in.

We could not partner with the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency to ensure that homeless persons with communicable diseases, including tuberculosis and AIDs, receive emergency housing assistance in the form of motel vouchers while further arrangements are made.
We could not continue to assist over 7,000 very low-income individuals by providing comprehensive assistance such as housing for medical emergencies, job training, and also with food or other services to meet the needs of children, youth, senior citizens, low-wage workers, immigrants and others. Our services are not duplicated by any other public or private entity.

The loss of these services would affect as many as 18,000 local people (7,000 direct beneficiaries and 11,000 recipients of brief services such as information and referral). This is not just a serious impact on these 18,000 individuals but on our community as a whole.

CAB has been on the front lines of service delivery for and with poor people for 40 years. Together we have fought against morally wrong attacks on the most vulnerable amongst us including those with disabilities, single parents with children, senior citizens, immigrants, low-wage workers, and others.

By making our voices heard we can stop disproportionate cuts and advocate for new, creative investments to combat poverty. Our message is that domestic programs should not have to pay for the $3 trillion deficit, defense, or homeland security. Maintaining critical public services must be the first line of protection for our people and our country.

In 2003, 51% of all households in Santa Cruz County spent 50% of their income on housing, and 20% of that 51% paid more than 75% on housing.[1] This is a significant increase over 2002 when 45% spent more than 50% of their income on housing, but even more shockingly, 70% of households earning less than $35,000 pay half of their income or more for housing.

It is little wonder then that the high cost of housing continues to be the primary driving force of poverty in California. Regionally, seven metro Bay areas continually vie for the ignoble title of “Least Affordable Metro Housing Market” of the 191 metro areas in the country.[2] The impact of that statement is that only an average of 8.3% of median income households living between Salinas and San Francisco in the first quarter of 2002 could purchase a median priced home.

While the San Francisco metro area has historically held the title of least affordable more often than any other metro area in the country, the Santa Cruz/Watsonville area has come in 2^nd on a regular basis. In the first quarter of 2002, the most recent data available, Salinas was the least affordable metro area in the country and Santa Cruz/Watsonville was second with San Francisco coming in third.

Nationally, housing problems have been concentrated among the lowest income renter households. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the 50 states needed to provide “at least an additional 4.9 million rental units… to the lowest income renter households.” As a result, low-income families are:

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates low-income renter households exceed the number of low-cost rental units by 4.4 million, with nearly two low-income renters for every low-cost unit.[4]

People living on fixed incomes or earning lower wages are not only priced out of home ownership, but are also finding it impossible to rent within the inflated Central Coast housing market. Many schools are reporting lower class attendance because families are moving to areas where housing is more affordable.

The impact of this migration out of Santa Cruz County can be seen in various ways, such as school enrollments, which decreased by 1.3% between school year 2001/02 and 2002/03.[5] At the same time, state enrollment increased by 1.6%. For young adults the cost of housing is overwhelming. Of those between the ages of 18 and 24, 75% paid half of their income for housing. [6]

In a June 2004, a press release from the California Association of Realtors announced another significant increase in the cost of single-family homes of 25.3%, an increase of 10.8% when compared to the same period a year ago.[7]

Even for households earning the median income of $75,300[8], the housing market in Santa Cruz County continued to price most homes out of reach in 2003. In May of 2004, only 14% of people living in Santa Cruz County could afford to purchase a median priced home[9], down from 17% one year ago. In addition, the rental market remained inflated in spite of some recent reductions.

Santa Cruz County, as part of a general Central Coast housing trend, had an unprecedented increase in the cost of housing between 1999 and 2003. Even during the great economic boom of the 1990s, businesses and services experienced significant difficulty in finding workers that could afford the cost of housing. Positions for police officers, teachers, bus drivers and fire fighters went unfilled.

At some time in the last year, 3% of households in Santa Cruz County have experienced homelessness, according to the Community Assessment Project Year 9, 2003 Report[10] (CAP), a telephone survey of currently housed Santa Cruz County residents. That is slightly less than what was reported in the previous year, (3.2%) but more than double the percentage reported in 2001. Youth 18-to-24 years of age were much more likely to have been homeless in the previous year (7.2%) down slightly from 9.1% in 2002 and 9.2% in 2001. From the CAP 2003 Report we can project that the number of county residents who were housed at the time of the survey in April 2003, but who had experienced homelessness in the past year, was nearly 7,800.

But that 7,800 number does not include the county residents who were homeless in April 2003 when the survey was conducted, and therefore were not reflected in the CAP 2003 findings. It is believed that the number of people homeless at the time of the CAP year 9 survey in April of 2003, was probably closer to the number of homeless people counted in the last scientific homeless census taken in the year 2000. That number, 3,293 in 2000, was considered a conservative figure at the time and is probably still a conservative figure[11].

In addition, a 25-city survey released in December 2003 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that requests for emergency shelter assistance grew an average of 13 percent.[12] It is plausible, then, to add the 3,293 who were homeless at the time of the CAP 9 survey to the 7,800 who were housed at the time of the survey, but said that they had been homeless in the previous year. This will provide a potentially more accurate total number of people who had been homeless in Santa Cruz County at some time in the 12 months prior to the CAP 9 2003 survey.

Using those data, we can more accurately project that as many as 11,099 people may have been homeless at some time in the last year in Santa Cruz County, a slight decrease from our estimate a year ago, but a sharp increase from the 8,558 reported in the Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report[13].

Perhaps the four most significant conclusions reached concerning homeless people in the last few years are that:

1.) Of all the people who are going to become homeless in Santa Cruz County over the course of the coming year, most are currently housed. Prevention services are very important.

2.) Homeless people don’t come from somewhere else; they are mostly from Santa Cruz County and they are our neighbors, our sons and daughters, our friends.

3.) Homeless people overwhelmingly want to live in a home; they are not homeless because they want to be.

4.) Most people are homeless for less than 6 months. People cycle in and out of homelessness.[14]

More than half of homeless people were between the ages of 30 and 50 and more than half have children. Surprisingly, 28.4% said that they grew up in Santa Cruz County and the report contradicted a common misconception—the “magnet theory”—that homeless people came from somewhere else. In fact, more than two-thirds reported that their last permanent housing was in Santa Cruz County. Only one in 10 cited their last permanent housing in another U.S. State. In addition, 81% have lived here for more than a year, and of those, more than half said they had lived in Santa Cruz County for more than 10 years while 23% have lived here for more than 20 years.[15]

One-third of homeless people are working, and one-tenth are working full time. That means approximately 1,100 people in Santa Cruz County are homeless although they are working at least part-time, and 340 are working full-time but remain homeless.[16]

In addition to being without shelter, 30% of homeless people also said they are hungry--they simply do not eat often enough. Of the group, 20% ate only one meal a day and only 32% ate three meals per day. Not surprisingly, fewer homeless people had health coverage (47%) than housed people (83%), and 28% said that in the last 12 months that they needed health care and did not receive it.[17]

Alternative housing such as camping overnight in the State Park system reduced options further when the possibility of parking and camping overnight for more than 30 days was prohibited. As a result of the loss of this un-official but important resource to people who are temporarily without shelter there has been a net loss of legal emergency shelter available in Santa Cruz County.

The Salinas and Pajaro Valleys are two of the richest and most productive agricultural regions in the nation and while the crop production value is almost $2.5 billion, the wages and housing conditions of the farmworkers are substandard and the working conditions are harsh and in many cases hazardous.

In a report called the Farmworker Housing and Health Assessment Study – Salinas and Pajaro Valley Final Report, June 2001, prepared for the counties of Monterey and Santa Cruz and released in early June of 2001 by Applied Survey Research and The Center for Community Advocacy, a large body of comparative statistical data illustrates the current severity of housing and health issues that affect seasonal and migrant farmworkers. The report found that farmworkers:

· had the lowest average family income of any other occupational category; $12,825 for Monterey County and $15,006 for Santa Cruz County;

· less than half reported using health or social services for which they may have been eligible;

· 32% of those interviewed reported that they went to a hospital emergency room when they or a family member was sick.[18]

Of the 780 interviews conducted for the report, 567 respondents reported housing problems. Of those interviewed:

The outlook for increasing affordable housing and reducing homelessness in the future in Santa Cruz County is not good. Support for existing housing programs at the federal level is less than enthusiastic. Non-profit ownership of affordable housing is shrinking. More than a million ownership contracts that maintain affordable rental housing are expiring within a few years. And to make matters worse, the Section 8 voucher program may be replaced with block grants to the states,[19] or, according to The New York Times, congress may continue funding Section 8 programs at the expense of all other housing programs that support elderly, disabled, and poor people.[20]

Solutions to the seemingly intractable problems of housing affordability and homelessness in Santa Cruz County are not found easily or without significant effort. Solutions, however, are available. There are two documents that offer concrete and thoughtful responses to both housing and homelessness. Both documents came out of the shared vision, analysis, and time of many Santa Cruz County people who participated in planning, meetings, focus groups, and writing over the past two years. It is not possible to do justice to the two documents in the short space available and we encourage the reader to view the report, Housing and Homelessness in Santa Cruz County, 2004 at: www.cabinc.org Click on “Publications and Videos.”

The first is called “The Housing Element: A Progressive Approach,”[21] produced by the Progressive Housing Advocates Task Force (PHAT). PHAT is a broad-based coalition of individuals and community groups dedicated to the development of affordable housing for low and very low-income people throughout Santa Cruz County. PHAT includes representatives of environmental groups, advocates for the disabled, homeless persons, farmworkers, children and seniors, as well as low-wage workers who live and work in Santa Cruz County.

The second is called, “Five-Year Strategic Plan on Homelessness 2003-2008”[22] created by the Santa Cruz County Continuum of Care Coordinating Group (COC) now called the Santa Cruz County Homeless Action Partnership. The Plan seeks to create a comprehensive and coordinated system of affordable housing and support services for the prevention, reduction and eventual end of homelessness. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors provided staff support from the Human Resources Agency, and along with the cities of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, Watsonville and Capitola, funded the consulting services of HomeBase, a nonprofit technical service provider specializing in issues related to homelessness. The COC brought together many people and organizations that make up the countywide system of services available to people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

The Progressive Housing Advocates stated goal is to facilitate the building of housing—a lot of housing—for low, very low and extremely low-income households. Released in January of 2003, the report was the culmination of a year-and-a-half of meetings, discussions, trainings, writing and re-writing. The intention was to articulate local land-use policy ideals that integrated progressive values pertaining to the protection of the natural environment and the “Green Belt,” supporting and maintaining our strong agricultural base, and building and preserving housing that is affordable to the diverse populations that live in Santa Cruz County. The short term goal of the group was to insure that current efforts to write local county and city housing elements will result in a maximum of housing opportunities for low, very low and extremely low-income households by:

· planning for housing development at increased densities, on existing transportation lines,

· incorporating childcare, supportive services, and access for mobility impaired people in its design.

· Re-zoning of all centrally located, residentially-zoned land to urban high density, allowing residential uses as part of all commercial and industrial development, identifying parking lots as central sites, and permitting second-unit development with regulations identical to those of other home additions.

· Removing unreasonable height restrictions and leveling discriminatory fees, which are currently far higher per square foot for smaller, more affordable units than they are for larger unit development.

· Preserving existing affordable housing through amnesty for illegal units, targeted code enforcement tied to rehabilitation funding, providing emergency rental assistance for up to 60 days, and adoption of just cause eviction, rent stabilization, and rent shock ordinances to prevent existing rental housing from becoming even less affordable.

· Developing a housing trust fund to marshal available funds from public and private sources for use in the rehabilitation and development of housing affordable to, and designed to meet the needs of, low-wage workers, disabled persons, homeless households, farmworkers, single and teen-parent households, and construction using environmentally sound building practices.

Professionals who work with homeless people know that there are as many causes of homelessness as there are homeless people. Homelessness is a symptom of many, complex, converging societal dysfunctions including:

Likewise then, solutions to homelessness must, of necessity, be as complex and varied as the causes. Two years in the making and 80 pages later, the five-year plan responds to the solid, scientific data presented in both the Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment, and the Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 8, 2002 report.

In spite of the complexity of the issues presented, the five-year plan presents six recurring ideas or themes that become the basis of the community effort to reduce and prevent homelessness. Divided into five chapters that address key areas of need, it outlines the steps to guide implementation.

Homelessness will exist until there is sufficient housing affordable to those with the lowest incomes. Accordingly, the number one priority in this community must be to take all action to ensure the preservation of existing and creation of new stable, affordable housing.

Prevention of homelessness must be a cornerstone of a “Continuum of Care” system. Most of the people who enter the homeless assistance system receive help and exit the system relatively quickly. But no sooner do people successfully exit the system than others replace them. This is why the number of homeless people does not decline. If we are going to end homelessness we must prevent people from becoming homeless.

Any successful effort to address homelessness must involve the support and collaboration and full engagement of the entire community, including the County, the Cities, service providers, the business sector, citizens, and people who are homeless or who formerly were homeless. While unique strategies are targeted to meet the needs of specific localities, coordinating efforts regionally, within the County and within the entire Bay Area, is necessary in order to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the County's efforts.

The Santa Cruz County Continuum of Care goes beyond an effort to create a full spectrum homeless assistance system that manages people's experience of homelessness. This is a long-term plan with specific, measurable, appropriate, realistic, time-bound and stakeholder-centered outcome statements and action steps related to system changes. The plan is not successful until system change is achieved. [23]

The Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. (CAB Inc.) is a partner in implementing solutions that create affordable housing and end homelessness in Santa Cruz County through advocacy and direct service. CAB Inc. actively participates in building the political will to create affordable housing by working closely with the Progressive Housing Advocates, The Affordable Housing Advocates, the Santa Cruz County Homeless Action Partnership, and others. CAB Inc. also focuses resources through The Shelter Project to provide direct service assistance to people in Santa Cruz County who are living in or near poverty and are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

In addition, CAB Inc. works closely with “housers” in the community to ensure that the Housing Elements of the General Plan’s of the cities and the county reflect the values of the Progressive Housing Advocates Approach and then bring pressure upon the elected officials to implement the development of housing affordable to people of limited means.

CAB Inc. also works with homeless advocates and service providers, countywide and regionally, to implement the solutions to homelessness outlined in the Five-Year Strategic Plan.

Between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005, The Shelter Project, will provide the following direct services to people living in or near poverty who have no other resources available:

1) Motel Vouchers for people released from the hospital that have no place to recover and should not be in a shelter or on the street. (159 households including 248 people will be provided 2,500 nights of lodging.)

2) Residential Assistance Payments to landlords or mortgage holders to prevent eviction or foreclosure. (275 households including 850 people will be assisted. 60% will still be in their home after 3 months and 45% will still be in their home after 6 months. Those who no longer live in their homes will have an opportunity to find more affordable housing or emergency shelter.)

3) A voicemail service so that homeless people or people at risk of homelessness can maintain communication with possible landlords, employers, social workers and family members. (400 households with 500 people will be assisted. 50% will find employment or housing)

4) An information and referral service, available by phone and on the internet, 5 days a week from 9am to 5pm, that will provide contact information with service providers in Santa Cruz County that can assist people with a wide variety of needs. (2,100 households including 4,000 people will call the Shelter Hotline.)

Perhaps the most enlivening aspect of this most difficult issue is the fact that over the past few years we as a community have done the research, created the reports, written the plans and solved the problems of housing and homelessness. All of the problems save one.

The late Martin Luther King Jr. said that we know how to end poverty—we have the resources; we simply must build the “will.”

Immigrants constitute the poorest category of persons in Santa Cruz County, and they confront the barriers of language, literacy, bigotry, and exploitation on a daily basis. Many of the immigrants in Santa Cruz County have less than a second grade education, and those who are undocumented are easy targets for employers and labor contractors who evade minimum wage and occupational and safety requirements. Other immigrants, who have some legal means available to them to become legal residents, need access to competent, affordable, and culturally and linguistically friendly legal services. Without that access, these immigrants are deprived of the opportunity of obtaining work authorization, legal permanent resident status, and citizenship.

As a group, immigrants constitute the poorest category of persons in Santa Cruz County, and access to immigration legal assistance remains one of the most critical needs for immigrants trying to climb out of poverty.

For example, under current law, no person is permitted to work in the U.S. without employment authorization. U.S. born citizens are automatically authorized to work, but for immigrants, employment authorization generally requires legal status; i.e., legal permanent resident status (“green card”) or citizenship through naturalization.

Immigration status also determines eligibility for training, education, financial assistance, public benefits, and other necessary social services programs. Without legal immigration status, family members are prevented from living together as a family here in the U.S. Without citizenship, immigrants are ineligible to vote and cannot fully participate in strengthening our communities. Given the possibility of additional restrictions on non-citizens in our post-9/11 society, citizenship has become the only secure haven for immigrants.

In spite of the enormous barriers immigrants face, there are relatively few legal resources available to them. Legal aid organizations that receive federal funding are prohibited from providing immigration assistance, and cannot provide any legal assistance to undocumented immigrants. At the same time, many unscrupulous or incompetent immigration practitioners or consultants (“notarios”) exist in the community who are ready to take advantage of immigrants desperate to legalize their status or pursue their immigration cases.

On a daily basis, immigrants confront the barriers of language, literacy, bigotry, and exploitation. Employment opportunities, even for immigrants authorized to work, often require as a minimum English language skills and the ability to read, write, and perform simple math. Many of the immigrants in Santa Cruz County have less than a second grade education. Immigrants who are undocumented are easy targets for employers and labor contractors who evade minimum wage and occupational and safety requirements. Undocumented worker access to federal and state labor laws is limited.

Currently, thousands of undocumented immigrants in Santa Cruz County have no possibility of ever becoming a legal resident due to inaction by Congress and the present Administration. The last Legalization program, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), ended in 1988. Many of those who did not qualify for that program, or who entered the country without permission in the last 16 years, have no legal means of becoming a legal resident until the federal government provides legislative relief. Until then, thousands in our county are unauthorized to work, unable to obtain drivers licenses or social security numbers, and unable to feel secure and safe and to climb out of poverty.

The fate of many immigrants depends on the political courage and wisdom of our national leaders. Advocacy and lobbying on behalf of these undocumented immigrants is necessary. Otherwise, they remain in a cruel limbo here in the U.S.

Other immigrants, who have some legal means available to them to become legal residents, need access to competent, affordable, and culturally and linguistically friendly legal services. Without that access, these immigrants are deprived of the opportunity of obtaining work authorization, legal permanent resident status, and citizenship. Or they are victimized by unscrupulous immigration consultants or “notarios” by paying exorbitant fees, being misdirected and misinformed in the process, and sometimes jeopardizing their lawful means of legalization.

Through its Santa Cruz County Immigration Project (SCCIP), CAB will continue to offer a wide range of those legal services that are most critical to the immigrant community in Santa Cruz County. These legal services will continue to be of the highest professional quality, culturally and linguistically sensitive, and free of cost. Through SCCIP, CAB will continue to investigate and report fraudulent immigration consultant practices in the county.

In addition, CAB will carry on its efforts to monitor and improve customer service by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (formerly, the INS). CAB will also advocate and lobby on the federal, state, and local level for laws and policies that promote the economic, legal, and social concerns and rights of the immigrant community.

In 2003, The Self-Sufficiency Standard showed that to be self-sufficient, the hourly wage rate for Santa Cruz County needs to be $21.84 - $28.51/hr ($3,843 - $5,019/month) for a family of three (one adult and two children), depending on the age of the children[24]. These figures represent an income requirement approximately 3-to-4 times the 2004 federal poverty standard, which is $1305.83/month for a family of three. A single parent of two children working full-time at a minimum wage job, currently $6.75/hr in California, would net approximately $1,161/month, 11% below the federal poverty level for a three-person household.

Santa Cruz County is an area rich in natural beauty, but burdened with an extremely high cost of living coupled with a shortage of jobs, especially those that pay a livable wage.

The county consistently has higher unemployment rates than the state and country as a whole, with Santa Cruz County reporting an 8.2% unemployment rate for March 2005. During the same year, the state had a jobless rate of 5.7%, and the country as a whole had an unemployment rate of 5.2%. This translates to almost 12,000 county residents out of work. In the heavily seasonal, agricultural south part of the county, unemployment rates are even higher. In March 2005, the unemployment rate was 16% in the City of Watsonville. [25].

Overall job growth in the county dropped by 2.1% in 2002[26]. These manufacturing closures and relocations were preceded by those of the frozen food industry in Watsonville in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Before the closures, Watsonville had been known as the “frozen food capital of the world.” These companies employed thousands at middle class wages, often in union-represented jobs, and have not yet been replaced by comparable industry.

Instead, 2004 labor market data shows that jobs such as fast food cooks, home health aides, fast food counter workers, retail salespersons and cashiers are the jobs in greatest in demand in the local economy. These types of jobs are often part-time, usually do not provide health or retirement benefits, and offer very low wages, usually under $10.00 per hour. The average hourly wage rates below clearly illustrate the problem:

As stated earlier, a single parent of two children working full-time at a minimum wage job, currently $6.75/hr in California, would net approximately $1,161/month, 11% below the federal poverty level for a three-person household. That’s not nearly enough to be self-sufficient, according to the Self-Sufficiency Standard, produced by the National Economic Development and Law Center (NEDLC) and Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW). These organizations identify the level of income needed to meet a family’s basic needs. The income level is based on the family’s size and ages of its dependents. Costs for necessities such as childcare, housing and transportation, are considered.

For Santa Cruz County, the Self-Sufficiency Standard identified the self-sufficiency hourly wage rate in 2003 as $21.84 - $28.51 per hour ($3,843 - $5,019/month) for a family of three (one adult and two children), depending on the age of the children[28]. These figures represent an income requirement approximately 3-to-4 times the federal poverty standard, which is $1305.83/month for a family of three in 2004.

Another study released in May of 2004 by the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, titled, “The Hidden Public Costs of Low-Wage Jobs in California,” examined the consequences of the loss of manufacturing and related jobs. It showed that public assistance, such as Medi-Cal, Child Care Assistance, and Subsidized School Lunches, goes disproportionately to working families in a few lower wage sectors, with the retail industry topping the list.

The report also found that half of all means-tested public assistance dollars ($10.1 billion in 2002) are going to families in which at least one person is working. A little over half of these public assistance dollars went to families whose workers had average wages below $8 per hour, and almost $2 billion went to those with wages of $8 to $10 per hour[29]. Clearly, work alone does not always guarantee adequate income to lift a family out of poverty.

Santa Cruz County faces multiple economic development challenges. Creating more jobs and attracting new employers, as well as making work pay through the creation and encouragement of jobs that pay a livable wage, top the list.

Training and educating the county workforce to match the skills needed by employers, and decreasing the factors that contribute to the high cost of living, such as expensive and insufficient housing and childcare, also need to be addressed.

The UC Berkeley 2004 study identifies several strategies that can be employed to make progress in the low-wage area, although not all solutions can be achieved solely at a local level. The proposed strategies include:

Despite the claims of some critics, a June 2004 report from the California Budget Project found that recent increases in California’s minimum wage have not contributed to job loss. The report states that, “after minimum wage hikes beginning in October 1996, growth in Food and Service and Retail Employment has exceeded growth in total employment.[32]” This is a good indicator of the impact of a state minimum wage increase in Santa Cruz County, where these sectors are the highest demand industries and where many low-wage workers are employed.

In addition, the UC Berkeley study identified that over the past two decades, California’s “new economy” has produced an “hourglass pattern” of job distribution, generating more growth among low and high wage jobs than among middle-income jobs. The high wage end of the “hourglass” can also be seen in local 2004 labor market data. The data shows demand for higher wage jobs such as Computer Applications Software Engineers and Web Designers (avg. $24.84/hr), Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses (avg. 22.58/hr), and Construction Foreman and Managers (avg. $19.95 – 21.98/hr)[34].

Further, a 2003 report titled, “Overlooked & Undercounted: A New Perspective on the Struggle to Make Ends Meet in California,” found that two-thirds of Californians without a high school diploma or GED have incomes below the economic self-sufficiency standard. Forty percent of those with a high school diploma or GED have incomes below self-sufficiency. Most dramatically, the report showed that of Californians with some education beyond high school – even just one or two years of college, three out of four have incomes that are at or above economic self-sufficiency, showing the critical importance of education and training to a family’s ability to escape poverty[37].

Employer respondents to the WIB’s 2003 State of the Workforce report also noted that additional training was needed for employees. The report states that in the WIB’s survey of employers in 2000, employers indicated that the most important skills employees need to have are communication/customer service skills, mechanical/trade skills, basic math, computer word-processing and English language proficiency, and analytical skills. The UC Berkeley study also highlights the importance of improving access to education and training, and promotes it as a way to improve workers’ skills and productivity, increasing their access to good-paying jobs and increasing companies’ productivity and ability to compete. The study suggests that methods such as sectional training partnerships, which link training with complementary efforts to improve the productivity and competitiveness of regional industries, are successful and encourage collaboration among companies in specific industries, unions, community-based non-profit organizations, community colleges, and others.

Clearly, to successfully overcome Santa Cruz County’s multiple economic development challenges, a variety of strategies used in combination with each other need to be employed.

· Continue to advocate for affordable, accessible housing and childcare for low-income working families.

Although the average CALWORKS caseload has dropped, from an average of 4003 in 1995/1996 to 2,273 in 2002/2003 [38] there is no indication that families leaving the roles are earning a self-sufficient wage.

California’s Welfare-to-Work legislation replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program in January of 1998.

California’s Welfare-to-Work plan is based on federal guidelines outlined in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA). PRWORA created a new federal program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It also made sweeping cuts and restrictions to Food Stamps and Social Security Insurance (SSI), eliminating the guarantee of assistance to families on the basis of need, and created work requirements and time limits as the conditions for receiving cash aid.

While welfare reform, both nationally and in California, was designed to move families off welfare and assist them to find employment, this hasn’t always helped people get permanent high-paying jobs. Instead, it has forced many parents into low-paying and temporary jobs with few moving out of poverty.

Santa Cruz County has a more ambitious goal to move people to self-sufficiency rather than to simply move people off the welfare rolls. Help is provided for up to 12 months after leaving welfare. In addition, the County has identified and responded to deficiencies in other areas to meet the self-sufficiency goal and designed a support system that is less “burdensome” than others.

None-the-less, the high cost of living in Santa Cruz County means that families moving off welfare may still be living in poverty. Although the average CALWORKS caseload has dropped, from an average of 4003 in 1995/1996 to 2,273 in 2002/2003 [39], there is no indication that families leaving the roles are earning a self-sufficient wage.

In fact, the average placement wage for Santa Cruz County CalWORKs graduates in May 2003 was $10.05.[40] A single parent with two children working full-time at this wage has a take home wage of approximately $1,398 per month (based on 3 exemptions for payroll taxes). Given that the average 2-bedroom rental in the County as of July 2003 was $1,362 per month[41], the family is left with the impossible task of paying the remainder of their monthly expenses with a mere $36.

While it can be claimed that the family is no longer receiving cash-aid, to live in reasonable accommodations, this family would still be dependent on some form of government assistance such as Section 8 Housing or living in crowded conditions such as a family of three sharing a studio or one bedroom apartment.

Perhaps more alarming is the fact that the 2003 average placement wage of $10.05 reversed the upward trend of previous years. May’s 2002 average placement was $10.14.

Transportation to and from the workplace is also a barrier for many low-income families, according to a survey conducted by the Santa Cruz County Human Resources Agency. In an effort to respond to the transportation and other emergency needs of working CalWORKs participants, the County Human Resources Agency has developed a program, administered through the Community Action Board, to provide emergency assistance to working CalWORKs parents.

In the first quarter of 2003, 54.2% of referrals were auto-related with an average payment of $320.57. [42] Clearly transportation costs are an issue and reliable transportation is necessary to maintain employment and investment in transportation funding should be a priority at the federal and state level as well.

Despite the fact that education has been proven to increase the earning power of low-income women, California has adopted strict limitations on education and training (18-24 months). In addition, the Work First model for welfare reform that was adopted by federal and state legislators allows for little training or education. It is likely that many parents who remain interested in pursuing educational opportunities will be discouraged from enrolling in school, particularly in long-term post-secondary programs. This will exclude many low-income parents from better paying employment opportunities.

It appears that recent policy choices were developed more on the basis of myths, stereotypes and political posturing than on addressing the real causes of poverty and dependency. As former welfare recipients join the ranks of the working poor, policies at the federal, state and local level must be pursued to provide critical supportive services such as:

Specifically, policies that support low wage earners, such as a minimum wage increase, Unemployment Insurance reform, the Earned Income Tax Credit, expanded access to health insurance, subsidized child care and affordable housing need to be supported.

The UCLA study shows that 24.5%, (13,846 persons) of low-income adults residing in Santa Cruz County earning less than 200% of the federal poverty guideline level experience food insecurity. In addition, 7.5%, or 4,689, Santa Cruz County residents experience the physical sensation of hunger. [43] Including children would double these numbers.

Adequate food and proper nutrition are basic factors of good health and are relevant to the quality of health of Santa Cruz County’s low-income population.

Second Harvest Foodbank (SHF), a food distribution center, supplies an estimated five million pounds of emergency food supplies and commodities per year to 120 agencies and programs that serve over 38,000 people every month in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. A study performed in 2001 indicated that despite this great output of food, the Foodbank is not meeting the identified need. According to the 32 pantries that responded to the 2001 survey, 43% said that on the average they needed an additional 600 pounds of food per week to have an adequate supply of food for distribution. [44]

Another measure, perhaps more telling, is the number of low-income adults who experience food insecurity. Families experiencing food insecurity are so limited in their food-buying resources that they are: