Report 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 2011 Highlights

unty

o community c 7

cruz assessment

comprehensive

santa project report 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 2011 Highlights

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 1 Community Assessment Project Products The Community Assessment Project Report is available online and also as a book for $30.00 at the United Way of Santa Cruz County office: 4450 Capitola Road, Suite 106, Capitola, CA 95010 | Tel: 831‐479‐5466  Fax: 831‐479‐5477.

Customized reports detailing specific topic areas, geographic regions, and demographic profiles, are available by contacting Applied Survey Research.

Also available at no charge is the color magazine (Summary Report) of the Year 17, Community Assessment Project findings.

To learn more about the Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project or to get involved, please visit our website at www.santacruzcountycap.org. About the Researcher Applied Survey Research (ASR) is a nonprofit, social research firm dedicated to helping people build better communities by collecting meaningful data, facilitating information‐based planning, and developing custom strategies. The firm was founded on the principle that community improvement, initiative sustainability, and program success are closely tied to assessment of needs, evaluation of community goals and development of appropriate responses.

The Community Assessment Project is a prime example of a comprehensive evaluation of the needs of the community. Its goal is to stimulate dialogue about trends and to encourage informed strategies for shaping future policies and effective actions.

Watsonville: 55 Brennan Street Watsonville, CA 95076 Tel: 831‐728‐1356 ‐ Fax: 831‐728‐3374

San Jose: 1871 The Alameda, Suite 180 San Jose, CA 95126 Tel: 408‐247‐8319 ‐ Fax: 408‐260‐7749

Claremont: P.O. Box 1845 Claremont, CA 91711 Tel: 909‐267‐9332 www.appliedsurveyresearch.org

Cover Photographs Front Cover: (L&R) – Michelle Luedtke; Back Cover: (L) – Shmuel Thaler, Santa Cruz Sentinel, (R) – Abbie Stevens Report Design Applied Survey Research Graphic Design (Cover & Report) Michelle Luedtke, Applied Survey Research Production Business with Pleasure

2 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Table of Contents English Learner Students ...... 55 TABLE OF CONTENTS High School Dropout Rates  ...... 56 2011 Highlights ...... 5 Satisfaction with Local Educational System  .. 56 Community Assessment Project Overview...... 11 Youth Assets ...... 58 Acknowledgments ...... 12 Safe School Environment ...... 59 2011 Community Heroes & Goals ...... 14 Child Care ...... 60 Demographics 17 College Preparation Courses  ...... 61 Cabrillo College Attendance ...... 62 Santa Cruz County Demographic Profile ...... 18 UC Santa Cruz Attendance ...... 63 County Residency and Mobility ...... 20 Educational Attainment ...... 64 Library Use ...... 66 Economy 21 Health 67 Economic Snapshot of Santa Cruz County ...... 22 Economy Community Goals ...... 22 Health Snapshot of Santa Cruz County ...... 68 Economic Well‐Being  ...... 23 Health Community Goals ...... 68 Taxable Sales  ...... 25 Access to Health Care  ...... 69 Agricultural Production ...... 26 Low Income Health Care ...... 71 Tourism ...... 27 Health Insurance  ...... 73 Job Opportunities ...... 28 End of Life Wishes Unemployment Rates  ...... 29 (Living Will or Advance Directive) ...... 75 Net Job Growth ...... 30 Births ...... 76 Household Income  ...... 32 Teen Births ...... 76 Poverty Level ...... 33 Adequate Prenatal Care ...... 77 Self‐Sufficiency Income Standards ...... 34 Birth Weight ...... 79 Affordable Housing  ...... 35 Breastfeeding ...... 79 Housing Occupancy and Tenure ...... 39 Immunization Levels ...... 81 Foreclosures ...... 40 Dental Care...... 82 Assistance for Needy Families ...... 40 Mental Health...... 83 Education 43 Physical Health ...... 84 Physical Activity ...... 84 Education Snapshot of Santa Cruz County ...... 44 Fruit and Vegetable Consumption ...... 85 Education Community Goals ...... 44 Obesity  ...... 86 Student Enrollment ...... 45 Diabetes ...... 87 Test Scores – STAR (California Alcohol Use ...... 89 Standards Test) ...... 46 Availability of Alcohol ...... 89 Test Scores – Academic Performance Index Acceptance of Adult Alcohol Provision ...... 90 (API) ...... 48 Community Acceptance of Marijuana Use ...... 90 Test Scores – California High School Exit Exam Tobacco Use ...... 92 (CAHSEE) ...... 52 Methamphetamine Admissions ...... 92 Test Scores – SAT  ...... 53 Prescription Drug Use ...... 93

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 3 Table of Contents Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Substance Use by Students ...... 93 Hate Crimes ...... 133 Unintentional Injuries ...... 95 Quality of Life ...... 134 Intentional Injuries ...... 95 Youth Activities ...... 136 Reported Communicable Diseases ...... 96 People with Disabilities  ...... 137 AIDS ...... 96 Community Support ...... 142 Suicides ...... 97 Volunteerism/Charitable Giving  ...... 143 Leading Causes of Death ...... 98 Knowledge about Local Government ...... 145 Voting and Political Engagement  ...... 145 Public Safety 101 Natural Environment 147 Public Safety Snapshot of Santa Cruz County ...... 102 Natural Environment Snapshot Public Safety Community Goals ...... 102 of Santa Cruz County ...... 148 Crime Rate  ...... 103 Natural Environment Community Goals ...... 148 Jail Population Characteristics ...... 106 Concern for the Environment ...... 149 Juvenile Arrests  ...... 107 Protected Land  ...... 150 Concern About Crime/ Miles of Recreation Trails ...... 153 Neighborhood Safety  ...... 109 Farmers Market and Local Produce ...... 153 Police Officers ...... 111 Organic Farming ...... 154 Police Response ...... 112 Farmland Acreage ...... 156 Law Enforcement Effectiveness ...... 112 Pesticide Use ...... 157 Fire Response ...... 113 Health of County Waterways ...... 157 Family Violence ...... 114 Beach Warnings and Closures ...... 158 Elder Abuse ...... 116 Water Pollution Reduction ...... 159 Child Abuse  ...... 117 Water Use Reduction  ...... 160 Foster Care Placements ...... 118 Non‐Agricultural Water Use ...... 161 Driving Under the Influence ...... 119 Air Quality ...... 162 Drug Arrests ...... 120 Motor Vehicle Registrations ...... 164 Disaster Preparedness ...... 122 Roadway Congestion  ...... 164 Alternative Transportation ...... 165 Social Environment 123 Waste Reduction ...... 168 Social Environment Snapshot of Santa Cruz County ...... 124 Appendices 169 Social Environment Community Goals ...... 124 Appendix I: Methodology ...... 170 Basic Needs  ...... 125 Appendix II: Definitions ...... 172 Homelessness ...... 126 Appendix III: Santa Cruz County People Served by Food Bank ...... 130 Telephone Survey Results, 2011 ...... 180 Students Receiving Free or Reduced Cost Appendix IV: Past Community Heroes Meals ...... 131 1996‐2010 ...... 194 Racism and Discrimination ...... 132

4 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 2011 Highlights 2011 HIGHLIGHTS Our Population . Santa Cruz County’s population was approximately 263,000 individuals as of 2010, with a consistently increasing growth trend over the past decade.

. The average family size was 3.2 in 2010, with married‐couple households making up about 45% of county family household types.

. In 2010, 60% of residents were white, 32% were Hispanic, 4% were Asian, 2% Photo Credit: Chuck Manning, EyePhoto.net were multi‐racial, 1% were African‐ American, and American Indians and Pacific Islanders made up less than 1%. Almost 70% of the population 5 years and older spoke only English at home, and over one‐fourth of the county population spoke Spanish at home. Our Economy Economic Well-Being

. 31% of CAP survey respondents felt they were better off financially in 2011, up from 20% of respondents in 2009. Of those who did not feel better off financially, the top five reasons were: cost of living increased, less income, unemployed, on a fixed income/retired, and the overall economy has dropped/recession.

. Nearly half (47%) of Latino households in the county were living below self‐sufficiency income standards (based on the amount of income needed for a family to meet its basic needs) in 2007. Jobs and Earnings

. The unemployment rate was 11% for the county during the month of August 2011, lower than the state overall (12%). The jurisdiction with the highest unemployment rate was in Watsonville at 22% for August 2011.

. Median family income was $85,800 in Santa Cruz County in 2011, higher than in California ($70,400) and the nation overall ($64,200). Housing

. The median sale price of a home in the Santa Cruz‐Watsonville area decreased to $376,000 in 2011, down from $430,000 in 2010, and a high of $655,000 in 2007. The lowest median home sale prices over the past decade were in 2009 and 2011.

. Rent continues to increase in the county. Average rent for a one bedroom was about $1,400 in 2011 compared to about $1,000 in 2003.

. There were 1,264 notices of default, the first step in the foreclosure process, in 2010.

. Only 3 out of 10 children (31%) with working parents in Santa Cruz County had the option of licensed child care available to them.

. In Santa Cruz County, 3,901 children received subsidized child care in 2009. In order to qualify for subsidized care, a family of three needed to make less than $34,000 a year.1 It is estimated that subsidized child care only covers 60% of those in need2 and in 2010 there were 1,252 children in Santa Cruz on a wait list for subsidized care.3 School Enrollment

. There were about 39,000 students enrolled in public schools in Santa Cruz County in 2010/11. About half (53%) of enrolled students were Hispanic/Latino and nearly 40% were Caucasian.

. 29% of students were English Learner Students in the county in 2009/2010, compared to 24% of students in the state overall. Pajaro Valley Unified School District had the highest percent at 47%, nearly half the student body. Test Scores

. 83% of Santa Cruz County 10th grade high school students passed the math portion of the California High School Exit Exam in 2010/11, and 82% passed the English Language Arts portion, similar to the state overall.

. The percent of 12th grade students who took the SAT has been decreasing since 2005/06, with about one‐third (32%) of seniors taking the test in 2009/10. High School Dropout Rates

. The adjusted four‐year derived dropout rate for Santa Cruz County was 18% in 2009/10. For Pajaro Valley Unified School District, the percentage decreased from 19% in 2008/09 to 14% in 2009/10. Satisfaction with Schools

. 86% of CAP survey respondents were satisfied with the local system of education in 2011, the highest rating of satisfaction seen since 2000. College and University Attendance

. Although Cabrillo College enrollment fell from 16,467 in 2009 to 15,732 in 2010, the number of Cabrillo College graduates rose 26% between 2008/09 and 2009/10, with 1,452 graduates in 2009/10.

. Student enrollment at University of California, Santa Cruz continues to increase with approximately 17,200 students in the fall of 2010. Educational Attainment

. 84% of Santa Cruz County residents had at least a high school degree in 2010, down from 87% in 2002.

Photo Credit: Shmuel Thaler, Santa Cruz Sentinel

1 MacGillvary, J. & Lucia, L. (2011). Economic Impacts of Early Care and Education in California. UC Berkeley Labor Center. 2 Ibid. 3 California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, The California Child Care Portfolio, 2011. 6 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 2011 Highlights Our Health Overall Health

. Almost 1 in 3 (30%) Latino CAP survey respondents in 2011 indicated that in general their overall health was “fair” or “poor” compared to 14% of Caucasian respondents, a statistically significant difference.

. For those whose income was less than $35,000 per year, 30% of CAP survey respondents indicated their health was “fair” or “poor”, compared to only 6% of survey respondents earning $65,500 or more per year, a statistically significant difference. Regular Source of Care

. There was a statistically significant difference between the percent of Caucasian (91%) and Latino (68%) CAP survey respondents who had a regular source of health care in 2011.

. Approximately 1 in 4 CAP survey respondents were using the emergency room as one of their regular sources of care. Health Insurance

. There was a statistically significant difference between the percent of Caucasian (90%) and Latino (51%) CAP survey respondents who currently had health insurance in 2011. Overall, the county has seen a decrease in health coverage since 2007.

. The percent of county children 0‐17 with health insurance coverage dropped to 92% in 2009 from 98% in 2007.

. 57% of CAP survey respondents had dental coverage in 2010, a 15% decrease since 2003. Children’s Health

. Children in Santa Cruz County have lower rates of immunization than children in California overall. Eighty‐three percent (83%) of county kindergarteners and 81% of child care center entrants had all of their required immunizations, compared to 91% of Californians in each age group in 2010. Photo Credit: Michelle Luedtke Teens

. Teen birth rates decreased to 30 births per 1,000 teens ages 15‐19 in 2010, down from 32 births per 1,000 teens the previous year. Of total births in the county, almost 1 in 10 (8%) were teen births, and of total teen births, 87% of births were to Latina teen mothers.

. There was greater alcohol and marijuana use by 11th grade county teens than state teens in the most recent California Healthy Kids Survey. Forty‐one percent (41%) of county 11th graders had used alcohol in the 30 days prior to the survey compared to 34% of state 11th graders. Thirty percent (30%) of Santa Cruz County 11th graders had used marijuana compared to 20% of California 11th graders. Obesity

. Almost 1 in 4 low income children ages 5‐19 were obese in Santa Cruz County in 2009.

. There was a statistically significant difference in the overweight or obese Latino (70%) and Caucasian (54%) adult CAP survey respondents.

. 86% of CAP survey respondents with income under $35,000 per year engaged in physical activity at least once a week for a combined total of 30 minutes or more a day compared to 95% of those with incomes of $65,500 or more per year. Mental Health

. Over one‐fourth (26%) of Latino CAP survey respondents in 2011 reported feeling so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row that they stopped doing some usual activities, compared to 9% of Caucasian respondents. Methamphetamine Use

. 46% of San Lorenzo Valley CAP survey respondents felt methamphetamine use had a “big” or “somewhat big” impact, compared to 35% overall in 2011.

. There was a drop in substance abuse treatment admissions for those individuals who used methamphetamine as a primary drug from 775 admissions in 2006/2007 to 363 in 2009/2010. Breast Cancer Deaths

. The female breast cancer death rate (25.8 per 100,000) in the county was higher than the state (21.2 per 100,000) and Healthy People 2020 objectives (20.6 per 100,000). According to the community health guide, Santa Cruz County is an area for concern in comparison to the US and similar demographic (peer) counties’ death rates. Our Public Safety Adult Crime

. The Santa Cruz County crime rate was 39.6 per 1,000 residents, higher than that of the State of California at 32.2 in 2009.

. Total crimes in the county had been decreasing from 11,459 in 2005 to 9,201 in 2008, but saw a recent increase to 10,341 in 2009.

. Violent crimes saw a 3% decrease from 2008 to 2009 while property crimes experienced an increase of 16%.

. Half of all bookings in Santa Cruz County were related to alcohol in 2010, an 18% increase since 2005. Juvenile Crime

. Juvenile arrest rates decreased between 2008 and 2009, from 72.4 to 69.2 per 1,000 in the population.

. The juvenile misdemeanor DUI arrest rate was 31 per 10,000 youth in Santa Cruz County in 2009, an increase from 25 per 10,000 youth in 2008. Gangs

. The percent of South County (22%) CAP survey respondents who felt gangs have had a big impact in their neighborhood was significantly higher than North County (11%) and San Lorenzo Valley (3%) respondents in 2011. Drug Arrests

. Drug arrests among adults increased by nearly 30% between 2000 and 2009. Marijuana accounted for more than 20% of all adult drug arrests in 2009.

Photo Credit: Chuck Manning, EyePhoto.net

. The number of substantiated cases of child abuse4 in Santa Cruz County decreased by 50% over the past ten years, from 872 in 2000 to 435 in 2010. In 2010, child abuse rates in Santa Cruz County dropped below those of the state for the first time in a decade. Domestic Violence

. One in 10 CAP respondents in 2011 reported that a family member or friend in Santa Cruz County had experienced domestic violence in the last year. Elder Abuse

. Elder abuse (for residents ages 65 and older) has ranged widely from 10.4 cases per 1,000 elders in 2000 to a high of 23.8 cases per 1,000 in 2007. Most recently, it was 16.1 per 1,000 elders in 2010. Our Social Environment Basic Needs and Food Insecurity

. 14% of CAP survey respondents reported having to go without basic needs, especially health care, food, and child care. In addition, there were more respondents in 2011 who went without food or had limited their food choices since 2009.

. Latino respondents (26%) had to go without basic needs significantly more than Caucasian respondents (10%).

. Over half the students in Santa Cruz County (51%) received free or

reduced cost meals in 2009/10. Photo Credit: Chuck Manning, EyePhoto.net Homelessness

. There was a 22% increase in the number of homeless persons counted in the biennial point‐in‐time count from 2,265 individuals in 2009 to 2,771 individuals in 2011. In 2011, 21% of the homeless population was under the age of 25. Volunteerism / Charitable Giving

. The percent of survey respondents who regularly contribute money to charitable organizations was 65% in 2011, down from 74% in 2007. The percent of respondents who reported volunteering dropped to 41% after a decade high of 46% in 2009. Public Participation

. Registered voter turnout during all elections has been consistently higher in the county than the state. Almost 66% of registered voters turned out during the November 2010 general election, the highest of all previous non‐Presidential election years since November 2000.

4 Please see Appendix II for definitions of “Child” and these child abuse types: “Caretaker Absence or Incapacity,” “Emotional Abuse,” “Exploitation,” “General Neglect,” “Physical Abuse,” “Severe Neglect,” and “Sexual Abuse.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 9 2011 Highlights Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011

. 71% of 2011 CAP survey respondents had signed a petition in the past 12 months, 54% had met with, emailed, called, or sent a letter to any local politician; 46% had attended a town meeting, public hearing or public affair; and 29% had joined an on‐line political advocacy group. Quality of Life

. Over three‐quarters (79.5%) of Caucasian respondents reported enjoying their life “to a great extent,” as compared to less than half of Latino respondents (47.5%), a statistically significant difference.

. Overall, 98% of CAP survey respondents were “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with their quality of life in 2011. Since 2000, the #1 factor contributing to quality of life was scenery, geography, and climate. Our Natural Environment Water

. Water pollution was the #1 concern for the county’s natural environment according to CAP survey respondents in 2011.

. The health of our county waterways is impaired. Of the 18 Santa Cruz County waterways included in the California EPA report for 2010, 8 waterways were 100% impaired.

. Since 2009 there has been a decrease in CAP survey respondents who have taken steps to reduce their water consumption, but overall nearly 89% have taken steps to do so in 2011. Beach Postings

. There were 142 beach postings in 2010, down from 220 in 2009. Cowell Beach had 132 days of postings and Capitola Beach had 9 days of postings in 2010. Land

. There were 112 organic businesses in the county in 2010, a 42% increase since 2002.

. County use of pesticides per pounds decreased 14% between 2007 and 2009 to

Photo Credit: Chuck Manning, EyePhoto.net about 1,586,000 pounds in the year 2009.

Waste

. Scotts Valley showed the lowest waste disposal rate per person per day, with just 0.4 lbs; this was compared to Capitola with an average disposal of 1.8 lbs per person per day in 2008.

10 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Community Assessment Project Overview COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT PROJECT OVERVIEW The Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project (CAP) is one of the oldest projects of its kind, with 2011 marking the 17th anniversary of the CAP. The CAP project began in 1994 and was spearheaded by the United Way of Santa Cruz County and Dominican Hospital, with Applied Survey Research (ASR) as its research partner. The Santa Cruz County CAP evaluates quality of life in six subject areas: the economy, education, health, public safety, the social environment, and the natural environment. As of 2011, there were over 110 indicators in the CAP including primary data from a telephone survey of a representative sample of Santa Cruz County residents, and secondary data from a variety of national, state and local sources. The CAP is accomplished through a ten step community improvement cycle designed by ASR, together with community stakeholders. One of the ten steps of the community improvement cycle involves setting community‐wide goals, while another step focuses on community action to achieve the goals.

The Santa Cruz County CAP was chosen as an example of one of the best community indicator projects in the United States; the project won first place in the 2007 Community Indicators Consortium Innovation Awards sponsored by the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C.

The Santa Cruz County CAP is profiled in, Community Quality of Life Indicators, Best Practices III, a book about best practices in community indicator projects throughout the world5 and in the Organization for Economic Co‐ operation and Development’s (OECD) “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy 2007: Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies.”6 In 2009, ASR worked with the OECD and the Council of Europe to write an international handbook about community indicator projects. The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that the Santa Cruz County CAP project is a best practice methodology for indicator reports. In 2010, the Santa Cruz County CAP project was featured in an article titled “Connecting Data to Action: How the Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project Contributes to Better Outcomes for Youth” in the Applied Research in Quality of Life Journal (ARIQ) focused on community indicators that are used as tools for social change. Model Summary The CAP community assessment model, now implemented for its seventeenth year, provides a comprehensive view of the quality of life in Santa Cruz County. It is based on credible primary data and secondary data that are gathered for a series of indicators in six areas: Economy, Education, Health, Public Safety, the Natural Environment, and the Social Environment.

The CAP has nurtured and encouraged the community’s focus by establishing Community Goals for improvement. There are several goals for each of the six topical areas. The Community Goals for the year 2015 were created with more than 1,000 community members, stakeholder groups, and organizations. Groups and organizations are asked to become champions to help achieve the Community Goals. The following groups led the community goal‐setting process: Santa Cruz Community Credit Union, Santa Cruz County Office of Education, Ecology Action, The Health Improvement Partnership Council, the Santa Cruz County Probation Department, and COPA (Communities Organized for Relational Power in Action). At the beginning of each of the subject chapters in this report is a list of community goals and community heroes who are helping to achieve those goals. To become a champion and to see what progress has been made, visit www.santacruzcountycap.org.

5 Sirgy, J., Phillips, R., Rahtz, D. (2007). Community Quality of Life Indicators, Best Practices III. The International Society for Quality of Life Studies, (ISQOLS). 6 Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development. (2008). Statistics, Knowledge and Policy 2007: Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies, (OECD). © 2011 Applied Survey Research 11 Community Assessment Project Overview Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Legend

ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM DESCRIPTION North Bonny Doon, Capitola, Davenport, Live Oak, Santa Indicates a Key Indicator. Key Indicators are used to County Cruz, Scotts Valley and Soquel.  or provide a snapshot of the changing conditions in each South Aptos, Corralitos, Freedom, La Selva Beach, Pajaro area and are the most indicative of the overall condition County and Watsonville. of that particular subject area. SLV (San Lorenzo Valley) Ben Lomond, Boulder Creek, Indicates data moving in a positive direction. Brookdale, Felton, Lompico, Mount Hermon and Zayante. Indicates data moving in a negative direction. Indicates statistically significant differences in survey Denotes a telephone survey question. * responses between sub-groups in the 2011 telephone  survey data. Absence of this symbol indicates no Indicates sample size is too small to calculate, as small statistical significance differences between sub-groups ^ numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted for the 2011 data. For comparisons involving more than NA Indicates data are not available. 2 groups (region, age, and income), footnotes at the bottom of the page indicate which specific comparisons - (dash) Indicates that it would not be correct to calculate this are significant. value. % Change Describes a change in value between the current and Indicates data moving in an upward direction over time. first year’s data. This only applies when the data are not percentages or rates. Indicates data moving in a downward direction over

Net Change Describes the net change between the current and first time. year’s data. Indicates data remaining constant over time.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to acknowledge all of those individuals serving on the Steering Committee whose commitment of time, resources, and expert counsel have guided the CAP over the past seventeen years. A special thank you is extended to the generous financial sponsors of the CAP.

Applied Survey Research United Way Project Directors: Susan Brutschy & Abigail Stevens Mary Lou Goeke, Executive Director Analysts and Researchers: Shary Carvalho, Katie Church, Amalia Ellis, Administrative Services Coordinator James Connery, John Connery, Laura Connery, Samantha Green, Ken Ithiphol, Michelle Luedtke, Javier Salcedo, Deanna Zachary, and Joanne Sanchez. Steering Committee Members

Caleb Baskin Karen Delaney Dan Haifley Kirsten Liske Baskin & Grant Volunteer Centers of O’Neill Sea Odyssey Ecology Action Donna Blitzer Santa Cruz County Christine Johnson‐Lyons Eleanor Littman University of California, Willy Elliot‐McCrea Community Action Board Health Improvement Santa Cruz Second Harvest Food Shebreh Kalantari‐Johnson Partnership Santa Cruz Susan Brutschy Bank First 5 Santa Cruz County Applied Survey Peggy Flynn County Dave McNutt Research ETR Associates Bob Kennedy Community Volunteer Leslie Conner Will Forest County of Santa Cruz Ellen Murtha Santa Cruz Women’s County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Santa Cruz Community Health Center Health Services Agency Rama Khalsa Ventures Christina Cuevas Mary Lou Goeke County of Santa Cruz Community Foundation United Way of Santa Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County Cruz County 12 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Acknowledgements

Madeline Noya Raquel Ramirez Ruiz Laura Segura Susan True County of Santa Cruz Pajaro Valley Women’s Crisis Support First 5 Santa Cruz Human Services Community Health – Defensa de Mujeres County Department Trust Abigail Stevens Michael Watkins Paul O’Brien Janet Reed Applied Survey Santa Cruz County Community Volunteer Community Volunteer Research Office of Education Martina O’Sullivan Julie Reinhardt Brian Spector George Wolfe, MD Dominican Hospital Imagine Supported Walde, Ruhnke and Community Volunteer Living Services Dost Architects, LLP Doug Patrick Community Volunteer Susan Rozario Sam Storey County of Santa Cruz Community Bridges Rock Pfotenhauer Sherriff’s Office Cabrillo College Community Assessment Project Year 17 Editorial Board

Caleb Baskin Mike Lee Madeline Noya Abigail Stevens Baskin & Grant Dominican Hospital County of Santa Cruz Applied Survey Susan Brutschy Kirsten Liske Human Services Research Applied Survey Ecology Action Department Susan True Research Scott MacDonald Martina O’Sullivan First 5 Santa Cruz Leslie Conner County of Santa Cruz Dominican Hospital County Santa Cruz Women’s Probation Department Theresa Rouse George Wolfe, MD Health Center Giang Nguyen Santa Cruz County Community Volunteer Mary Lou Goeke County of Santa Cruz Office of Education United Way of Santa Health Services Agency Cruz County Community Assessment Project Year 17 Financial Sponsors

Applied Survey Research Community Foundation of Santa PG&E AT&T California Cruz County Santa Cruz Community Counseling Cabrillo College County of Santa Cruz Human Center Services Department City of Capitola Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center County Office of Education City of Santa Cruz United Way of Santa Cruz County Dominican Hospital City of Scotts Valley Volunteer Centers of Santa Cruz First 5 Santa Cruz County County Community Action Board Pajaro Valley Community Health Community Bridges Trust

A very special thank you to all of those who contributed and helped locate secondary data for this year’s CAP report. Agencies and organizations are cited as sources, but the assistance of individuals has been critical.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 13 Acknowledgements Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 2011 COMMUNITY HEROES & GOALS The CAP has annually honored community heroes, special individuals whose efforts help move Santa Cruz County toward the achievement of the community goals. These true‐life heroes can be found throughout the community and are wonderful examples of making Santa Cruz County a better place to live.

A special thank you goes to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, the local newspaper, for sponsoring the annual selection of our Community Heroes. Each year the Santa Cruz Sentinel, in association with the United Way, seeks nominations from the public of people who have worked toward meeting a CAP community goal in the past year.

Front Row (right to left): Celia Organista, Carmen Arriaga-Kumasaka, Garret Neier, Donica Ericsson, Betsy Clark Second Row: Leslie Conner, Elizabeth Schilling, Kathleen Howard, Irene Freiberg, Chris O’Halloran, Adrian Lemke Third Row: Monica DaCosta, Araceli Castillo, Steve Pleich, Vicki Assegued, Michelle Whiting Fourth Row: Michael Harms, Lloyd Williams, John Ricker, Danny Keith, Andrew Castro

The following community goals were selected by a broad cross‐section of Santa Cruz County residents to guide decision‐making, planning, and social action in the years to come. The purpose of these community goals is to focus attention and energy to improve the quality of life for the people of the county. As such, these community goals are generally broad in nature. Detailed action plans involving people from all sectors of the community must be developed to realize the community goals. These community goals are not intended to endorse or oppose any particular project or initiative. They do, however, chart the course for collective action to create a better future for the people of Santa Cruz County.

. Goal 1: By the year 2015, Santa Cruz County will leverage educational opportunities and academic institutions as engines to fuel economic growth and technology transfer.

. Goal 2: By the year 2015, increase the number of jobs within Santa Cruz County by 1,000 and “re‐ localize” 10% of our commuting workforce.

. Goal 3: By the year 2015, Santa Cruz County will slow or stop the contraction of municipal budgets through economic development of the underlying economy. Education

. Goal 1: By the year 2015, all students will graduate with the skills and knowledge required to compete in a 21st century global economy.

. Goal 2: By the year 2015, more kindergarteners will be better prepared for school through participation in a high quality preschool. » Community Hero: Irene Freiberg, First 5 SEEDS of Early Literacy Master Coach Health

. Goal 1: By the year 2015, access to primary care will improve as measured by: . 95% of Santa Cruz County residents will report having a regular source of health care; . Less than 10% will report the ED as one of their regular sources of health care; and . No significant difference between the percent of Caucasian and Latino residents reporting a regular source of health care.

. Goal 2: By the year 2015, 98% of Santa Cruz County children 0 to 17 will have comprehensive health care coverage as measured by the CAP Survey. » Community Hero: Araceli Castillo, Salud Para La Gente » Community Hero: Leslie Conner, Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center

. Goal 3: By the year 2015, the prevalence of childhood obesity in Santa Cruz County will decrease as measured by: . % of children under 5 years who are overweight or obese will decrease from 15% to 12%, and . % of children 5 to 19 years who are overweight or obese will decrease from 26% to 21%. » Community Hero: Danny Keith, Second Harvest Food Bank Public Safety

. Goal 1: By the year 2015, more youth will be involved in prevention and positive social activities and fewer youth will enter the juvenile delinquency system. » Community Hero: Monica DaCosta, Unity Temple of Santa Cruz » Community Hero: Garrett Neier, The Museum of Art & History @ the McPherson Center » Community Hero: Sergeant Michael Harms, Santa Cruz City Police Department

. Goal 2: By the year 2015, adult and juvenile violence, including family violence and gang violence, will decrease, as will the impact of violence in the community. » Community Hero: Vicki Assegued, Santa Cruz County Probation Department » Community Hero: Carmen Arriaga‐Kumasaka, Catholic Charities » Community Hero: Elizabeth Schilling, Live Oak Family Resource Center

. Goal 1: By the year 2015, more Santa Cruz County residents will have access to housing, both rental and home ownership, that they can afford.

. Goal 2: By the year 2015, more Santa Cruz County residents will be actively engaged in improving their community through public participation. » Community Hero: Adrian Lemke, Community Volunteer » Community Hero: Michelle Whiting, Santa Cruz Bible Church » Community Hero: Triple P Practioners (Andrew Castro, Chris O’Halloran, Donica Ericsson, Celia Organista), First 5 Positive Parenting Program

. Goal 3: By the year 2015, county residents with disabilities will be able to obtain services needed to support increasing options, pursue goals and participate in community life at levels consistent with their ability. » Community Hero: Betsy Clark, Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center – Community Support Services Natural Environment

. Goal 1: By the year 2015, reduce water pollution: health of rivers and ocean is improved by reducing erosion, chemical and biological pollution and improving riparian corridors. » Community Hero: Steve Pleich, Save Our Shores » Community Hero: John Ricker, County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency

. Goal 2: By the year 2015, develop a local sustainable food system: all community members have access to affordable locally grown food produced in a sustainable manner that preserves farmland fertility. » Community Hero: Lloyd Williams, Land Trust of Santa Cruz County

. Goal 3: By the year 2015, support clean/alternative energy: use of clean alternative energy and sustainable fuels are increased through financial incentives and reduced policy barriers. Lifetime Achievement Award

. Kathy Howard, Retired from Soquel Union Elementary School District

See the Appendices for a list of CAP Community Heroes from previous years.

Santa Cruz County Demographic Profile ...... 18 County Residency and Mobility ...... 20

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 17 Demographics Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE There were over 263,000 people in Santa Cruz County in 2010, up 5% since 2006. The percentage of Hispanics/Latinos in the county increased nearly 4% since 2006. There was also a 3% increase in the percentage of individuals age 60 and above over the last 5 years.

Total Population

06-10 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Santa Cruz County 249,705 251,747 253,137 256,218 263,054 5.3% California 36,457,549 36,553,215 36,756,666 36,961,664 37,349,363 2.4% Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2006-2010 American Community Survey 1 year estimates. Demographic and Housing Estimates, Table DP-05.

Gender Distribution, Santa Cruz County

06-10 GENDER 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Female 50.1% 50.1% 49.9% 50.0% 50.1% 0.0 Male 49.9% 49.9% 50.1% 50.0% 49.9% 0.0 Santa Cruz County 249,705 251,747 253,137 256,218 263,054 - Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2006-2010 American Community Survey 1 year estimates. Demographic and Housing Estimates, Table DP-05.

Ethnic Distribution, Santa Cruz County

06-10 ETHNICITY 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Asian 4.2% 3.8% 3.5% 3.5% 4.4% 0.2 Black 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% -0.1 Hispanic/Latino 28.3% 28.8% 29.3% 30.2% 32.2% 3.9 White 63.7% 62.5% 62.7% 61.9% 59.7% -4.0 Other 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% 0.4 Multi-Race 2.6% 3.0% 3.1% 3.0% 2.3% -0.3 Santa Cruz County 249,705 251,747 253,137 256,218 263,054 - Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2006-2010 American Community Survey 1 year estimates. Demographic and Housing Estimates, Table DP-05. Age Distribution, Santa Cruz County

06-10 AGE GROUP 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Under 5 years 6.6% 6.4% 6.7% 6.6% 5.6% -1.0 5-19 Years 19.9% 19.3% 18.6% 19.8% 21.0% 1.1 20-34 Years 20.6% 21.1% 21.9% 21.2% 20.9% 0.3 35-59 Years 38.2% 36.8% 36.4% 35.5% 34.6% -3.6 60 Years and Above 14.6% 16.5% 16.6% 16.7% 17.8% 3.2 Santa Cruz County 249,705 251,747 253,137 256,218 263,054 - Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2006- 2010 American Community Survey 1 year estimates. Demographic and Housing Estimates, Table DP-05.

06-10 TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD1 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Non-Family Households 38.2% 40.0% 36.0% 38.3% 36.9% -1.3 Family Households 61.8% 60.0% 64.0% 61.7% 63.1% 1.3 Married-Couple Family 48.2% 44.6% 50.1% 47.5% 45.1% -3.1 Female Householder Family (No Husband 9.0% 10.7% 10.7% 9.7% 12.3% 3.3 Present) Male Householder Family (No Wife Present) 4.5% 4.8% 3.2% 4.5% 5.7% 1.2 Total Households 92,998 93,690 93,759 92,227 91,264 - Percent with Persons Under 18 Years 32.8% 30.3% 31.8% 30.2% 31.9% -0.9 Percent with Persons 65 Years and Older 19.7% 20.6% 21.3% 22.2% 23.5% 3.8 Total Population in Households 241,652 243,362 248,825 247,988 241,449 - Average Household Size 2.60 2.60 2.65 2.69 2.65 - Average Family Size 3.22 3.18 3.18 3.27 3.18 - Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2006-2010 American Community Survey 1 year Estimates, Selected Social Characteristics in the United States, Table DP02. 1 Please see Appendix II for definitions of “Householder” and “Family.” Language Spoken at Home (Ages 5 Years and Older), Santa Cruz County

06-10 LANGUAGE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE English Only 72.0% 71.4% 70.6% 72.5% 69.1% -2.9 Language Other Than English 28.0% 28.6% 29.4% 27.5% 30.9% 2.9 Asian and Pacific Islander Languages 1.8% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.5% 0.7 Spanish 22.9% 23.8% 23.5% 22.7% 25.6% 2.7 Other Indo-European Languages 3.2% 2.5% 3.6% 2.6% 2.2% -1.0 Other Languages 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3 Total Population (Ages 5 Years and Older) 233,221 235,598 236,235 239,206 248,383 - Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2006-2010 American Community Survey 1 year Estimates, Selected Social Characteristics in the United States, Table DP02. Veteran Status, Santa Cruz County

06-10 VETERAN STATUS 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Civilian Veterans (Ages 18 and Older) 7.4% 7.6% 7.5% 5.8% 6.7% -0.7 Total Civilian Population (Ages 18 Years 193,534 197,516 198,541 200,672 207,535 - and Older) Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2006-2010 American Community Survey 1 year Estimates, Selected Social Characteristics in the United States, Table DP02. Jurisdictional Distribution, Santa Cruz County

01-11 JURISDICTION 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 % CHANGE Capitola 10,100 10,150 9,924 9,960 10,073 10,198 9,974 -1.2% Santa Cruz 54,400 55,600 56,451 57,553 58,982 59,684 60,800 11.8% Scotts Valley 11,450 11,650 11,571 11,615 11,764 11,903 11,640 1.7% Watsonville 47,000 47,700 49,601 51,258 51,882 52,543 51,495 9.6% Unincorporated 134,100 134,700 132,693 133,739 135,936 134,328 130,521 -2.7% Source: California Department of Finance (2011). 2001-2011 January Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State. Table 2: E-4.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 19 Demographics Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 COUNTY RESIDENCY AND MOBILITY More than three quarters (78%) of CAP survey respondents reported living in Santa Cruz County for more than 10 years.  How long have you lived in Santa Cruz County?

02-11 LENGTH OF TIME 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE Under 1 Year 1.0% 3.8% 1.6% 0.6% 1.6% 1.7% 0.7 Caucasian 0.8% 4.6% 1.5% 0.6% 1.8% 1.8% 1.0 Latino 1.1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 1.1% 2.0% 0.9 1-2 Years 8.9% 8.2% 4.5% 2.8% 2.9% 2.7% -6.2 Caucasian 8.6% 8.4% 3.3% 3.6% 1.9% 1.6% -7.0 Latino 8.1% 9.1% 7.3% 1.1% 6.8% 5.8% -2.3 3-5 Years 10.9% 13.1% 12.2% 8.0% 6.1% 6.2% -4.7 Caucasian 9.7% 10.6% 10.8% 6.4% 4.9% 5.2% -4.5 Latino 14.7% 18.2% 19.4% 12.5% 10.7% 8.3% -6.4 6-10 Years 11.6% 15.2% 14.4% 13.6% 12.4% 11.3% -0.3 Caucasian 9.1% 14.0% 14.2% 13.6% 10.5% 8.4% -0.7 Latino 19.2% 23.0% 16.6% 13.3% 15.6% 20.7% 1.5 11-15 Years 10.6% 11.5% 9.8% 12.6% 10.7% 12.5% 1.9 Caucasian 11.0% 11.2% 5.9% 10.0% 10.6% 12.2% 1.2 Latino 12.5% 11.3% 21.8% 21.9% 12.3% 13.8% 1.3 16-20 Years 11.9% 7.4% 10.1% 12.4% 9.3% 9.2% -2.7 Caucasian 11.0% 6.8% 9.5% 9.7% 8.4% 8.0% -3.0 Latino 14.9% 10.7% 13.0% 22.9% 11.6% 13.5% -1.4 Over 20 Years 45.2% 40.8% 47.5% 50.0% 57.0% 56.4% 11.2 Caucasian 49.8% 44.4% 54.9% 56.1% 61.9% 62.8% 13.0 Latino 29.5% 27.2% 21.3% 27.7% 41.8% 36.0% 6.5 Total Respondents 681 701 707 705 847 720 - Caucasian 475 491 496 497 595 504 - Latino 154 158 159 159 190 162 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2002-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Geographic Mobility of Residents in the Past Year, Santa Cruz County

06-10 NET MOBILITY 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CHANGE Same house 1 year ago 81.6% 79.8% 81.9% 80.8% 84.7% 3.1 Moved within the same county 10.9% 12.3% 11.5% 11.9% 8.0% -2.9 Moved from a different county within the same state 5.5% 5.5% 4.0% 5.3% 6.1% 0.6 Moved from a different state 1.4% 1.1% 2.0% 1.6% 1.0% -0.4 Moved from abroad 0.5% 1.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% -0.3 Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2006-2010 American Community Survey 1 year Estimates, Geographic Mobility in the Past Year by Age for Current Residents, Table B07001.

Economic Snapshot of Santa Cruz County ...... 22 Net Job Growth ...... 30 Economy Community Goals ...... 22 Household Income  ...... 32 Economic Well‐Being  ...... 23 Poverty Level ...... 33 Taxable Sales  ...... 25 Self‐Sufficiency Income Standards ...... 34 Agricultural Production ...... 26 Affordable Housing  ...... 35 Tourism ...... 27 Housing Occupancy and Tenure ...... 39 Job Opportunities ...... 28 Foreclosures ...... 40 Unemployment Rates  ...... 29 Assistance for Needy Families ...... 40

OVERALL RECENT INDICATOR MEASUREMENT DATA TREND TREND

Percent of CAP respondents who felt financially ECONOMIC WELL-BEING 30.6% better off this year than last year

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES Unemployment rate 10.7%

HOUSEHOLD INCOME Median family income $85,800

Percent of children under 18 living below the Federal POVERTY LEVEL 17.3% Poverty Level – Santa Cruz County

Percent of CAP respondents who spend more than 30% AFFORDABLE HOUSING 55.9% of their total take-home pay on rent or housing costs

Indicates data moving in a positive direction; Indicates data moving in a negative direction; Increasing (Upward) trend; Declining (Downward) trend; Inconclusive; variable; no clear trend; NA Not applicable or data unavailable. ECONOMY COMMUNITY GOALS

GOAL: By the year 2015, Santa Cruz County will leverage educational opportunities and academic institutions as engines to fuel economic growth and technology transfer better than similarly situated counties in California.

GOAL: By the year 2015, increase the number of jobs within Santa Cruz County by 1,000 and “re-localize” 10% of our commuting workforce.

GOAL: By the year 2015, Santa Cruz County will slow or stop the contraction of municipal budgets through economic development of the underlying economy.

22 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Economy ECONOMIC WELL-BEING Due to an increased cost of living, less income, unemployment and the recession, most survey respondents (69%) felt they were worse off financially this year than last year. When asked their top reason for why they did not feel economically better off, Latinos said it was due to “less income” and Caucasians said it was due to the cost of living. More than half of Caucasian CAP respondents reported saving money for the future through savings accounts and retirement compared to 34% of Latinos who saved through savings accounts and 21% who saved through retirement, a statistically significant difference between Latinos and Caucasians.

 Do you feel you are better off financially this year than last year? (Respondents Answering “Yes”) 60% 57.0% Overall Caucasian 53.8% 45.8% Latino 42.5% 41.2% 47.5% 42.2% 40% 41.9% 39.8% 42.1% 27.7% 31.3% 35.4% 30.6% 27.5% 31.5% 21.6% 27.4% 28.0% 20% 20.1% 16.1%

0% 2000 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2000=653; 2001=705; 2003=688; 2005=694; 2007=693; 2009=822; 2011=702; Caucasian N: 2000=442; 2001=492; 2003=476; 2005=484; 2007=485; 2009=572; 2011=490; Latino N: 2000 N=141; 2001=159; 2003=158; 2005=158; 2007=155; 2009=186; 2011=160. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Prior to 2009, the survey question stated “Do you feel you are better off economically this year than last year?

 If you do not feel you are better off financially this year than last year, or you don’t know, why do you feel this way? (Top 5 Responses)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 1. Cost of living increasing 1. Cost of living increasing 1. Cost of living increasing 1. Loss on financial 1. Cost of living increasing (20.5%) (35.2%) (41.3%) investments (16.8%) (23.7%) 2. Less income (20.4%) 2. On a fixed income 2. Gas prices (18.5%) 2. Lost job or family member 2. Less income (19.8%) (15.1%) lost job (15.8%) 3. Overall economic 3. The same, doing ok 3. Wages stagnant (16.7%) 3. Cost of living increasing 3. Unemployed (16.7%) recession/slowdown (15.1%) (14.0%) (18.0%) 4. Unemployed (13.2%) 4. Less income (14.9%) 4. Less income (12.6%) 4. Working less than last 4. On a fixed income/retired year/ underemployed (12.6%) (13.1%) 5. On a fixed income (9.9%) 5. Unemployed (13.0%) 5. On a fixed income 5. Overall economic 5. Overall economic (11.3%) recession/slowdown recession/slowdown (11.3%) (12.3%) Year 2011: 499 respondents offering 690 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2003-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This was an open-ended survey question which allowed the respondent to provide any answer. Due to variance in coding, data should be compared by top responses rather than tracking individual responses over time.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 23 Economy Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  If you do not feel you are better off financially this year than last year, why do you feel this way? (Top 3 Responses) By Ethnicity

CAUCASIAN LATINO 2009 2011 2009 2011 1. Loss of financial investments 1. Cost of living increasing (23.6%) 1. Less employment opportunities 1. Less income (28.7%)* (23.4%) (28.7%) 2. Lost job or family member lost job 2. Less income (17.2%)* 2. Working less than last 2. Unemployed (26%)* (13.6%) year/underemployed (18.9%) 3. Overall economic 3. On a fixed income/retired 3. Cost of living increasing (18.7%) 3. Cost of living increasing (24.5%) recession/slowdown (12.5%) (15.4%)* Caucasian 2009: 458 respondents, 2011: 344 respondents. Latino 2009: 158 respondents, 2011: 117 respondents. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This was an open-ended survey question which allowed the respondent to provide any answer. Due to variance in coding, data should be compared by top responses rather than tracking individual responses over time. *Significance testing: Significantly more Caucasian respondents felt they were not better off financially this year due to a fixed income/retired. Significantly more Latino respondents felt they were not better off financially this year due to unemployment and less income.

 Are you saving money for the future through any of the following saving options? (Selected Responses) By Ethnicity - 2011

Savings account 50.5%

Retirement 45.2%

Stocks 3.7%

Other 6.9%

Not saving 32.6%

Savings account 53.5%*

Retirement 52.4%*

Stocks 3.8%

Other 9.3%*

Not saving 25.9%*

Savings account 33.9%*

Retirement 20.8%*

Stocks 1.4% Latino Caucasian Overall Other 0.7%*

Not saving 56.7%* 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall 2011: 704 respondents offering 977 responses; Caucasian 2011: 491 respondents offering 712 responses; Latino 2011: 158 respondents offering 180 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to save for the future using savings accounts, retirement, and other options. Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to not save money.

24 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Economy TAXABLE SALES Taxable sales are an indicator of consumer spending and confidence. A drop in taxable sales is evidence of a decline in consumer confidence. Santa Cruz County saw a decrease of 13% in taxable sales from 2008 to 2009 in all jurisdictions, and an overall decrease of 14% in per capita taxable sales during the same years. Santa Cruz County’s per capita taxable sales were 18% less than California in 2009. Annual Taxable Sales1, Santa Cruz County $3,500,000

$3,250,000 $3,165,946 $3,195,786 $3,031,072 $3,000,000 $2,881,282 $3,074,145

$2,750,000 $2,782,641 $2,638,469

$2,500,000 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: California State Board of Equalization (2010). 2001-2009 Report of Taxable Sales by County in California. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1Taxable sales are as of July 1 of each year. Annual Taxable Sales by Jurisdiction 01-09 JURISDICTION 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 % CHANGE Capitola $464,914 $463,247 $484,162 $490,337 $481,835 $424,603 $355,427 -23.5% Santa Cruz $809,628 $761,986 $813,834 $837,511 $851,755 $802,882 $718,859 -11.2% Scotts Valley $176,661 $153,474 $164,863 $166,427 $184,706 $190,590 $147,933 -16.3% Watsonville $484,801 $483,892 $599,273 $613,279 $602,632 $553,334 $495,137 2.1% Unincorporated/Unallocated $945,278 $920,042 $1,012,013 $1,058,392 $1,074,858 $1,059,663 $921,113 -2.6% Santa Cruz County Total $2,881,282 $2,782,641 $3,074,145 $3,165,946 $3,195,786 $3,031,072 $2,638,469 -8.4% Source: California State Board of Equalization (2010). 2001-2009 Report of Taxable Sales in California. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Annual Taxable Sales by County and State 01-09 REGION 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 % CHANGE Monterey $5,101,569 $4,918,656 $5,454,500 $5,658,166 $5,680,652 $5,399,594 $4,705,845 -7.8% San Benito $501,089 $498,251 $535,651 $536,846 $550,032 $504,523 $422,942 -15.6% Santa Clara $32,133,247 $27,062,663 $30,193,802 $32,273,238 $33,663,448 $32,274,306 $27,427,709 -14.6% Santa Cruz $2,881,282 $2,782,641 $3,074,145 $3,165,946 $3,195,786 $3,031,072 $2,638,469 -8.4% California $441,517,560 $460,096,468 $536,904,428 $559,652,437 $561,050,149 $531,653,540 $456,492,945 3.4% Source: California State Board of Equalization (2010). 2001-2009 Report of Taxable Sales in California. Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 25 Economy Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Per Capita Taxable Sales1 Santa Cruz County $20,000 California $14,991 $14,877 $16,000 $14,509 $13,942 $12,804 $12,702 $11,864 $12,000 $11,639 $12,112 $12,033 $11,146 $10,763 $11,312 $8,000 $9,755 $4,000

$0 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: California State Board of Equalization (2011). 2001-2009 Annual Report of Taxable Sales in California. California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit (2011). 2001-2009 E-2 California County Population Estimates and Components of Change. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 Per capita taxable sales figures are derived by dividing taxable sales by the total population for a given area. Per Capita Taxable Sales by Business Types, 2009 TYPE OF BUSINESS SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CALIFORNIA Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $748 $1,156 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $156 $220 Electronics and Appliance Stores $224 $348 Bldg. Matrl. And Garden Equip. and Supplies $742 $623 Food and Beverage Stores $778 $586 Health and Personal Care Stores $338 $240 Gasoline Stations $881 $1,016 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $474 $666 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores $289 $268 General Merchandise Stores $859 $1,168 Miscellaneous Store Retailers $470 $426 Nonstore Retailers $49 $74 Food Services and Drinking Places $1,227 $1,297 Total Retail and Food Services $7,234 $8,088 All Other Outlets $2,520 $3,776 Total All Outlets $9,755 $11,864 Source: California State Board of Equalization (2011). 2009 Annual Report of Taxable Sales in California. California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit (2011). 2009 E-2 California County Population Estimates and Components of Change. Note: Businesses categories changed in 2011 and are not comparable to previous years. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION Overall, crop production value increased by 84% from $289 million in 2002 to $533 million in 2010. Strawberries continue to be the highest grossing crop produced in the county, valued at more than $197 million in 2010, an increase of nearly $25 million since 2009. Production values increased for field grown flowers and apples while wine grapes and raspberry values decreased over the same period of time.

26 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Economy Annual Crop Production Value (in Millions of Dollars), Santa Cruz County TYPE OF CROP 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 02-10 % CHANGE Berries $153.2 $307.2 $248.6 $282.0 $287.2 $306.2 $324.6 111.9% Nursery/Ornamental Crops1 $61.0 $73.1 $80.1 $117.8 $107.8 $118.5 $118.8 94.8% Vegetables $55.6 $47.5 $59.1 $67.4 $60.7 $ 47.0 $61.8 11.2% Tree and Vine Fruits $12.5 $11.2 $14.9 $11.4 $13.4 $10.7 $16.7 33.6% Animal Products $2.3 $3.3 $5.0 $6.3 $8.2 $5.6 $5.8 152.2% Field Crops $0.3 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 -66.7% Total Crops Value $284.9 $442.3 $407.9 $485.1 $477.4 $488.1 $527.8 85.3% Timber Farming $4.1 $5.8 $6.3 $6.4 $7.9 $3.5 $4.8 17.1% Total Production Value $289.0 $448.1 $414.3 $491.5 $485.3 $491.6 $532.5 84.3% Source: County Agricultural Commissioner (2011). 2002-2010 Santa Cruz County Crop Report. 1 Starting in 2007, data came directly from growers, so they are more accurate than the estimates used in previous years. Million Dollar Crops by Production Value (in Millions of Dollars), Santa Cruz County TYPE OF CROP 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 02-10 % CHANGE Strawberries $107.4 $194.8 $154.3 $196.9 $160.4 $172.6 $197.2 83.6% Raspberries $37.9 $101.4 $83.7 $71.1 $105.8 $104.3 $91.7 142.0% Indoor Cut Flowers $14.4 $14.8 $15.5 $35.0 $36.2 $39.0 $37.4 159.7% Landscape Plants $17.9 $27.1 $35.2 $33.9 $30.2 $29.8 $25.9 44.7% Field Grown Flowers $8.8 $10.6 $9.1 $20.6 $16.8 $21.0 $34.9 296.6% Apples $9.2 $9.5 $10.3 $8.1 $10.1 $7.2 $13.3 44.6% Livestock $1.8 $3.3 $5.0 $6.3 $8.2 $5.6 $5.8 222.2% Timber Farming $4.1 $5.8 $6.3 $6.4 $7.9 $3.5 $4.8 17.1% Brussels Sprouts $5.6 $7.7 $8.3 $8.8 $6.3 $8.8 $7.5 33.9% Lettuce, Leaf $15.0 $11.2 $11.6 $5.5 $6.2 $6.9 $8.9 -40.7% Indoor Potted Plants $6.6 $9.0 $9.3 $7.4 $6.1 $5.6 $3.4 -48.5% Lettuce, Head $14.8 $9.6 $7.7 $6.9 $5.9 $8.1 $7.0 -52.7% Broccoli $1.6 $2.5 $3.4 $1.6 $3.4 $4.3 NA NA Wine Grapes $3.3 $1.5 $4.3 $3.0 $2.9 $3.2 $3.1 -6.1% Source: County Agricultural Commissioner (2011). 2002-2010 Santa Cruz County Crop Report. TOURISM The tourism industry plays a significant role in the economic well being of a county in terms of revenue earned by businesses, local taxes earned by the county, and the growth of employment opportunities. In Santa Cruz County travel spending decreased by $40,000,000 between 2008 and 2009. Tourism Revenue (in Millions of Dollars), Santa Cruz County CATEGORY 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 01-09 % CHANGE Travel Spending $512.0 $530.9 $601.5 $621.0 $640.2 $649.6 $609.8 19.1% Earnings Generated $174.4 $162.6 $180.8 $186.8 $195.3 $197.4 $194.6 11.6% Local Tax Receipts $13.3 $12.4 $12.5 $13.3 $14.1 $14.2 $12.8 -3.8% State Tax Receipts $22.7 $22.4 $24.4 $25.0 $25.5 $25.7 $26.8 18.1% Total employment (# of jobs) 8,840 7,860 8,380 8,210 8,200 8,030 8,040 -9.0% Source: Dean Runyan Associates (2011). 2001-2009 California Travel Impacts by County. Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 27 Economy Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Transient Occupancy Tax1 by Jurisdiction (in Thousands of Dollars) 02-10 % JURISDICTION 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CHANGE Capitola $470.1 $493.4 $516.8 $542.7 $604.0 $718.7 $605.4 $591.9 25.9% Santa Cruz $3,137.4 $3,016.5 $3,067.8 $3,385.1 $3,750.5 $3,685.2 $3,659.8 $3,860.8 23.1% Scotts Valley $442.5 $483.3 $542.2 $689.4 $693.8 $723.3 $520.2 $543.9 22.9% Watsonville $704.0 $580.3 $598.3 $606.5 $638.0 $829.6 $625.9 $616.8 -12.4% Unincorporated $3,262.0 $3,375.0 $3,806.6 $3,686.7 $4,257.9 $4,496.1 $3,887.2 $3,627.3 11.2% Santa Cruz County Total $8,016.0 $7,948.5 $8,531.7 $8,910.4 $9,944.2 $10,452.9 $9,298.5 $9,240.7 15.3% Source: Dean Runyan Associates (2011). 2002-2010 California Travel Impacts by County. 1 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Transient Occupancy Tax.” JOB OPPORTUNITIES While more than 57% of CAP survey respondents felt they had job opportunities in Santa Cruz County in 2011, this varied by income level. Of the respondents who indicated they earned less than $35,000 per year, 51% felt they had opportunities to work in the area compared to 69% of respondents who earned $65,500 per year or more, a statistically significant difference.

 Do you feel you have opportunities to work in the Santa Cruz area? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Income Overall 100% $34,999 per year or less $35,000 - $65,499 per year $65,500 per year or more 77.0% 80% 75.4% 72.6% 71.6% 68.6%* 69.7% 69.0% 67.9% 68.9% 71.3% 64.3% 67.9% 68.6% 61.1% 65.3% 65.8% 57.2% 60% 62.0% 61.5% 64.7% 59.2% 60.7% 57.6% 53.2%* 56.7% 57.7%

51.1%* 49.4% 40% 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2001=679; 2002=668; 2003=684; 2005=683; 2007=685; 2009=784; 2011=662; $34,999 or less N: 2001=248; 2002=273; 2003=302; 2005=256; 2007=164; 2009=154; 2011=258; $35,000 - $65,499 per year N: 2001=167; 2002=155; 2003=156; 2005=125; 2007=147; 2009=173; 2011=128; Over $65,500 N: 2000=166; 2001=205; 2002=194; 2003=175; 2005=234; 2007=309; 2009=205; 2011=226. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2001-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: In 2009, the question changed from “Do you feel you have opportunities to work in this area?” *Significance testing: Respondents who earn over $65,500 per year were significantly more likely than respondents who earn $65,499 per year or less to feel that they have opportunities to work in the Santa Cruz County area.

28 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Economy UNEMPLOYMENT RATES The unemployment rate in Santa Cruz County increased from 11% to 13% from 2009 to 2010. The rate decreased to 11% in August of 2011 but remained higher than the nation’s rate of 9%. The highest unemployment rate in the county was in Watsonville at 22%, followed by Santa Cruz and Live Oak at 9%, in August 2011.

More than 10% of CAP survey respondents were unemployed with 52% indicating that it was a lack of available jobs that prevented them from finding employment. Of the employed respondents, 20% said they worked outside of Santa Cruz County and 69% said they worked in the county. Unemployment Rate 16% Santa Cruz County California 12.7% United States 11.3% 11.9% 12% 12.4% 11.4% 10.7% 8.0% 7.3% 9.6% 8% 7.2% 9.3% 9.1% 5.6% 5.6% 7.2% 6.7% 6.2% 4.9% 4.9% 5.8% 5.8% 4% 5.5% 4.6% 4.0%

0% 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 Aug 2011¹

Source: State of California Employment Development Department (2011). 2000-2011 Labor Market Information Division. U.S. Department of Labor (2011). 2000-2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1Data from 2011 only represent the month of August. Data prior to August 2011 represent an average for the year. Unemployment Rate by Jurisdiction

AUG 00-AUG 11 JURISDICTION 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 NET CHANGE Aptos 2.7% 3.9% 2.5% 1.9% 2.6% 4.4% 5.0% 4.2% 1.5 Ben Lomond 4.1% 5.9% 2.2% 1.7% 2.3% 4.6% 5.4% 4.4% 0.3 Capitola 4.1% 5.9% 3.5% 2.7% 3.6% 6.4% 7.3% 6.0% 1.9 Live Oak 2.6% 3.7% 5.4% 4.2% 5.5% 9.3% 10.6% 8.9% 6.3 Rio Del Mar 3.0% 4.2% 3.8% 2.9% 3.9% 6.8% 7.8% 6.5% 3.5 Santa Cruz 4.9% 7.0% 7.3% 4.6% 6.1% 9.4% 10.7% 8.9% 4.0 Scotts Valley 3.1% 4.4% 3.2% 2.4% 3.2% 5.4% 6.2% 5.1% 2.0 Soquel 3.9% 5.6% 4.9% 3.8% 5.0% 8.5% 9.7% 8.1% 4.2 Watsonville 11.9% 16.5% 14.7% 12.6% 16.0% 23.4% 26.0% 22.4% 10.5 Santa Cruz County 5.6% 8.0% 7.2% 5.6% 7.3% 11.3% 12.7% 10.7% 5.1 California 4.9% 6.7% 6.2% 4.9% 7.2% 11.4% 12.4% 11.9% 7.0 United States 4.0% 5.8% 5.5% 4.6% 5.8% 9.3% 9.6% 9.1% 5.1 Source: State of California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division (2011). 2000-2011 Industry Employment & Labor Force. U.S. Department of Labor (2011).2000-2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 29 Economy Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  What is your employment status? By Ethnicity 01-11 NET RESPONSE 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 CHANGE Employed full-time 44.2% 43.4% 44.5% 38.1% 33.5% 33.0% 32.3% -11.9 Caucasian 40.0% 38.5% 41.8% 38.0% 29.6% 30.3% 27.5% -12.5 Latino 59.4% 59.0% 50.7% 40.5% 47.6% 40.9% 43.9% -15.5 Retired 22.9% 23.3% 16.2% 22.5% 33.9% 25.6% 29.0% 6.1 Caucasian 29.6% 28.6% 20.8% 28.9% 38.5% 32.9% 35.7% 6.1 Latino 4.3% 6.8% 2.6% 2.0% 19.5% 6.7% 8.2% 3.9 Self-employed 7.1% 7.2% 6.8% 8.1% 8.4% 11.7% 11.9% 4.8 Caucasian 7.0% 8.6% 8.4% 10.1% 10.7% 13.4% 13.3% 6.3 Latino 7.3% 3.8% 3.4% 1.8% 0.8% 5.1% 8.4% 1.1 Unemployed 6.4% 6.8% 6.8% 9.5% 5.8% 10.6% 10.5% 4.1 Caucasian 7.3% 5.9% 8.4% 5.3% 4.1% 8.2% 9.5% 2.2 Latino 3.7% 9.6% 2.0% 21.2% 11.8% 16.2% 14.9% 11.2 Employed part-time 11.3% 12.2% 15.3% 11.7% 9.9% 10.4% 10.4% -0.9 Caucasian 11.3% 11.4% 14.1% 11.5% 11.0% 10.7% 8.6% -2.7 Latino 9.9% 14.6% 17.3% 12.1% 5.1% 9.1% 16.5% 6.6 Homemaker, parent, or 6.1% 3.5% 5.3% 5.0% 5.7% 6.5% 3.6% -2.5 caregiver Caucasian 3.4% 3.1% 3.2% 4.2% 3.8% 3.4% 2.6% -0.8 Latino 10.6% 4.4% 13.4% 8.7% 11.6% 17.1% 7.4% -3.2 Student 1.8% 3.6% 5.2% 5.0% 2.8% 2.1% 2.4% 0.6 Caucasian 1.0% 4.0% 3.3% 2.1% 2.4% 1.1% 2.8% 1.8 Latino 4.8% 1.8% 10.8% 13.7% 3.6% 4.8% 0.8% -4.0 Total Respondents 705 681 700 705 702 846 713 - Caucasian 492 475 489 494 497 595 500 - Latino 159 154 158 159 158 190 161 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2001-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  If unemployed, what prevents you from finding employment? RESPONSE 2011 RESPONSE 2011 Lack of available jobs 52.0% Child care/being a parent 7.9% Caucasian 49.1% Caucasian 7.5% Latino 60.8% Latino 9.8% Health problems/disability 27.2% Transportation issues 6.9% Caucasian 22.7% Caucasian 8.3% Latino 30.1% Latino 4.9% Lack of required education 14.4% Age 5.4% Caucasian 12.9% Caucasian 7.3% Latino 19.7% Latino 0.0% Not looking 13.0% Total Respondents 73 Caucasian 17.0% Caucasian 47 Latino 4.9% Latino 22 Lack of specific job skills 11.1% Caucasian 10.2% Latino 14.7% Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  If employed, where are you employed? - 2011 100% 80% 69.3% 60% 40% 19.5% 11.1% 20% 0% In Santa Cruz County Outside of Santa Cruz County Both in and out of Santa Cruz County N=383. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

30 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Economy NET JOB GROWTH Total employment for all industries declined by 2,000 jobs in Santa Cruz County, from 96,800 jobs in 2009 to 94,800 jobs in 2010. Jobs in the information industry decreased more than 65% in the past decade while education and health service jobs increased 26% during the same years. The jobs with the greatest projected growth in Santa Cruz County are network systems and data communication analysis followed by home health aides and instructional coordinators. Total Employment All Industries, Santa Cruz County 110,000 105,600 102,900 103,400 100,500 102,400 101,600 96,800 100,000 94,800

90,000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: State of California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division (2011). 2000-2011 Industry Employment & Labor Force. Net Job Growth by Industry, Santa Cruz County 00-10 INDUSTRY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Government 19,500 20,700 21,000 21,800 22,300 20,800 19,400 -0.5% Education & Health Services 10,600 11,700 12,000 12,100 12,500 13,000 13,300 25.5% Retail Trade 14,000 13,500 13,100 13,300 12,300 11,600 11,400 -18.6% Leisure & Hospitality 11,500 11,600 11,200 11,100 11,300 11,100 11,000 -4.3% Professional & Business Services 11,700 9,900 9,000 10,000 10,000 9,300 8,900 -23.9% Manufacturing 9,300 7,500 7,000 6,500 5,900 5,200 5,300 -43.0% Mining, Logging, & Construction 4,500 4,800 5,500 5,900 4,600 3,200 3,000 -33.3% Wholesale Trade 3,600 3,300 3,600 4,000 4,100 3,800 3,600 0.0% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 4,100 3,800 3,700 3,700 3,500 3,400 3,300 -19.5% Transportation, Warehousing, & Utilities 1,400 1,600 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,400 1,400 0.0% Information 2,600 2,200 1,800 1,400 1,100 1,000 900 -65.4% Other Services 4,400 4,100 3,800 3,800 4,000 3,700 3,600 -18.2% Total Employment, Non-farm Industries 97,200 94,600 93,000 95,100 93,000 87,400 85,200 -12.3% Total Employment, Farm Industries 8,300 8,300 7,500 7,400 8,600 9,500 9,600 15.7% Total Employment1, All Industries 105,600 102,900 100,500 102,400 101,600 96,800 94,800 -10.2% Comparison: Labor Force2 148,400 148,300 144,000 143,400 146,200 147,600 147,800 -0.4% Source: State of California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division (2011). 2000-2011 Industry Employment & Labor Force. Note: Industry employment figures are rounded so totals may not sum exactly. 1“Total Employment” refers to jobs located in Santa Cruz County. 2“Labor Force” refers to people who reside in Santa Cruz County, employed or unemployed, but who may work outside of the County. Net Job Growth, California 00-10 INDUSTRY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Total Employment, 14,488,200 14,457,800 14,532,600 15,060,300 15,173,500 14,981,400 14,084,700 13,896,400 -4.1% Non-farm Industries Total Employment, 408,500 372,700 386,400 375,200 383,700 389,300 371,800 381,600 -6.6% Farm Industries Total Employment, 14,896,700 14,830,500 14,919,000 15,435,500 15,557,200 15,370,800 14,456,500 14,278,000 -4.2% All Industries Labor Force 16,857,600 17,343,600 17,444,400 17,686,700 17,928,700 18,191,000 18,204,200 18,176,200 7.8% Source: State of California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division (2011). 2000-2011 Industry Employment & Labor Force. Note: Industry employment figures are rounded so totals may not sum exactly.

ANNUAL AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT 2010 -1ST QUARTER WAGES OCCUPATION TITLE 2008 2018 08-18 % CHANGE MEDIAN HOURLY MEDIAN ANNUAL Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts 260 400 53.8% $40.32 $83,864 Home Health Aides 390 540 38.5% $9.71 $20,188 Instructional Coordinators 240 330 37.5% $32.67 $67,952 Special Education Teachers, Preschool, Kindergarten, 120 160 33.3% NA $55,368 and Elementary School Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors 400 530 32.5% $24.00 $49,914 Vocational Education Teachers, Post secondary 140 180 28.6% $25.69 $53,429 Pharmacy Technicians 210 270 28.6% $18.86 $39,217 Coaches and Scouts 230 290 26.1% NA $45,390 Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education 1,540 1,940 26.0% NA $57,801 Registered Nurses 1,120 1,410 25.9% $41.16 $85,625 Source: California Employment Development Department (2011). 2011 Labor Market Information, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES). HOUSEHOLD INCOME

At $85,800, the median family income6 in Santa Cruz County was higher than it has been over the past decade and was $15,400 more than the California median and $21,600 more than the U.S. median in 2011. Nearly 53% of 2011 CAP survey respondents indicated their yearly family income was less than $50,000 while 8% said their yearly family income was $150,000 or more. Per Capita Personal Income1 01-09 REGION 2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 % CHANGE Santa Cruz County $38,551 $37,477 $39,815 $45,194 $48,337 $51,140 $49,145 27.5% California $32,892 $33,400 $35,219 $39,626 $41,805 $43,852 $42,395 28.9% United States $30,527 $31,484 $33,050 $36,714 $38,615 $40,166 $39,635 29.8% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (2004). 2001 Survey of Current Business. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (2010). 2003-2009 Regional Economic Information System. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1Per capita personal income (PCPI) is calculated by dividing the total personal income by the total population for a given county. Total personal income (TPI) includes the earnings (wages and salaries, other labor income, proprietors’ income); dividends, interest, and rent; and transfer payments received by the residents of Santa Cruz County. Median Family Income $100,000 Santa Cruz County $83,800 $84,200 $85,800 California $81,300 $79,900 United States $80,000 $74,600 $75,300 $70,400 $71,000 $70,400 $65,500 $65,000 $67,800 $60,300 $62,500 $60,000 $58,400 $64,400 $61,500 $64,000 $64,200 $56,500 $58,000 $59,000 $52,500 $40,000 FY 2001 FY 2003 FY 2005 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2011). 2001-2011 HUD User, Policy Development and Research Information Services, Income Limits.

6 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Median Family Income” and “Median Household Income.” 32 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Economy  Which income range best describes your family income for the year?

RESPONSE 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 Less than $15,000 8.2% 18.7% 16.8% 9.3% 12.5% 15.6% $15,000 - $24,999 16.0% 14.6% 12.5% 9.5% 9.5% 14.3% $25,000 - $34,999 14.3% 13.2% 12.5% 8.5% 12.0% 12.0% $35,000 - $49,999 13.4% 12.8% 9.7% 13.2% 14.1% 10.8% $50,000 - $65,499 12.7% 11.7% 10.8% 11.1% 10.0% 9.9% $65,500 - $99,999 18.1% 12.2% 20.1% 23.7% 19.5% 18.2% $100,000 - $149,999 8.8% 9.9% 10.5% 16.4% 12.9% 11.2% $150,000 or more 4.5% 4.3% 7.2% 8.1% 9.5% 7.9% Total Respondents 666 667 640 643 746 659 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2001-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to respondents answering “Don’t know” and rounding. POVERTY LEVEL Santa Cruz County saw an increase in the percentage of people living below the federal poverty level7 from 2009 to 2010. Children and youth (under 18 years of age) experienced the largest increase of people living below the poverty level from 15% in 2009 to 17% in 2010. Federal Poverty Guidelines by Family Size FAMILY SIZE 2001 2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 $8,590 $8,980 $9,570 $10,210 $10,400 $10,830 $10,830 $10,890 2 $11,610 $12,120 $12,830 $13,690 $14,000 $14,570 $14,570 $14,710 3 $14,630 $15,260 $16,090 $17,170 $17,600 $18,310 $18,310 $18,530 4 $17,650 $18,400 $19,350 $20,650 $21,200 $22,050 $22,050 $22,350 5 $20,670 $21,540 $22,610 $24,130 $24,800 $25,790 $25,790 $26,170 6 $23,690 $24,680 $25,870 $27,610 $28,400 $29,530 $29,530 $29,990 7 $26,710 $27,820 $29,130 $31,090 $32,000 $33,270 $33,270 $33,810 8 $29,730 $30,960 $32,390 $34,570 $35,600 $37,010 $37,010 $37,630 Source: Department of Health and Human Services (2011). 2001-2011 Federal Register. Percent of Population Living Below the Poverty Level, By Age Group 04-10 REGION/AGE GROUP 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Santa Cruz County Under 18 Years 15.9% 15.4% 12.5% 12.4% 17.8% 14.9% 17.3% 1.4 18 to 64 Years 8.8% 11.2% 12.0% 10.0% 13.4% 14.7% 14.8% 6.0 65 Years and Over 8.1% 7.2% 7.3% 6.2% 6.7% 6.8% 8.5% 0.4 California Under 18 Years 18.9% 18.6% 18.1% 17.3% 18.5% 19.9% 22.0% 3.1 18 to 64 Years 11.9% 11.9% 11.9% 11.1% 12.0% 12.8% 14.5% 2.6 65 Years and Over 7.8% 8.1% 8.4% 8.2% 8.7% 8.7% 9.7% 1.9 United States Under 18 Years 18.4% 18.5% 18.3% 18.0% 18.2% 20.0% 21.6% 3.2 18 to 64 Years 11.6% 11.9% 12.0% 11.6% 11.9% 13.1% 14.2% 2.6 65 Years and Over 9.4% 9.9% 9.9% 9.5% 9.9% 9.5% 9.0% -0.4 Source: United States Census Bureau (2010). 2004-2010 American Community Survey. Note: Percentages are calculated for age-specific populations.

7 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Federal Poverty Guidelines/Thresholds.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 33 Economy Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 SELF-SUFFICIENCY INCOME STANDARDS The Self‐Sufficiency Standard for California provides information on how much income is needed in different counties in order for families of different sizes to meet their basic needs without public or private assistance. The Self‐Sufficiency Standard provides a more comprehensive measure of income adequacy than Federal Poverty Thresholds (levels) by taking into account housing, child care, health care, transportation, food, taxes and miscellaneous costs, as well as economic differences between counties. It also accounts for changing costs over time, and at various rates. For example, food costs, on which the official poverty thresholds are based, have not increased as fast as housing costs. This failure to account for different inflation rates among other non‐food basic needs is one reason that the official poverty thresholds are no longer an adequate measure of the money required to meet real needs. 8

The hourly self‐sufficiency wage for a single adult in Santa Cruz County increased 33% from $11.49 in 2003 to $15.28 in 2011. A high percentage of Latinos (47%), female householders with children (57%), and residents with less than a high school diploma (59%) fell below the Self‐ Sufficiency Income Standards in 2007. Self-Sufficiency Income Standards, Santa Cruz County SINGLE ADULT + 1 SCHOOL-AGE CHILD TWO ADULTS* + 1 PRE-SCHOOLER AND SINGLE ADULT AND 1 TEENAGER 1 SCHOOL-AGE CHILD EXPENSE 03-11 % 03-11 % 03-08 % CATEGORY 2003 2008 2011 CHANGE 2003 2008 2011 CHANGE 2003 2008 2011 CHANGE Housing $1,004 $1,145 $1,327 32.2% $1,341 $1,493 $1,730 29.0% $1,341 $1,493 $1,730 29.0% Child Care $0 $0 $0 NA $440 $426 $473 7.5% $1,205 $1,283 $1,624 34.8% Food $182 $241 $236 29.7% $473 $633 $623 31.7% $565 $752 $739 30.8% Transportation $245 $255 $262 6.9% $251 $262 $270 7.6% $481 $500 $512 6.4% Health Care $67 $104 $140 109.0% $232 $297 $423 82.3% $250 $333 $452 80.8% Miscellaneous $150 $175 $197 31.3% $274 $311 $352 28.5% $384 $436 $506 31.8% Taxes $375 $447 $527 40.5% $484 $589 $776 60.3% $783 $946 $1,274 62.7% Earned Income $0 $0 $0 NA $0 $0 $0 NA $0 $0 $0 NA Tax credit (-) Child Care Tax $0 $0 $0 NA ($55) ($50) ($50) -9.1% ($100) ($100) ($100) NA Credit (-) Hourly Self- $11.49 $13.45 $15.28 33.0% $18.59 $21.55 $25.17 35.4% $13.471 $15.561 $18.671 38.6% Sufficiency Wage Monthly Self- $2,023 $2,367 $2,689 32.9% $3,273 $3,793 $4,430 35.3% $4,743 $5,477 $6,571 38.5% Sufficiency Wage Annual Self- $24,276 $28,408 $32,273 32.9% $39,270 $45,522 $53,164 35.4% $56,918 $65,726 $78,858 38.5% Sufficiency Wage Source: Center for Women's Welfare, University of Washington (2011). 2000-2011 The Self-Sufficiency Standard for California. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 Hourly wages for two-adult households are per adult (e.g., $15.56 per adult in 2008, $18.67 per adult in 2011).

8 Insight Center for Community Economic Development CA Family Economic Self‐Sufficiency by County, 2010, retrieved January 5, 2011. http://www.insight.org/index.php?page=ca‐sss. 34 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Economy Percent of Households Below Self-Sufficiency Income Standards, Santa Cruz County – 2007 Total Households 28.0%

Caucasian 23.2% Latino 46.7%

Married couple with children 30.9% Male householder with children 36.7% Female householder with children 56.5% Family household without children and non-families 22.2%

Less than high school 58.5% High school diploma 38.4% Some college 31.9% Bachelor's degree or higher 13.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: Center for Women’s Welfare at the University of Washington’s School of Social Work (2010). 2007 Overlooked and Undercounted 2009: Struggling to Make Ends Meet in California. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The cost of housing in Santa Cruz County makes this area one of the least affordable in the United States. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordable housing as not paying more than 30% of annual household income on housing costs. More than 55% of CAP survey respondents indicated they spent more than 30% of their take‐ home pay on rent or housing in 2011, this was an increase from 50% in 2009.

The average rent in Santa Cruz County has been steadily increasing, showing a 16% increase since 2008. Alternatively, since 2007 the median home sales price has decreased by almost $300,000. While this is bad news for current home owners, the percent of homes affordable for median income families increased from over 34% in 2010 to 48% in 2011.

 How much of your total household take-home pay (income after taxes) goes to rent or housing costs1? 100% 5.2% 7.1% 10.1% 75% or more 19.6% 16.7% 80% 22.8% 50%-74% 25.3% 26.2% 31%-49% 60% 23.0% 30% or less 40%

20% 49.9% 49.9% 44.1%

0% 2007 2009 2011 N: 2007=645; 2009=783; 2011=641. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. 1 Housing costs are considered any type of payment having to do with housing, such as rent or mortgage payments.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 35 Economy Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  Percent of Respondents Who Spent Over 30% of Their Household Take-Home Pay On Rent Or Housing Costs, By Ethnicity

100% 82.9% 70.0% 84.5%* Overall 80% 55.9% Caucasian 60% 50.1% 50.0% 40% Latino 20% 38.2% 43.8% 45.8%* 0% 2007 2009 2011 Overall N: 2007=645; 2009=783; 2011=641; Caucasian N: 2007=448; 2009=548; 2011=442; Latino N: 2007=150; 2009=179; 2011=148. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Latino respondents are significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to spend over 30% of their household take-home pay on rent or housing costs.  Due to the cost of housing, have you or anyone living with you needed to do any of the following? (Selected Responses) By Ethnicity RESPONSE 2009 2011 Share Housing With Other Families 20.6% 21.9% Caucasian 14.3% 15.6%* Latino 40.6% 42.9%* Live Temporarily With Family/Friends 19.2% 24.4% Caucasian 13.1% 18.7%* Latino 38.9% 43.4%* Rent Out Rooms In Your House 13.8% 12.4% Caucasian 11.8% 11.7% Latino 21.7% 14.9% Move When You Didn’t Want To 7.7% 10.1% Caucasian 5.5% 7.4%* Latino 14.6% 19.5%* Live In An Overcrowded Unit 6.3% 6.3% Caucasian 4.3% 4.6%* Latino 13.5% 11.3%* Overall: 2009: 845 respondents offering 1,183 responses; 2011: 691 respondents offering 1,015 responses; Caucasian: 2009: 486 respondents offering 746 responses; 2011: 486 respondents offering 647 responses; Latino: 2009: 189 respondents offering 353 responses; 2011: 151 respondents offering 288 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to share housing with other families, live temporarily with family/friends, move when they didn’t want to, or live in an overcrowded unit due to the cost of housing.  Has any of the previous had to do with the economic downturn? RESPONSE 2009 2011 Yes 67.8% 72.3% No 32.2% 27.7% Total Respondents 278 257 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

$700,000 $655,000 $625,000

$508,000 $550,000 $483,000 $430,000 $397,000 $376,000 $400,000 $347,000

$225,000 $238,000 $219,000 $250,000 $186,000 $176,000 $175,000 $153,000 $165,000

$100,000 2001 2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: National Association of Home Builders (2011). 2001-2011 NAHB - Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI), 1st Quarter. 1Includes new and existing condominiums and other types of homes. Median Sale Price, All Home Types by Metro Area 01-11 METRO AREA 2001 2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 % CHANGE Salinas $288,000 $405,000 $545,000 $569,000 $393,000 $209,000 $232,000 $235,000 -18.4% San Francisco $550,000 $571,000 $705,000 $748,000 $680,000 $525,000 $585,000 $550,000 0.0% San Jose $480,000 $479,000 $585,000 $646,000 $544,000 $373,000 $431,000 $425,000 -11.5% Santa Cruz-Watsonville $397,000 $483,000 $625,000 $655,000 $508,000 $347,000 $430,000 $376,000 -5.3% United States $153,000 $186,000 $225,000 $238,000 $219,000 $176,000 $175,000 $165,000 7.8% Source: National Association of Home Builders (2011). 2001-2011 NAHB - Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI), 1st Quarter. Percent of Homes Affordable for Median Income Families Santa Cruz-Watsonville 100% United States

80% 72.5% 72.2% 74.6%

56.9% 58.9% 60% 53.8% 50.1% 50.9% 48.0% 43.9% 40% 34.1% 22.2% 20% 14.5% 9.6% 7.7% 8.2%

0% 2001 2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: National Association of Home Builders (2011). 2001-2011 NAHB - Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI), 1st Quarter.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 37 Economy Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Percent of Homes Affordable for Median Income Families 01-11 METRO AREA 2001 2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NET CHANGE Salinas 14.5% 6.1% 4.3% 4.6% 13.1% 69.0% 56.2% 62.4% 47.9 San Francisco 7.3% 16.5% 10.4% 6.7% 12.7% 32.1% 23.4% 33.2% 25.9 San Jose 14.5% 35.7% 19.5% 13.6% 23.1% 61.5% 45.1% 53.5% 39.0 Santa Cruz-Watsonville 9.6% 14.5% 7.7% 8.2% 22.2% 50.9% 34.1% 48.0% 38.4 United States 56.9% 58.9% 50.1% 43.9% 53.8% 72.5% 72.2% 74.6% 17.7 Source: National Association of Home Builders (2011). 2001-2011 NAHB - Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI), 1st Quarter. Percent of Households Able to Afford an Entry-Level Home in California Based on the First-Time Buyer1 Housing Affordability Index 05-11 AREA 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NET CHANGE County Marin 23% 21% 21% 24% 41% 41% 50% 27.0 San Francisco 25% 20% 18% 23% 39% 37% 46% 21.0 San Mateo 27% 20% 19% 22% 51% 42% 53% 26.0 Santa Clara 37% 29% 27% 31% 62% 55% 62% 25.0 Santa Cruz 23% 21% 20% 28% 53% 45% 58% 35.0 Region: U.S.: Single Family 67% 63% 64% 69% 76% 79% NA NA CA: Single Family 33% 26% 25% 44% 69% 66% NA NA Northern CA 38% 32% 37% 48% 63% 67% NA NA S.F. Bay Area 32% 25% 24% 30% 62% 53% NA NA Monterey Region 21% 19% 19% 29% 71% 67% NA NA Source: California Association of Realtors (2011). 2005-2011 First-Time Buyer Housing Affordability Index. Note: Data are from the 1st quarter of each year. 1 A first-time buyer is assumed to purchase a home at a price equal to 85 percent of the prevailing median price for existing homes. Estimate of Average (50th Percentile) Rents1, Santa Cruz County NUMBER OF 03-11 BEDROOMS FY 2003 FY 2005 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 % CHANGE 0 $868 $945 $953 $1,045 $1,113 $1,160 $1,212 39.6% 1 $1,033 $1,111 $1,120 $1,229 $1,309 $1,363 $1,424 37.9% 2 $1,380 $1,455 $1,466 $1,608 $1,713 $1,784 $1,864 35.1% 3 $1,919 $2,118 $2,134 $2,341 $2,494 $2,598 $2,714 41.4% 4 $2,247 $2,267 $2,284 $2,505 $2,669 $2,779 $2,904 29.2% Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2011). 2003-2011 HUD USER Data Sets.

38 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Economy HOUSING OCCUPANCY AND TENURE More than 14% of CAP survey respondents had moved at least once in the past 12 months. The percentage was higher among Latino respondents compared to Caucasian respondents (33% and 9% respectively), a statistically significant difference. Three percent (3%) of CAP survey respondents were in danger of losing their housing in the next 90 days; for Latinos it was almost 5%.

 How many times have you moved in the past 12 months? By Ethnicity - 2011

100% 91.5%* Overall 85.9% Caucasian 80% 67.0%* Latino 60%

40% 29.5%*

20% 12.8% 7.8%* 1.3% 0.8% 3.5% 0% 0 times 1-2 times 3 or more times

Overall N: 2011= 720; Caucasian N: 2011=503; Latino N: 2011=162. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding. *Significance testing: Significantly more Latino than Caucasians had to move in the past 12 months 1-2 times and significantly more Caucasians had to move zero times.

 Are you in danger of losing your housing in the next 90 days? (Respondents answering “Yes”) – 2011 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 3.0% 2.3% 4.8% 0% Overall Caucasian Latino

Overall N: 2011= 714; Caucasian N: 2011=501; Latino N: 2011=159. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Housing Tenure, Santa Cruz County HOUSING UNITS 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Occupied Housing Units 93,076 93,690 93,759 92,227 91,264 Owner-Occupied Housing Units 59.8% 59.5% 59.7% 60.7% 59.4% Rent-Occupied Housing Units 40.2% 40.5% 40.3% 39.3% 40.6% Average Household Size of Owner-Occupied Unit 2.63 2.67 2.64 2.69 2.62 Average Household Size of Renter-Occupied Unit 2.51 2.50 2.67 2.69 2.68 Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2005-2010 American Community Survey 1 year estimates. Selected Housing Characteristics, Table DP-04.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 39 Economy Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Housing Occupancy, Santa Cruz County HOUSING UNITS 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Housing Units 101,686 102,874 103,480 103,731 104,444 Occupied Housing Units 91.5% 91.1% 90.6% 88.9% 87.4% Vacant Housing Units 8.5% 8.9% 9.4% 11.1% 12.6% Homeowner Vacancy Rate (Percent) 0.2% 0.6% 2.0% 1.2% 2.6% Rental Vacancy Rate (Percent) 2.5% 3.8% 3.6% 5.6% 6.7% Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2005-2010 American Community Survey 1 year estimates. Selected Housing Characteristics, Table DP-04. FORECLOSURES There were 1,264 notices of default (the first step in the foreclosure process) in 2010, down from 1,643 in 2009. There was a 353% increase in notices of default between 2005 and 2010 in the county. Notices of Default (First Step in Foreclosure Process), Santa Cruz County

1,800 1,537 1,643

1,200 905 1,264

418 600 279

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: DataQuick News (2011). 2005-2010 Foreclosure Press Releases. Notices of Default 05-10 COUNTY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Monterey 335 750 2,740 5,222 4,606 2,831 745.1% San Francisco 370 578 1,059 1,493 2,230 1,885 409.5% Santa Clara 1,882 2,601 6,150 11,740 15,040 9,538 406.9% Santa Cruz 279 418 905 1,537 1,643 1,264 353.0% California 54,711 103,743 254,824 404,620 377,355 304,165 455.9% Source: DataQuick News (2011). 2005-2010 Foreclosure Press Releases. ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES

Assistance for needy families is provided by TANF, CalWORKs, and Welfare‐to‐Work.9 The number of TANF and CalWORKs recipients in Santa Cruz County decreased from 4,951 in 2009 to 4,877 in 2010. The total number of Welfare‐to‐Work participants with active status also decreased from 731 in 2009 to 726 in 2010.

9 Please see Appendix II for definitions of “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),” “California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs)” and “Welfare‐to‐Work.” 40 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Economy Number of TANF/CalWORKs Recipients, Santa Cruz County 00-10 AGE OF RECIPIENTS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Children 3,486 2,769 3,186 3,425 3,525 3,522 3,861 3,746 7.5% Adults 1,535 930 1,065 1,157 1,064 990 1,090 1,131 -26.3% Total Persons 5,021 3,699 4,251 4,582 4,589 4,512 4,951 4,877 -2.9% Persons 16 Years and Older1 1,535 1,280 1,470 1,590 1,590 1,560 1,710 1,690 10.1% Source: State of California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division (2011). 2000-2010 Social and Economic Data. Note: The Labor Market Information Division of the Employment Development Department makes estimates to derive demographic breakdowns. Note: Data presented is from July of each year. 1 Total for Persons 16 Years and Older may differ from totals in other charts due to independent rounding. TANF/CalWORKs Recipients Ages 16 and Older, By Gender GENDER 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 NET CHANGE Female 86.0% 80.6% 81.0% 81.1% 81.1% 80.8% 80.7% 81.1% -4.9 Male 14.0% 19.4% 19.0% 18.9% 18.9% 19.2% 19.3% 18.9% 4.9 Santa Cruz County Total1 1,535 1,290 1,470 1,590 1,590 1,560 1,710 1,690 - Source: State of California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division (2011). 2000-2010 Social and Economic Data. Note: The Labor Market Information division of the Employment Development Department makes estimates to derive demographic breakdowns. Note: Data presented is from July of each year. 1 Total may differ from totals in other charts due to independent rounding. TANF/CalWORKs Recipients Ages 16 and Older, By Ethnicity ETHNICITY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 NET CHANGE Asian/Pacific Islander 1.8% 0.8% 0.7% 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 1.2% 1.2% -0.6 Black 3.2% 4.7% 3.4% 2.5% 2.5% 1.9% 2.9% 3.0% -0.2 Hispanic 49.0% 49.6% 52.4% 56.0% 58.5% 58.3% 60.2% 53.3% 4.3 White 45.0% 43.4% 42.9% 39.0% 37.1% 38.5% 35.1% 40.8% -4.2 Other 1.0% 1.6% 0.7% 1.3% 1.3% 0.6% 1.2% 1.8% 0.8 Santa Cruz County Total1 1,535 1,290 1,470 1,590 1,590 1,560 1,710 1,690 - Source: State of California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division (2011). 2000-2010 Social and Economic Data. Note: The Labor Market Information division of the Employment Development Department makes estimates to derive demographic breakdowns. Note: Data presented is from July of each year. 1 Total may differ from totals in other charts due to independent rounding. TANF/CalWORKs Recipients Ages 16 and Older, By Age Group AGE GROUP 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 NET CHANGE 16-20 Years 23.1% 21.1% 21.1% 21.4% 21.4% 21.2% 21.1% 21.3% -1.8 21-44 Years 64.0% 71.1% 71.4% 71.1% 71.1% 71.2% 71.3% 71.0% 7.0 45-54 Years 10.9% 6.3% 6.1% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% 5.8% 5.9% -5.0 55 Years and Older 2.0% 1.6% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.8% 1.8% -0.2 Santa Cruz County Total1 1,535 1,280 1,470 1,590 1,590 1,560 1,710 1,690 - Source: State of California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division (2011). 2000-2010 Social and Economic Data. Note: The Labor Market Information Division of the Employment Development Department makes estimates to derive demographic breakdowns. Note: Data presented is from July of each year. 1 Total may differ from totals in other charts due to independent rounding.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 41 Economy Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Welfare-to-Work Enrollment and Participation, Santa Cruz County ACTIVITY 2008 2009 2010 2011 08-11 % CHANGE Unsubsidized Employment 487 512 460 458 -6.0% Vocational Training Program 144 123 126 115 -20.1% Job Search and Readiness Assistance 142 86 49 94 -33.8% Appraisal-assessment by HRA 48 78 55 60 25.0% Work Experience 47 74 51 46 -2.1% Self-employment 44 50 52 51 15.9% Mental Health/Substance Abuse/Domestic Violence Services 56 44 35 32 -42.9% Adult Basic Education/GED/ESL 27 28 17 17 ^ College Work Study 32 22 15 8 ^ Community Service 9 12 27 31 ^ Job Skills Training 4 3 1 2 ^ On-the-Job Training (OJT) 0 1 0 2 ^ New Enrollees to Welfare-to-Work Program 80 0 NA NA NA Other Employment Barrier Removal Services 7 8 5 4 ^ Total Activities 1,127 1,041 893 920 -18.4% Total Participants with Active Status (Unduplicated)1 818 791 731 726 -11.2% Post-aid Employment Retention Services 245 183 165 176 -28.2% Source: County of Santa Cruz Human Services Department (2011). 2008-2011 Welfare-to-Work Enrollment and Participation. Note: Data presented is from May of each year. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. 1 Participants are often enrolled in multiple concurrent activities; therefore numbers may be duplicated across Welfare-to-Work activities. Welfare-to-Work Employment Placement Profile, Santa Cruz County 08-11 TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT 2008 2009 2010 2011 % CHANGE Unsubsidized Employment 487 512 460 458 -6.0% Average Participant Wage $11.43 $11.65 $11.12 $11.50 0.6% Post Aid Retention 245 183 165 176 -28.2% Source: County of Santa Cruz Human Services Department (2011). 2008-2011 Welfare-to-Work Enrollment and Participation. Note: Data presented is from May of each year.

Education Snapshot of Santa Cruz County ...... 44 Satisfaction with Local Educational System  .. 56 Education Community Goals ...... 44 Youth Assets ...... 58 Student Enrollment ...... 45 Safe School Environment ...... 59 Test Scores – STAR (California Standards Child Care ...... 60 Test) ...... 46 College Preparation Courses  ...... 61 Test Scores – Academic Performance Index Cabrillo College Attendance ...... 62 (API) ...... 48 UC Santa Cruz Attendance ...... 63 Test Scores – California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) ...... 52 Educational Attainment ...... 64 Test Scores – SAT  ...... 53 Library Use ...... 66 English Learner Students ...... 55 High School Dropout Rates  ...... 56

OVERALL RECENT INDICATOR MEASUREMENT DATA TREND TREND

TEST SCORES – STAR Percent of 3rd grade students scoring proficient or above 40% (CALIFORNINA STANDARDS TEST) in the English-Language Arts subject area

TEST SCORES – ACADEMIC Percent of schools with an API score of 800 or above 41.2% PERFORMANCE INDEX (API)

HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES Adjusted four-year derived dropout rate 17.8%

SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL Percent of CAP survey respondents who felt “very” or “somewhat satisfied” with our local system of 85.6% EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM education Percent of children with parents in the labor force CHILD CARE 30.6% with licensed child care spaces available

GOAL: By the year 2015, all students will graduate with the skills and knowledge required to compete in a 21st century global economy.

GOAL: By the year 2015, more kindergarteners will be better prepared for school through participation in a high quality preschool. » Community Hero: Irene Freiberg, First 5 SEEDS of Early Literacy Master Coach

44 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education STUDENT ENROLLMENT The overall number of students enrolled in public K‐12 schools in Santa Cruz County decreased slightly from 40,462 in 2000/01 to 38,062 in 2006/07, but student enrollment stayed relatively constant from 2006/07 to 2010/11. The percentage of Latino/Hispanic students increased from 46% in 2000/01 to 54% in 2010/11 (an 8% increase). Student Enrollment, Santa Cruz County 50,000 40,462 39,427 38,358 38,062 38,099 38,279 38,502 38,971 40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2011 Educational Demographics Office. Note: Enrollment data indicate the number of students enrolled each year in public K-12 schools. Enrollment totals are active fall enrollments. Student Enrollment by School District SCHOOL 00-11 DISTRICT 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 % CHANGE County Office of 639 748 1,012 1,066 1,121 1,219 1,397 1,389 117.4% Education Bonny Doon Union 168 166 156 129 131 125 117 114 -32.1% Elementary Happy Valley 130 135 143 138 141 129 128 135 3.8% Elementary Live Oak 2,116 1,948 2,180 2,256 2,194 2,162 2,089 2,108 -0.4% Elementary Mountain 148 149 170 166 165 159 133 120 -18.9% Elementary Pacific Elementary 88 87 96 100 106 106 104 110 25.0% Pajaro Valley 19,864 19,661 18,899 19,162 19,387 19,477 19,381 19,542 -1.6% Unified San Lorenzo Valley 4,179 3,869 3,462 3,516 3,546 3,610 3,771 4,025 -3.7% Unified Santa Cruz City 2,860 2,636 2,177 2,125 2,136 2,165 2,193 2,257 -21.1% Elementary Santa Cruz City 5,555 5,157 5,268 4,936 4,847 4,759 4,779 4,718 -15.1% High Scotts Valley 2,384 2,713 2,846 2,718 2,645 2,595 2,566 2,574 8.0% Unified Soquel Union 2,287 2,112 1,912 1,750 1,680 1,773 1,844 1,879 -17.8% Elementary Santa Cruz County 40,462 39,427 38,358 38,062 38,099 38,279 38,502 38,971 -3.7% Total California Total 6,050,895 6,244,403 6,322,202 6,286,952 6,258,007 6,252,031 6,189,908 6,217,113 2.7% Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2011 Educational Demographics Office. Note: Enrollment data indicate the number of students enrolled each year in public K-12 schools. Enrollment totals are active fall enrollments.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 45 Education Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Student Enrollment by Ethnicity, Santa Cruz County 00-11 ETHNICITY 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 NET CHANGE African American 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% -0.3 Alaska Native/American 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% -0.1 Indian Asian 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0 Filipino 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0 Hispanic/Latino 46.0% 47.5% 49.6% 50.3% 51.3% 52.0% 53.0% 53.6% 7.6 Pacific Islander 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% -0.1 White (Not Hispanic) 48.1% 46.2% 43.2% 42.1% 40.7% 40.0% 40.8% 39.4% -8.7 Multiple or No 0.8% 1.4% 1.9% 2.7% 3.1% 3.3% 1.6% 2.4% 1.6 Response Total Student 40,462 39,427 38,358 38,062 38,099 38,279 38,502 38,971 - Enrollment Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2011 Educational Demographics Office. Note: Enrollment data indicate the number of students enrolled each year in public K-12 schools. Enrollment totals are active fall enrollments. TEST SCORES – STAR (CALIFORNIA STANDARDS TEST)

Only 4 out of 10 (40%) Santa Cruz County 3rd grade students scored proficient or above in the English‐Language Arts subject area on the California Standards Test,10 an increase from 31% in 2005 but still lower than the state average. Santa Cruz County students are improving their English‐Language Arts scores over the last six years (especially in 5th, 7th, and 9th grades). However, only 2 out of 10 (20%) of 9th graders were proficient or above in math in 2011. Only 7% of Santa Cruz County 11th graders were proficient or above in Algebra I and Algebra II in 2011, lower than the state. Percent of 3rd Grade Students Scoring Proficient or Above in the English-Language Arts Subject Area 60% Santa Cruz County 44% 44% 46% 37% 37% 38% California 40% 31% 40% 40% 37% 34% 34% 31% 33% 20%

0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2011 STAR District/School Summary Report.

10 Please see Appendix II for definition of “California Standards Tests (STAR).” 46 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education 3rd Grade: Percent Proficient or Above 05-11 SUBJECT 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NET CHANGE English-Language Arts Santa Cruz County 31% 33% 34% 34% 40% 37% 40% 9.0 California 31% 37% 37% 38% 44% 44% 46% 15.0 Mathematics Santa Cruz County 50% 50% 52% 52% 58% 63% 62% 12.0 California 54% 58% 58% 61% 64% 65% 68% 14.0 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2011 STAR District/School Summary Report. 5th Grade: Percent Proficient or Above 05-11 SUBJECT 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NET CHANGE English-Language Arts Santa Cruz County 44% 45% 46% 47% 53% 57% 56% 12.0 California 43% 43% 44% 48% 54% 58% 59% 16.0 Mathematics Santa Cruz County 41% 45% 45% 46% 54% 58% 57% 16.0 California 44% 48% 49% 51% 57% 60% 63% 19.0 Science Santa Cruz County 32% 37% 41% 46% 49% 54% 54% 22.0 California 28% 32% 37% 46% 49% 55% 58% 30.0 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2011 STAR District/School Summary Report. 7th Grade: Percent Proficient or Above 05-11 SUBJECT 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NET CHANGE English-Language Arts Santa Cruz County 43% 47% 50% 53% 56% 57% 59% 16.0 California 43% 43% 46% 49% 54% 55% 57% 14.0 Mathematics Santa Cruz County 33% 37% 39% 41% 40% 45% 45% 12.0 California 37% 41% 39% 41% 43% 49% 50% 13.0 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2011 STAR District/School Summary Report. 9th Grade: Percent Proficient or Above 05-11 NET SUBJECT 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 CHANGE English-Language Arts Santa Cruz County 46% 47% 48% 50% 52% 56% 57% 11.0 California 43% 44% 47% 49% 50% 54% 55% 12.0 General Mathematics Santa Cruz County 18% 17% 13% 18% 21% 20% 20% 2.0 California 14% 13% 13% 18% 17% 17% 18% 4.0 Algebra I Santa Cruz County 13% 15% 15% 18% 17% 26% 20% 7.0 California 16% 19% 17% 18% 21% 22% 23% 7.0 Geometry Santa Cruz County 54% 54% 46% 46% 43% 46% 43% -11.0 California 47% 45% 44% 43% 47% 45% 49% 2.0 Biology Santa Cruz County 54% 57% 48% 61% 62% 64% 72% 18.0 California 42% 44% 47% 52% 51% 55% 57% 15.0 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2011 STAR District/School Summary Report.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 47 Education Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 11th Grade: Percent Proficient or Above 05-11 NET SUBJECT 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 CHANGE English-Language Arts Santa Cruz County 40% 39% 36% 36% 37% 40% 43% 3.0 California 36% 36% 37% 37% 40% 43% 45% 9.0 Algebra I Santa Cruz County 5% 5% 3% 5% 8% 4% 7% 2.0 California 4% 6% 5% 5% 8% 9% 9% 5.0 Geometry Santa Cruz County 8% 7% 7% 10% 9% 6% 7% -1.0 California 7% 7% 6% 6% 7% 7% 9% 2.0 Algebra II Santa Cruz County 12% 7% 5% 6% 5% 7% 8% -4.0 California 12% 10% 12% 11% 12% 14% 16% 4.0 Summative High School Mathematics Santa Cruz County 50% 40% 38% 39% 38% 47% 38% -12.0 California 43% 43% 44% 43% 47% 50% 50% 7.0 U.S. History Santa Cruz County 34% 32% 30% 32% 37% 39% 45% 11.0 California 37% 35% 35% 38% 44% 45% 48% 11.0 Biology Santa Cruz County 46% 49% 58% 60% 48% 38% 60% 14.0 California 30% 32% 36% 39% 41% 46% 49% 19.0 Chemistry Santa Cruz County 27% 16% 22% 21% 20% 29% 23% -4.0 California 22% 22% 26% 25% 27% 29% 29% 7.0 Physics Santa Cruz County 41% 40% 27% 43% 34% 48% 48% 7.0 California 40% 41% 42% 47% 50% 53% 56% 16.0 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2011 STAR District/School Summary Report. TEST SCORES – ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX (API) According to the California Department of Education, 41% of schools in Santa Cruz County in 2010 had an API score of 800 or above, an increase from 20% in 2000. A school’s API is a number that ranges from 200 to 1,000 and the state has set 800 as the API target for all schools to meet. Although 59% of schools have not yet reached a score of 800, the majority of schools showed improvement in their API scores between 2000 and 2010. However, 16 schools in Pajaro Valley Unified School District still ranked at the lowest state levels, levels 1 and 2 out of 10. Santa Cruz County Office of Education LOCAL EDUCATIONAL 00-10 2010 AGENCY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK1 Santa Cruz County Office of NA2 460 474 582 564 556 601 546 NA NA3 Education Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2002-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division. 1 All schools that receive APIs are ranked in deciles by grade level of instruction: elementary, middle and high. A rank of 10 is the highest and 1 is the lowest. Each decile in each school type contains 10% of all schools of that type. Small schools do not receive statewide ranks and are not used in the calculation of the statewide ranks. This note holds true for all subsequent tables under this indicator. 2 The school’s proportion of students excused at parent request compared to its Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program enrollment on the first day of testing is equal to or greater than 15%. Therefore, a 2000 API will not be reported for this school. 3 Rank information is not applicable to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs).

48 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District1 ELEMENTARY 00-10 2010 SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Bonny Doon Elementary 875 824 837 822 845 824 903 870 -0.6% 8 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division. 1This API is calculated for a small school district, defined as having between 11 and 99 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test scores included in the API (valid scores). API scores based on small numbers of students are less reliable and therefore should be carefully interpreted. Happy Valley Elementary School District1 ELEMENTARY 00-10 2010 SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Happy Valley Elementary 903 865 871 907 888 897 915 940 4.1% 10 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division. 1 This API is calculated for a small school district, defined as having between 11 and 99 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test scores included in the API (valid scores). API scores based on small numbers of students are less reliable and therefore should be carefully interpreted. Live Oak Elementary School District ELEMENTARY 00-10 2010 SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Del Mar Elementary 633 727 705 740 718 696 752 770 21.6% 4 Green Acres Elementary 704 719 725 770 762 717 742 756 7.4% 3 Live Oak Elementary 693 699 712 740 702 727 732 724 4.5% 2 00-10 2010 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Shoreline Middle 698 703 698 725 725 725 702 739 5.9% 4 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division. Mountain Elementary School District

ELEMENTARY 00-10 2010 SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Mountain Elementary NA1 8022 804 836 860 875 895 9092 NA 91 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division. 1 The school’s proportion of students excused at parent request compared to its Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program enrollment on the first day of testing is equal to or greater than 15%. Therefore, a 2000 API will not be reported for this school. 2 This API is calculated for a small school district, defined as having between 11 and 99 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test scores included in the API (valid scores). API scores based on small numbers of students are less reliable and therefore should be carefully interpreted. Pacific Elementary School District1

ELEMENTARY 00-10 2010 SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Pacific Elementary 837 772 770 882 841 823 817 850 1.6% 8 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division. 1 This API is calculated for a small school district, defined as having between 11 and 99 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test scores included in the API (valid scores). API scores based on small numbers of students are less reliable and therefore should be carefully interpreted.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 49 Education Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Pajaro Valley Unified School District 00-10 2010 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Amesti Elementary 507 534 642 662 674 699 700 698 37.7% 1 Ann Soldo Elementary 349 485 543 671 700 677 658 680 94.8% 1 Bradley Elementary 828 771 807 809 795 812 817 830 0.2% 7 Calabasas Elementary 476 540 607 626 633 672 674 712 49.6% 1 Freedom Elementary 505 563 641 663 681 686 719 728 44.2% 2 H.A. Hyde Elementary 477 544 601 643 623 669 703 697 46.1% 1 Hall District Elementary 440 529 616 660 668 646 652 711 61.6% 1 Landmark Elementary1 NA NA NA 633 625 627 643 677 NA 1 Mar Vista Elementary 744 747 750 786 790 805 854 845 13.6% 7 Mintie White Elementary 460 516 626 632 661 677 701 703 52.8% 1 Ohlone Elementary 430 519 580 551 592 599 672 676 57.2% 1 Radcliff Elementary1 NA NA NA 531 613 639 700 675 NA 1 Rio Del Mar Elementary 847 846 884 885 891 897 905 904 6.7% 9 Starlight Elementary 506 530 611 615 619 682 712 725 43.3% 2 T.S. Macquiddy Elementary 499 556 630 657 686 648 658 665 33.3% 1 Valencia Elementary 778 777 800 849 835 855 868 852 9.5% 8 00-10 2010 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Aptos Junior High 788 781 763 808 812 821 815 816 3.6% 7 Cesar E. Chavez Middle1 NA NA NA 608 641 705 688 699 NA 3 E.A. Hall Middle 460 505 536 596 626 644 611 675 46.7% 2 Lakeview Middle 510 552 600 615 672 701 700 733 43.7% 4 Pajaro Middle 467 559 577 601 642 646 675 671 43.7% 2 Rolling Hills Middle 449 521 581 593 627 671 656 670 49.2% 2 00-10 2010 HIGH SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Aptos High 653 684 698 737 760 756 780 782 19.8% 7 Pajaro Valley High1 NA NA NA 579 556 579 572 657 NA 2 Watsonville High 484 NA2 591 599 605 604 625 673 39.0% 3 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division. 1 Landmark Elementary School, Radcliff Elementary School, and Pajaro Valley High School opened in 2004 and data became available in 2005. Data for Cesar Chavez became available in 2006. 2 2002 Growth and 2002 Base APIs cannot be reported because for at least one STAR content area used in API calculations this school failed to test a significant portion of students who were not exempt from testing in 2002. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District 00-10 2010 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Boulder Creek Elementary 773 795 834 840 853 851 893 886 14.6% 9 San Lorenzo Valley Elementary 795 826 820 832 833 859 860 890 11.9% 9 00-10 2010 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK San Lorenzo Valley Middle 745 721 770 771 797 775 807 810 8.7% 7 00-10 2010 HIGH SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK San Lorenzo Valley High 743 697 734 761 757 785 805 822 10.6% 9 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division.

50 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education Santa Cruz City Elementary School District ELEMENTARY 00-10 2010 SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Bay View Elementary 708 725 761 784 806 827 822 810 14.4% 6 De Laveaga Elementary 793 764 833 799 794 789 791 781 -1.5% 4 Gault Elementary 746 722 707 734 764 731 746 770 3.2% 4 Westlake Elementary 771 784 841 868 897 887 906 929 20.5% 10 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division. Santa Cruz City High School District 00-10 2010 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Branciforte Middle 746 745 726 753 776 767 743 754 1.1% 5 Mission Hill Middle 740 725 772 784 825 827 811 837 13.1% 8 00-10 2010 HIGH SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Harbor High 745 709 715 755 744 779 785 790 6.0% 8 Santa Cruz High 750 733 707 750 742 743 759 791 5.5% 8 Soquel High 714 673 674 743 715 727 725 740 3.6% 5 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division. Scotts Valley Unified School District 00-10 2010 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Brook Knoll Elementary 886 844 878 908 902 900 893 924 4.3% 10 Vine Hill Elementary 841 828 840 891 881 896 888 903 7.4% 9 00-10 2010 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Scotts Valley Middle 864 839 823 853 858 864 852 895 3.6% 10 00-10 2010 HIGH SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Scotts Valley High 8031 770 748 764 745 773 803 831 3.5% 9 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division. 1 This API is calculated for a small school district, defined as having between 11 and 99 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test scores included in the API (valid scores). API scores based on small numbers of students are less reliable and therefore should be carefully interpreted. Soquel Union Elementary School District 00-10 2010 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK Main Street Elementary 825 828 837 836 842 833 837 830 0.6% 7 Santa Cruz Gardens Elementary 662 764 783 835 821 872 852 868 31.1% 8 Soquel Elementary 748 756 788 816 805 794 806 798 6.7% 5 00-10 2010 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE STATE RANK New Brighton Middle 753 769 803 799 792 818 788 836 11.0% 8 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Policy and Evaluation Division.

The percentage of Santa Cruz County 10th grade students who passed the California High School Exit Exam11 increased considerably in both the Math subject area (61% in 2005/06 to 83% in 2010/11) and English Language Arts subject area (62% in 2005/06 to 82% in 2010/11).

th Math: 10 Grade 05-11 HIGH SCHOOL 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 NET CHANGE Aptos High Number Tested 505 338 342 305 337 326 - Percent Passing 68% 86% 91% 88% 88% 89% 21.0 Harbor High Number Tested 393 264 277 264 268 257 - Percent Passing 76% 80% 86% 83% 88% 88% 12.0 Pajaro Valley High Number Tested 492 465 419 322 396 324 - Percent Passing 60% 56% 62% 59% 70% 78% 18.0 San Lorenzo Valley High Number Tested 308 241 211 190 170 345 - Percent Passing 80% 88% 90% 89% 92% 70% -10.0 Santa Cruz High Number Tested 356 253 244 264 267 289 - Percent Passing 84% 91% 91% 91% 92% 96% 12.0 Scotts Valley High Number Tested 281 228 224 201 193 212 - Percent Passing 91% 93% 94% 96% 95% 93% 2.0 Soquel High Number Tested 408 261 300 280 231 244 - Percent Passing 82% 90% 82% 89% 88% 82% 0.0 Watsonville High Number Tested 1,043 500 515 534 467 526 - Percent Passing 42% 59% 63% 73% 71% 75% 33.0 Santa Cruz County Number Tested 4,996 2,975 2,974 2,805 2,733 2,851 - Percent Passing 61% 75% 77% 79% 81% 83% 22.0 California Number Tested 795,182 477,286 474,830 474,221 475,464 473,439 - Percent Passing 59% 76% 78% 80% 81% 83% 24.0 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2011 High School Exit Exam Office.

11 Please see Appendix II for definition of “California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).” 52 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education English Language Arts: 10th Grade HIGH SCHOOL 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 05-11 NET CHANGE Aptos High Number Tested 457 339 347 305 336 327 - Percent Passing 74% 88% 92% 90% 90% 89% 15.0 Harbor High Number Tested 359 265 277 264 268 255 - Percent Passing 80% 79% 87% 87% 88% 87% 7.0 Pajaro Valley High Number Tested 496 452 416 316 397 328 - Percent Passing 65% 61% 67% 63% 69% 73% 8.0 San Lorenzo Valley High Number Tested 294 273 211 192 173 351 - Percent Passing 83% 87% 91% 92% 92% 72% -11.0 Santa Cruz High Number Tested 386 257 245 266 265 290 - Percent Passing 77% 89% 91% 87% 93% 92% 15.0 Scotts Valley High Number Tested 272 229 223 201 191 212 - Percent Passing 95% 93% 96% 96% 96% 95% 0.0 Soquel High Number Tested 406 261 299 276 225 243 - Percent Passing 79% 89% 85% 88% 92% 89% 10.0 Watsonville High Number Tested 1,112 500 518 540 467 539 - Percent Passing 41% 58% 62% 68% 67% 69% 28.0 Santa Cruz County Number Tested 4,935 2,963 2,992 2,813 2737 2,869 - Percent Passing 62% 76% 78% 79% 82% 82% 20.0 California Number Tested 777,599 479,147 476,711 476,768 478,113 475,842 - Percent Passing 61% 77% 79% 79% 81% 82% 21.0 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2011 High School Exit Exam Office.

TEST SCORES – SAT

The total average SAT12 score of Santa Cruz County high school students decreased from 1,591 in 2005/06 to 1,522 in 2009/10, but was consistently higher than that of California overall. The percent of Santa Cruz County 12th grade students who took the SAT decreased from 44% in 2005/06 to 32% in 2009/10, a continuous drop since 2005/06. The number of California 12th grade students taking the SATs also dropped since 2005. Total Average SAT Score 2,400 Santa Cruz County 1,591 1,567 1,539 1,565 1,522 1,600 California 800 1,506 1,497 1,500 1,502 1,512 0 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2010 SAT Report. Note: Scores are out of 2,400 possible points.

12 Please see Appendix II for definition of “SAT.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 53 Education Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Percent of 12th Grade Students Who Took the SAT HIGH SCHOOL 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 05-10 NET CHANGE Aptos High 53.2% 47.2% 59.7% 53.0% 47.8% -5.4 Harbor High 48.1% 42.2% 34.8% 32.9% 32.6% -15.5 Pajaro Valley High NA NA 32.7% 38.3% 44.4% N/A San Lorenzo Valley High 43.7% 47.3% 39.0% 37.8% 39.7% -4.0 Santa Cruz High 63.8% 61.1% 57.5% 53.2% 45.0% -18.8 Scotts Valley High 67.0% 58.1% 67.9% 68.9% 59.0% -8.0 Soquel High 40.7% 45.6% 41.0% 44.1% 38.3% -2.4 Watsonville High 26.6% 34.7% 36.5% 27.5% 28.1% 1.5 Santa Cruz County 44.0% 35.6% 35.3% 32.4% 31.8% -12.2 California 40.5% 36.9% 35.9% 34.7% 33.4% -7.1 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2010 SAT Report. Average Section Score and Total Average Score by High School VERBAL HIGH SCHOOL 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 Aptos High 523 519 528 535 529 Harbor High 556 554 563 551 558 Pajaro Valley High NA NA 388 416 411 San Lorenzo Valley High 555 528 530 560 552 Santa Cruz High 569 548 549 556 550 Scotts Valley High 543 537 539 551 547 Soquel High 524 538 539 555 549 Watsonville High 432 424 416 430 411 Santa Cruz County 531 521 513 521 508 California 495 493 494 495 498 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2010 SAT Report. Note: Scores are out of 800 possible points.

MATH HIGH SCHOOL 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 Aptos High 526 522 538 555 527 Harbor High 570 566 575 577 567 Pajaro Valley High NA NA 385 408 407 San Lorenzo Valley High 554 532 550 552 554 Santa Cruz High 574 556 558 572 562 Scotts Valley High 539 553 544 566 547 Soquel High 549 549 540 561 563 Watsonville High 450 455 433 442 425 Santa Cruz County 536 530 519 529 511 California 516 513 513 513 517 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2010 SAT Report. Note: Scores are out of 800 possible points.

WRITING HIGH SCHOOL 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 Aptos High 520 514 531 532 515 Harbor High 542 543 552 529 531 Pajaro Valley High NA NA 387 413 415 San Lorenzo Valley High 534 519 523 540 551 Santa Cruz High 562 541 545 555 543 Scotts Valley High 541 528 531 547 542 Soquel High 526 533 529 538 554 Watsonville High 434 433 417 441 419 Santa Cruz County 524 516 507 515 503 California 495 491 493 494 497 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2010 SAT Report. Note: Scores are out of 800 possible points. 54 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education AVERAGE TOTAL HIGH SCHOOL 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 Aptos High 1,569 1,555 1,597 1,622 1,571 Harbor High 1,668 1,663 1,690 1,657 1,656 Pajaro Valley High NA NA 1,160 1,237 1,233 San Lorenzo Valley High 1,643 1,579 1,603 1,652 1,657 Santa Cruz High 1,705 1,645 1,652 1,683 1,655 Scotts Valley High 1,623 1,618 1,614 1,664 1,636 Soquel High 1,599 1,620 1,608 1,654 1,666 Watsonville High 1,316 1,312 1,266 1,313 1,255 Santa Cruz County 1,591 1,567 1,539 1,565 1,522 California 1,506 1,497 1,500 1,502 1,512 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2005-2010 SAT Report. Note: Scores are out of 2,400 possible points. ENGLISH LEARNER STUDENTS

Allocating additional resources for teaching English Learner13 students is increasingly important as schools adapt to changing demographics. While the percentage of English Learner students in Santa Cruz County increased slightly over the past decade, it decreased slightly in California overall. In the 2009/10 school year, 29% of all Santa Cruz County students were English Learner students, slightly higher than in California overall at 24%. Percent of English Learner Students 40% 26.9% 28.2% 28.1% 27.9% 26.8% 27.9% 28.6% 29.2% Santa Cruz County California 20% 25.0% 25.6% 25.2% 24.9% 25.0% 24.7% 24.2% 23.9% 0% 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Educational Demographics Office. Percent of English Learner Students by School District SCHOOL DISTRICT 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 00-10 NET CHANGE County Office of Education 11.1% 15.2% 6.1% 9.5% 14.8% 12.9% 13.4% 10.8% -0.3 Bonny Doon Union Elementary 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 2.6% 2.6 Happy Valley Elementary 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 2.8% 1.4% 0.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0 Live Oak Elementary 22.4% 27.7% 28.2% 28.2% 28.0% 28.8% 31.2% 30.9% 8.5 Mountain Elementary 2.0% 2.0% 3.8% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 2.5% 2.3% 0.3 Pacific Elementary 18.2% 13.8% 8.7% 8.7% 9.0% 8.5% 9.4% 10.6% -7.6 Pajaro Valley Unified 45.2% 46.4% 45.6% 45.2% 42.0% 43.8% 44.9% 46.7% 1.5 San Lorenzo Valley Unified 0.7% 0.9% 0.6% 1.1% 0.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.8% 0.1 Santa Cruz City Elementary 23.8% 24.7% 27.2% 27.0% 27.2% 27.5% 28.6% 27.9% 4.1 Santa Cruz City High 6.3% 7.2% 8.1% 7.8% 8.4% 9.4% 8.1% 8.8% 2.5 Scotts Valley Unified 2.4% 1.6% 1.8% 1.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 0.1 Soquel Union Elementary 10.8% 10.0% 11.8% 11.8% 12.6% 12.4% 13.4% 13.1% 2.3 Santa Cruz County 26.9% 28.2% 28.1% 27.9% 26.8% 27.9% 28.6% 29.2% 2.3 California 25.0% 25.6% 25.2% 24.9% 25.0% 24.7% 24.2% 23.8% -1.2 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Educational Demographics Office. Note: For additional English Learner student enrollment breakdowns (e.g., by language), visit the California Department of Education’s DataQuest website at: http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.

In Santa Cruz County, the adjusted four‐year derived dropout rate14 decreased from 21% in 2006/07 to 18% in 2009/10. Latino students had higher drop‐out rates at 24% than Caucasian students (11%) in 2009/10. Adjusted Four-Year Derived Dropout Rates by School District REGION/SCHOOL DISTRICT 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Pajaro Valley Unified 22.1% 12.8% 19.0% 13.8% San Lorenzo Valley Unified 9.8% 10.3% 7.4% 7.8% Santa Cruz City High 4.8% 3.9% 4.8% 5.7% Scotts Valley Unified 5.4% 1.4% 2.0% 0.0% Santa Cruz County 20.7% 14.0% 18.4% 17.8% California 21.1% 20.2% 21.5% 17.7% Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2006-2010 Educational Demographics Office. Adjusted Four-Year Derived Dropout Rates by Ethnicity, Santa Cruz County ETHNICITY 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 06-10 NET CHANGE African American 43.1% 39.8% 28.8% 21.4% -21.7 Hispanic/Latino 26.8% 16.9% 25.2% 24.1% -2.7 White 15.4% 10.6% 11.7% 11.1% -4.3 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2006-2010 Educational Demographics Office. Note: Adjusted four-year derived dropout rates are not available prior to the 2006/07 school year. Note: Ethnicities with less than 10 dropouts were not shown. SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM Parental satisfaction with local public schools is thought to be related to support for school programs, educational funding, and student performance. The percentage of CAP survey respondents who reported being “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with the local education system increased from 59% in 2000 to 86% in 2011.  Overall, how satisfied are you with our local system of education? (Respondents answering “Very” or “Somewhat Satisfied”) 100% 85.6% Very satisfied 80% 71.4% 77.4% 73.8% 66.8% 66.2% 67.1% 58.6% 21.0% 28.2% Somewhat 60% 22.3% 24.1% 24.3% 20.5% 22.9% satisfied 20.5% 40% 49.1% 56.4% 49.7% 57.4% 20% 38.1% 42.5% 45.7% 44.2% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 N: 2000=658; 2001=686; 2002=673; 2003=681; 2005=690; 2007=590; 2009=841; 2011=629 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This question was asked of all survey respondents regardless of whether or not they had children attending local schools.

14 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Adjusted Four‐Year Derived Dropout Rates.” 56 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education  Overall, how satisfied are you with our local system of education? (Respondents answering “Very” or “Somewhat Satisfied”) – By Region, North County 100% Somewhat 85.9% satisfied 80% 72.7% 73.2% 68.6% 71.5% Very 62.9% 59.4% 60% 56.0% Satisfied 41.5% 63.4% 50.7% 41.2% 53.1% 56.3% 40% 41.0% 43.9% 20% 31.2% 15.0% 17.9% 21.7% 15.5% 18.4% 16.9% 22.5% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

North County N: 2000=346; 2001=197; 2002=227; 2003=230; 2005=239; 2007=200; 2009=335; 2011=226 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This question was asked of all survey respondents regardless of whether or not they had children attending local schools.  Overall, how satisfied are you with our local system of education? (Respondents answering “Very” or “Somewhat Satisfied”) – By Region, South County 100% Somewhat 83.0% 83.4% 77.4% satisfied 80% 74.4% 72.1% 76.1% 63.6% 63.0% Very 60% 49.4% Satisfied 49.3% 45.6% 31.8% 47.3% 44.7% 61.2% 40% 46.8%

20% 31.8% 27.1% 27.4% 28.1% 30.5% 34.0% 16.2% 21.8% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 South County N: 2000=195; 2001=283; 2002=226; 2003=233; 2005=231; 2007=200; 2009=285; 2011=216 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This question was asked of all survey respondents regardless of whether or not they had children attending local schools.  Overall, how satisfied are you with our local system of education? (Respondents answering “Very” or “Somewhat Satisfied”) – By Region, San Lorenzo Valley 100% Somewhat 83.7% 87.9% satisfied 80% Very 75.0% 69.7% 67.4% 65.8% Satisfied 60.3% 60% 58.4% 55.3% 57.6% 41.6% 36.9% 41.9% 41.8% 40% 40.7% 42.3%

20% 33.4% 25.5% 28.4% 32.8% 30.3% 17.7% 18.0% 24.0% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 San Lorenzo Valley N: 2000=113; 2001=203; 2002=219; 2003=218; 2005=219; 2007=188; 2009=222; 2011=187 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This question was asked of all survey respondents regardless of whether or not they had children attending local schools.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 57 Education Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  How satisfied are you with your child’s education? (Respondents answering “Very” or “Somewhat Satisfied”) 99.7% 100.0% 100% 98.1% 98.2% Elementary 96.5% 95.7% 96.8% 98.4% School 96.2% 96.6% 95.8% 96.3% 96.1% Middle 91.4% 93.9% 96.4% 95.3% 94.1% School 93.8% 90% 93.4% 86.5% High School 89.2%

80%

77.2% 78.8%

70% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Elementary School N: 2000=115; 2001=108; 2002=107; 2003=95; 2005=109; 2007=53; 2009=121; 2011=121; Middle School N: 2000=51; 2001=47; 2002=52; 2003=54; 2005=58; 2007=31; 2009=57; 2011=63; High School N: 2000=65; 2001=63; 2002=70; 2003=61; 2005=74; 2007=60; 2009=95; 2011=55 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. YOUTH ASSETS National research shows that children who have more assets are far more likely to be engaged in thriving behaviors, such as maintaining good health, helping others, resisting danger, and overcoming adversity and are less likely to participate in risk‐taking behaviors. 15,16 Between 28% and 31% of 7th, 9th, and 11th graders had high levels of assets in Santa Cruz County in 2009/10. Percent of Students with a “High” Level of School Environment Assets by Grade, Santa Cruz County

100% 2004/05

80% 2006/07 2008/09 60% 2009/10 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 40% 33.0% 32.0% 31.0% 30.0% 30.0% 26.0% 29.0% 28.0% 29.0% 20%

0% 7th Grade 9th Grade 11th Grade

15 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Youth Assets.” 16 Prepared by Search Institute for Project Cornerstone, Developmental Assets Survey Report, January 2005. 58 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education Percent of Students with a “High” Level of Community Environment Assets by Grade, Santa Cruz County 100% 2004/05 2006/07 80% 68% 64% 66% 64% 64% 67% 65% 66% 2008/09 62% 63% 60% 60% 60% 2009/10

40%

20%

0% 7th Grade 9th Grade 11th Grade

Source: West Ed. (2011). 2004-2010 California Healthy Kids Survey. Note: Students who scored “high” on external assets are those who answered “pretty” or “very much true” to each of the related questions. SAFE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT The vast majority of Santa Cruz County CAP survey respondents (over 92%) felt their children’s elementary, middle, and high schools provided a safe environment for learning. There was a 22% increase in Santa Cruz County parents who felt that their child’s high school provided a safe environment for learning (from 70% in 2000 to 92% in 2011).  Does your child's school provide a safe environment for learning? (Respondents answering “Yes”)

99.7% 100.0% 98.4% 98.4% Elementary 100% 97.0% 96.9% School 93.0% 91.0% 96.9% 96.8% 96.9% Middle 96.8% 92.8% 95.0% 88.5% 95.3% School 87.7% 91.6% 92.3% 88.2% High School 80% 83.9% 83.8%

78.0%

70.3%

60% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 Elementary School N: 2000=115; 2001=108; 2002=106; 2003=97; 2005=111; 2007=54; 2009=120; 2011=119; Middle School N: 2000=51; 2001=47; 2002=52; 2003=55; 2005=56; 2007=31; 2009=54; 2011=62; High School N: 2000=64; 2001=64; 2002=70; 2003=60; 2005=74; 2007=60; 2009=94; 2011=55 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 59 Education Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 CHILD CARE Only 3 out of 10 children with working parents in Santa Cruz County have the option of licensed child care. In addition to the lack of licensed child care, the cost of child care can have an impact on families and their financial stability. Full‐time child care for children ages 2‐5 in Santa Cruz County averages from $767 to over $926 a month. A single parent earning minimum wage would spend over half of their income on child care for one child.17 In order to qualify for assistance in paying for child care (subsidized child care), a family of three needed to make less than $34,000 a year.18 In Santa Cruz County, 3,901 children received subsidized child care in 2009. It is estimated that subsidized child care only covers 60% of those in need19 and in 2010 there were 1,252 children in Santa Cruz on a wait list for subsidized care.20 Child Care Need and Availability 00-10 % CHILD CARE INDICATOR 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 CHANGE Number of Children1 with Parents in the Labor Force 28,491 26,690 25,905 25,189 22,892 26,632 -6.5% Number of Licensed Child Care Spaces 7,588 7,915 8,380 7,669 7,879 8,149 7.4% Santa Cruz County: Percent of Children with Parents in 26.6% 29.7% 32.3% 30.4% 34.4% 30.6% - the Labor Force with Licensed Child Care Available California: Percent of Children with Parents in the Labor 21.8% 25.2% 26.0% 26.7% 26.9% NA - Force with Licensed Child Care Available Source: California Child Care Resource & Referral Network (2011). 2000-2010 The California Child Care Portfolio. 1 The term children refers to children 0-13 from 2000-2008. In 2010, the definition change d to children ages 0-12. Average Monthly Cost of Child Care, 2011 0 – 23 MONTHS OLD 2 – 5 YEARS OLD 6 – 13 YEARS OLD REGION/PROGRAM TYPE PART-TIME FULL-TIME PART-TIME FULL-TIME PART-TIME FULL-TIME North County Centers $945.25 $1,162.43 $529.79 $914.78 $474.50 $872.75 Family Child Care Homes $945.25 $1,162.43 $553.25 $926.50 $541.40 $1,020.33 Mid County Centers $800.50 $1,031.59 $542.38 $861.74 $386.44 $722.83 Family Child Care Homes $820.38 $969.39 $551.17 $853.56 $416.36 $798.38 South County Centers $649.18 $777.55 $487.58 $787.98 $270.00 $442.67 Family Child Care Homes NA $769.33 $485.00 $767.17 $270.00 $442.67 Source: National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (2011). Subsidized Child Care CHILD CARE INDICATOR 2006 2008 2009 06-09 % CHANGE Number of Children (0-13) Receiving Subsidized Child Care 4,492 3,833 3,901 -13.2% Source: California Child Care Resource & Referral Network (2011). 2000-2010 The California Child Care Portfolio. Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

17 California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, Child Care Fact Sheet, 2011. 18 MacGillvary, J. & Lucia, L. (2011). Economic Impacts of Early Care and Education in California. UC Berkeley Labor Center. 19 Ibid. 20 California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, The California Child Care Portfolio, 2011. 60 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education Head Start Program Enrollment SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 2000/ 2002/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 00-11% HEAD START1 01 03 05 06 /07 082 09 10 11 CHANGE Enrollment 411 463 463 463 583 571 621 795 795 93.4% Waiting List 236 414 303 497 401 496 426 261 452 91.5%

MIGRANT & SEASONAL SPRING SPRING SPRING SPRING SPRING SPRING SPRING SPRING 01-11 HEAD START – PVUSD 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Enrollment 683 683 732 732 732 732 722 735 7.6% Waiting List 50 345 444 300 105 132 205 221 342% Source: Santa Cruz County Head Start (2011). Personal Correspondence. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (2011). Personal Correspondence. Note: In 2009, a family of 4 needed to make less than $22,050 in order to qualify for head start. 1 Includes Head Start and Early Head Start (0 – 5). 2 Starting in 2007/08, Head Start began a state funded preschool program, which is for four year olds that are about to enter kindergarten. The program is focused on literacy and is designed to help children with reading and writing. Due to this addition, data for 2007/08 and the more recent years are not comparable to prior years.  How important do you think attending a quality preschool is to a child’s success in school? (Respondents answering “Very” or “Somewhat Important”) By Ethnicity

100.0% 99.5% 98.3% 100% 96.5% 96.7% Very 93.3% 92.4% 91.8% 90.7% important

80% Somewhat important

60% 72.2% 67.1% 70.9% 71.1% 65.6% 63.6% 87.8% 93.9% 90.8% 40%

20% 29.6%* 22.4% 21.3% 24.3% 26.2% 27.1% 12.2% 7.5%* 0% 5.6% 2007 2009 2011 2007 2009 2011 2007 2009 2011 Overall Caucasian Latino

Overall N: 2007=686; 2009=850; 2011=704; Caucasian N: 2007=472; 2009=593; 2011=488; Latino N: 2007=160; 2009=192; 2011=162 Source: Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey, 2011 Note: This question was asked of all survey respondents regardless of whether or not they had children attending schools. * Significance testing: Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to think that attending a quality preschool is very important. COLLEGE PREPARATION COURSES High school students should have access to the appropriate challenging courses (College Preparation Courses21) to prepare for college acceptance and success. Less than half of county high school graduates (42%) completed all UC/CSU required courses in 2009/10; however, this was better than the state at 36% of high school graduates.

21 Please see Appendix II for definition of “College Preparation Courses.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 61 Education Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Percent of High School Graduates Completing All UC/CSU Required Courses by School District SCHOOL DISTRICT 2001/02 2003/04 2005/061 2006/072 2007/083 2008/09 2009/10 01-10 NET CHANGE Pajaro Valley Unified 40.8% 36.2% NA 51.1% NA 39.7% 42.8% 2.0 San Lorenzo Valley Unified 58.4% 45.0% NA NA 37.7% 36.7% 38.5% -19.9 Santa Cruz City High 41.7% 40.6% 44.8% 45.0% 40.3% 40.5% 37.8% -3.9 Scotts Valley Unified NA 100.0% 74.6% 81.9% 93.1% 83.8% 88.3% NA Santa Cruz County 42.4% 41.3% 46.1% 48.8% 50.1% 42.5% 42.4% 0.0 California 34.7% 33.7% 36.1% 35.0% 33.9% 35.3% 35.6% 0.9 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2001-2010 Educational Demographics Office. 1 Data for Pajaro Valley Unified and San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Districts are not available and therefore are not included. 2 Data for San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District are not available and therefore are not included. 3 Data for Pajaro Valley Unified School District are not available and therefore are not included. Percent of High School Graduates Completing All UC/CSU Required Courses by Gender, Santa Cruz County GENDER 2001/02 2003/04 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 01-10 NET CHANGE Female 48.0% 44.4% 50.5% 49.0% 53.6% 44.4% 46.1% -1.9 Male 36.5% 38.3% 42.1% 48.6% 46.4% 40.6% 38.7% 2.2 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2001-2010 Educational Demographics Office. Percent of High School Graduates Completing All UC/CSU Required Courses by Ethnicity, Santa Cruz County ETHNICITY 2001/02 2003/04 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 01-10 NET CHANGE Hispanic/Latino 33.8% 23.9% 24.4% 35.1% 46.8% 29.1% 29.1% -4.7 White 46.9% 51.6% 51.2% 58.3% 53.0% 52.6% 52.3% 5.4 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2001-2010 Educational Demographics Office. CABRILLO COLLEGE ATTENDANCE Cabrillo College enrollment steadily increased from 13,621 students in 2000 to 15,732 in Fall 2010. However, since 2008, enrollment has been decreasing. Despite the decrease in enrollment, there were more degrees awarded in 2009/10 (1,452) than in any other year since 2001/02 (when 695 degrees were awarded). The percent of Cabrillo College graduates who were Hispanic/Latino increased from 21% in 2001/02 to 31% in 2009/10, while the number of graduates who were Caucasian decreased from 63% in 2001/02 to 58% in 2009/10. Cabrillo College Enrollment 20,000

16,924 16,069 16,467 15,732 14,362 14,622 15,056 10,000 13,621

0 Fall 2000 Fall 2002 Fall 2004 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Source: Cabrillo College (May 2011). 2000-2011 Planning & Research Office. Personal Correspondence.

62 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education Cabrillo College Enrollment by Age Group FALL FALL FALL FALL FALL FALL FALL FALL 00-10 AGE GROUP 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Under 18 Years 4.1% 5.2% 6.5% 8.0% 7.1% 7.0% 5.9% 4.4% 0.3 Age 18-20 Years 23.4% 25.4% 26.6% 25.9% 26.3% 27.3% 29.4% 30.3% 6.9 Age 21-25 Years 21.7% 22.6% 21.9% 21.0% 21.3% 21.1% 21.6% 22.4% 0.7 Age 26-30 Years 11.3% 10.5% 10.0% 10.1% 9.8% 10.1% 10.7% 11.3% 0.0 Age 31-40 Years 16.2% 14.5% 13.4% 12.4% 12.1% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% -4.7 Age 41-50 Years 13.7% 12.3% 11.7% 11.5% 11.1% 10.0% 9.4% 9.3% -4.4 Age 51-60 Years 6.8% 6.8% 7.2% 7.6% 8.2% 8.4% 7.7% 7.0% 0.2 Age 61 Years & Older 2.9% 2.7% 2.8% 3.5% 4.0% 4.2% 3.7% 3.8% 0.9 Total Enrollment 13,621 14,362 14,622 15,056 16,069 16,924 16,467 15,732 - Average Age 30.2 30.1 29.4 30.0 30.3 30.1 30.0 29.9 - Median Age 26.0 26.0 24.1 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.9 - Source: Cabrillo College (May 2011). 2000-2011 Planning & Research Office. Personal Correspondence. Number of Cabrillo College Graduates by Type of Degree or Certificate Awarded

TYPE OF DEGREE OR 01-10 CERTIFICATE 2001/02 2003/04 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 % CHANGE Associate of Arts 402 547 503 494 536 465 555 38.1% Associate of Science 187 286 325 281 313 322 350 87.2% Certificates of Proficiency 106 195 271 264 238 366 547 416.0% Total Graduates 695 1,028 1,099 1,039 1,087 1,153 1,452 108.9% Source: Cabrillo College (2011). 2000-2011 Planning & Research Office. Percent of Cabrillo College Graduates by Ethnicity

ETHNICITY 2001/02 2003/04 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 01-10 NET CHANGE African American 0.7% 1.2% 1.5% 0.9% 0.8% 1.4% 1.0% 0.3 Asian 4.8% 3.3% 3.6% 4.0% 4.2% 3.3% 3.7% -1.1 Filipino 1.2% 1.6% 2.2% 1.2% 1.7% 1.3% 1.0% -0.2 Hispanic/Latino 21.4% 21.8% 25.2% 28.3% 25.6% 27.0% 28.9% 7.5 Native American 1.2% 0.7% 1.1% 1.1% 1.8% 1.1% 0.5% -0.7 White 62.6% 67.4% 62.1% 60.0% 59.0% 58.9% 58.2% -4.4 Other/Multiple 0.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 2.9% 2.3% 0.6% -0.2 Unknown 7.3% 2.3% 2.5% 2.7% 4.0% 1.9% 6.0% -1.3 Total Graduates 695 1,028 1,099 1,039 1,087 1,153 1,452 - Source: Cabrillo College (2011). 2000-2011 Planning & Research Office.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 63 Education Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 UC SANTA CRUZ ATTENDANCE Student enrollment at UC Santa Cruz (UCSC) increased 41% from 12,144 students in Fall 2000 to 17,175 students in Fall 2010. The majority of incoming freshpersons to UCSC come from the San Francisco Bay Area (29%) or the Los Angles South Coast (29%). The number of degrees awarded at UCSC increased 33% since 2001/02 (from 2,949 in 2001/02 to 3,927 in 2009/10). UC Santa Cruz Enrollment 20,000

15,820 16,613 16,763 17,175 10,000 14,122 15,013 15,360 12,144

0 Fall 2000 Fall 2002 Fall 2004 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010

Source: UC Santa Cruz (2011). 2000-2010 Office of Institutional Research and Policy Studies. UC Santa Cruz Enrollment by Type of Program FALL FALL FALL FALL FALL FALL FALL FALL TYPE OF PROGRAM 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 % CHANGE Undergraduate 11,047 12,845 13,669 13,941 14,381 15,125 15,259 15,668 41.8% Graduate 1,097 1,277 1,344 1,419 1,439 1,488 1,504 1,507 37.4% Total Enrollment 12,144 14,122 15,013 15,360 15,820 16,613 16,763 17,175 41.4% Source: UC Santa Cruz (2011). 2000-2010 Office of Institutional Research and Policy Studies. UC Santa Cruz Regional Origin of New Freshpersons 00-10 NET REGION FALL 2000 FALL 2002 FALL 2004 FALL 2006 FALL 2007 FALL 2008 FALL 2009 FALL 2010 CHANGE Monterey Bay / 13.6% 14.7% 13.6% 12.2% 12.2% 12.5% 14.5% 14.2% 0.6 Santa Clara Valley San Francisco Bay Area 27.8% 31.0% 32.8% 34.5% 31.8% 31.7% 29.5% 29.3% 1.5 Northern California 2.8% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2% 1.8% 1.9% 2.1% -0.7 East Central California 11.1% 11.8% 11.1% 10.7% 12.1% 10.8% 11.4% 13.2% 2.1 Los Angeles South Coast 27.1% 26.9% 26.3% 26.9% 28.0% 30.1% 29.2% 29.1% 2.0 San Diego Desert 9.7% 7.7% 9.4% 8.9% 8.4% 10.4% 10.6% 10.8% 1.1 Other CA1 NA NA NA NA 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% NA Other States 7.3% 5.2% 3.8% 4.0% 2.8% 2.5% 2.8% 1.2% -6.1 Foreign 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% -0.4 Unknown2 NA NA NA NA NA 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% NA Total Freshpersons 2,924 3,224 2,956 3,335 3,791 3,959 3,215 3,290 - Source: UC Santa Cruz (2011). 2000-2010 Office of Institutional Research and Policy Studies. 1 The “Other CA” category was added in Fall 2007. 2 The “Unknown” category was added in Fall 2008. UC Santa Cruz Graduates by Type of Degree TYPE OF DEGREE 2001/02 2003/04 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 01-09 % CHANGE Undergraduate 2,633 3,024 3,314 3,404 3,422 3,252 3,488 32.5% Graduate 223 333 314 298 301 283 287 28.7% Doctorate 93 107 138 132 131 147 152 63.4% Total Graduates 2,949 3,464 3,766 3,834 3,854 3,682 3,927 33.2% Source: UC Santa Cruz (2011). 2000-2010 Office of Institutional Research and Policy Studies.

64 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT The percentage of Santa Cruz County adults ages 25 years and older with a high school degree or higher remained relatively constant since 2002 (ranging from 83% to 87%), while the percentage of adults with a Bachelor’s degree or higher also remained relatively constant (ranging from 34% to 40%). Adult (Ages 25 Years and Older) Educational Attainment Percent with a High 100% 87.3% 84.8% 86.9% 85.7% 85.7% 84.7% 84.1% 82.9% School Degree or 80% Higher

60% Percent with a 40.1% 38.6% 38.3% 39.9% 39.8% 38.4% Bachelor's Degree or 35.9% 33.7% 40% Higher

20%

0% 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2002-2010, American Community Survey. Educational Attainment (Population Ages 25 Years and Older), Santa Cruz County ATTAINMENT LEVEL 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 02-10 NET CHANGE Less than 9th Grade 8.8% 9.2% 6.8% 8.8% 10.4% 7.8% 8.7% 10.1% 1.3 9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 3.9% 6.0% 6.3% 5.4% 6.6% 6.5% 6.7% 5.7% 1.8 High School Graduate (Includes 16.9% 16.3% 16.0% 18.1% 17.0% 17.4% 16.9% 16.5% Equivalency) -0.4 Some College, No Degree 23.9% 22.1% 25.0% 22.7% 19.3% 21.0% 20.8% 26.3% 2.4 Associate’s Degree 6.4% 7.8% 7.6% 9.0% 6.8% 7.5% 8.6% 7.6% 1.2 Bachelor’s Degree 23.2% 24.2% 23.4% 22.2% 25.4% 21.7% 24.0% 21.3% -1.9 Graduate or Professional Degree 16.9% 14.4% 14.9% 13.7% 14.5% 18.2% 14.4% 12.4% -4.5 Percent with a High School 87.2% 84.8% 86.9% 85.7% 82.9% 85.7% 84.7% 84.1% -3.1 Degree or Higher Percent with a Bachelor’s 40.0% 38.6% 38.3% 35.9% 39.9% 39.8% 38.4% 33.7% -6.3 Degree or Higher Source: United States Census Bureau (2011). 2002-2010, American Community Survey.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 65 Education Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 LIBRARY USE Availability of library services and resources provides an opportunity for community members to utilize technology and access information; library branches also provide community gathering places. Circulation in Santa Cruz Public Libraries increased by 18% since 2000/01. However, there are far fewer open hours of operation now than 10 years ago. Currently there are 4 hours open per 100 population compared to 11 hours open per 100 in 2000/01. Conversely, circulation decreased a little over 1% in Watsonville since 2000/01, but hours of operation have increased. Santa Cruz Public Libraries Circulation Statistics CIRCULATION 00-11 % STATISTICS 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2001/11 CHANGE Service 215,100 206,250 204,900 203,696 205,155 207,583 209,332 212,144 206,000 -4.2% Population Registered 130,634 129,380 64,461 128,511 128,255 126,888 126,147 122,489 120,538 -7.7% Borrowers Area Square 436.2 436.2 436.2 436.2 436.2 436.2 436.2 436.2 436.2 0.0% Miles Total Outlets 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 ^ Total Items 1,646,030 1,877,256 1,899,739 1,975,986 2,051,331 2,105,900 2,221,891 1,971,465 1,938,317 17.8% Circulated Total per Capita 7.7 9.1 9.3 9.6 10.0 10.4 10.7 9.3 7.4 - Circulation Hours Open/100 11.4 11.4 11.0 10.9 10.9 11.1 10.2 5.2 4.2 - Population Source: Santa Cruz Public Libraries (2000-2011). ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted.

Watsonville Public Library Circulation Statistics CIRCULATION STATISTICS 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 00-10 % CHANGE Service Population 39,800 47,950 49,601 50,211 58,456 58,936 59,305 60,057 50.9% Registered Borrowers 38,402 51,579 24,249 28,976 35,005 41,887 45,251 46,422 20.9% Area Square Miles 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 ^ Total Outlets 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ^ Total Items Circulated 324,228 317,980 301,426 356,088 266,037 256,842 306,184 319,533 -1.4 Total per Capita Circulation 8.1 6.6 6.0 7.0 4.5 4.4 5.2 5.3 - Hours Open/100 Population 10.6 11.4 11.4 11.5 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 - Source: Watsonville Public Library (2000-2010). Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted.

Health Snapshot of Santa Cruz County ...... 68 Obesity  ...... 86 Health Community Goals ...... 68 Diabetes ...... 87 Access to Health Care  ...... 69 Alcohol Use ...... 89 Low Income Health Care ...... 71 Availability of Alcohol ...... 89 Health Insurance  ...... 73 Acceptance of Adult Alcohol Provision ...... 90 End of Life Wishes (Living Will or Advance Community Acceptance of Marijuana Use ...... 90 Directive) ...... 75 Tobacco Use ...... 92 Births ...... 76 Methamphetamine Admissions ...... 92 Teen Births ...... 76 Prescription Drug Use ...... 93 Adequate Prenatal Care ...... 77 Substance Use by Students ...... 93 Birth Weight ...... 79 Unintentional Injuries ...... 95 Breastfeeding ...... 79 Intentional Injuries...... 95 Immunization Levels ...... 81 Reported Communicable Diseases ...... 96 Dental Care ...... 82 AIDS ...... 96 Mental Health ...... 83 Suicides ...... 97 Physical Health ...... 84 Leading Causes of Death ...... 98 Physical Activity ...... 84 Fruit and Vegetable Consumption ...... 85

OVERALL RECENT INDICATORS MEASUREMENT DATA TREND TREND Percent of CAP survey respondents who reported HEALTH INSURANCE 80.3% having health insurance Percent of kindergarten entrants with all required IMMUNIZATION LEVELS 82.5% immunizations

Percent of CAP survey respondents who indicated PHYSICAL HEALTH that their general health is “good,” “very good,” or 82.9% NA NA “excellent” Percent of CAP survey respondents who are OBESITY 57.1% overweight or obese

Percent of CAP survey respondents who engaged in ALCOHOL USE 12.9% binge drinking

GOAL: By the year 2015, access to primary care will improve as measured by:

. 95% of Santa Cruz County residents will report having a regular source of health care; . Less than 10% will report the emergency department as one of their regular sources of health care; and . No significant difference between the percent of Caucasian and Latino residents reporting a regular source of health care.

GOAL: By the year 2015, 98% of Santa Cruz County children 0 to 17 will have comprehensive health care coverage as measured by the CAP Survey. » Community Hero: Araceli Castillo, Salud Para La Gente » Community Hero: Leslie Conner, Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center

GOAL: By the year 2015, the prevalence of childhood obesity in Santa Cruz County will decrease as measured by:

. % of children under 5 years who are overweight or obese will decrease from 15% to 12%, and . % of children 5 to 19 years who are overweight or obese will decrease from 26% to 21%. » Community Hero: Danny Keith, Second Harvest Food Bank

68 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE Individuals without a dependable source of care reported more difficulties obtaining needed care, receiving fewer preventive health services, were more likely to wait to get treatment until their condition is worse, and were more likely to require hospitalization.22

Ninety‐one percent of Caucasian CAP survey respondents reported having a regular source of health care in 2011, as compared to only 68% of Latinos, a statistically significant difference. Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to go to a private practice, the emergency room, or urgent care clinics for their regular source of health care while Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to go to community clinics for their regular source of health care. In addition, 13% of Latino respondents needed health care but were unable to receive it, the top reason being that it was too expensive.  Do you have a regular source of health care? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Ethnicity 100% 93.6% 91.4%* Overall 89.6% 88.4% 89.5% 86.3% 85.6% 86.9% Caucasian 91.0% Latino 87.0% 85.5% 84.6% 86.5% 91.0% 80% 85.1% 85.2% 81.9% 83.8% 84.4% 79.6% 80.8%

70.6% 69.9% 67.9%* 60% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2000=656; 2001=706; 2002=684; 2003=702; 2005=705; 2007=709; 2009=854, 2011=719; Caucasian N: 2000=444; 2001=493; 2002=478; 2003=491; 2005=493; 2007=495; 2009=596, 2011=503; Latino N: 2000=142; 2001=159; 2002=154; 2003=157; 2005=159; 2007=160; 2009=192, 2011=162 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to have a regular source of health care.  If you have a regular source of health care, where do you go? By Ethnicity RESPONSE 2009 2011 RESPONSE 2009 2011 Private Practice 82.3% 81.2% Community Clinics 15.8% 17.0% Caucasian 89.0% 88.1%* Caucasian 9.0% 9.2%* Latino 52.7% 50.0%* Latino 46.2% 48.2%* Urgent Care Clinics 28.4% 29.0% Out of County 13.9% 13.2% Caucasian 27.3% 33.1%* Caucasian 15.3% 13.9% Latino 34.0% 13.5%* Latino 9.8% 12.1% Emergency Room 26.8% 23.9% Other 0.5% 0.4% Caucasian 29.0% 26.5%* Caucasian 0.5% 0.1% Latino 19.0% 14.7%* Latino 0.0% 0% Alternative Care Practices 16.1% 14.1% Caucasian 17.6% 14.9% Latino 9.6% 8.5% Overall 2009: 725 respondents offering 1,334 responses, 2011: 606 respondents offering 1084 responses ; Caucasian 2009: 531 respondents offering 999 responses, 2011: 4 respondents offering 844 responses ; Latino 2009: 134 respondents offering 230 responses, 2011: 110 respondents offering 161 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Response options were redefined in 2009 and are therefore not comparable to previous years. Note: This was a multiple response question so percentages do not add up to 100%. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to go to a private practice, the emergency room, or urgent care clinics for their regular source of health care; Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to go to community clinics for their regular source of health care.

22 United States Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2011). National Healthcare Disparities and Quality Report. Retrieved January 14, 2011; and Billings, J., J.D., Bidman, A.B., M.D., Grumbach, K., M.D., et al. (1995). Preventable Hospitalizations and Access to Health Care. JAMA 274(4): 305-311. © 2011 Applied Survey Research 69 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  If you DON’T have a regular source of health care, where do you go? By Ethnicity RESPONSE 2011 RESPONSE 2011 Community Clinics 47.0% Emergency Room 27.0% Caucasian 32.1%* Caucasian 23.4% Latino 60.8%* Latino 28.1% Private Practice 35.2% Alternative Care Practices 7.1% Caucasian 39.4% Caucasian 8.6% Latino 29.7% Latino 2.7% Urgent Care Clinics 33.6% Out of County 4.5% Caucasian 45.8%* Caucasian 4.1% Latino 24.7%* Latino 4.6% Overall 2011: 94 respondents offering 145 responses; Caucasian 2011: 40 respondents offering 61 responses; Latino 2011: 45 respondents offering 68 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Survey question was not asked in 2009. *Significance testing: For those without a regular source of health care, Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to go to community clinics, while Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to go to urgent care clinics.  Have you needed health care in the past year and been unable to receive it? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Ethnicity Overall 25% 21.1% 21.9% 18.3% Caucasian 20% 18.0% 17.2% 15.9% 13.7% 14.2% Latino 15% 12.1% 13.0%* 10.1% 10.7% 10.9% 14.6% 9.7% 10% 7.1% 7.7% 10.0% 5% 8.5% 8.6% 8.1% 6.6% 5.4% 5.6%* 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2000=658; 2001=706; 2002=684; 2003=703; 2005=698; 2007=707; 2009=852: 2011=716; Caucasian N: 2000=445; 2001=493; 2002=478; 2003=491; 2005=494; 2007=494; 2009=595; 2011=500; Latino N: 2000=142; 2001=159; 2002=154; 2003=158; 2005=150; 2007=160; 2009=191: 2011=162 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to go without necessary health care needs.

 If you needed health care and were unable to receive it, why couldn’t you receive it? RESPONSE 2009 2011 RESPONSE 2009 2011 Too Expensive 29.8% 35.2% Couldn’t Afford The Premium 2.3% 1.5% Caucasian 32.9% 33.1% Caucasian 4.0% 0.0% Latino 29.9% 40.5% Latino 0.0% 0.0% No Insurance 29.5% 29.8% Couldn’t Afford The Premium 2.3% 1.5% Caucasian 21.8% 33.1% Caucasian 4.0% 0.0% Latino 38.8% 32.8% Latino 0.0% 0.0% Couldn’t Afford Co-Pay 9.2% 3.6% Other 9.9% 17.3% Caucasian 9.4% 3.6% Caucasian 12.4% 15.3% Latino 3.0% 0.0% Latino 8.0% 21.6% Medi-Cal/ MediCruz Problems 8.5% 5.4% Total Respondents 82 55 Caucasian 2.4% 4.6% Caucasian 48 28 Latino 20.4% 0.0% Latino 27 21 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Response options were redefined in 2009 and are therefore not comparable to previous years. 70 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health LOW INCOME HEALTH CARE Central California Alliance for Health (the Alliance) is a locally governed non‐profit health plan that serves over 200,000 members in Santa Cruz, Monterey and Merced counties. Their programs include Medi‐Cal and the Healthy Families Program (a federally and state‐funded insurance program for low‐income children). Over the past decade, the number of Alliance Medi‐Cal members in Santa Cruz County increased considerably from 21,968 in 2001 to 33,743 in 2011. Over half of whom were Latino/Hispanic and living in South County. In Santa Cruz County, the number of children enrolled in the Healthy Families Program increased by 143% over the last decade, with about 6,840 children covered by Healthy Families in 2011. Medi-Cal Members Enrolled in the Alliance, Santa Cruz County, By Primary Care Provider TYPE OF PRIMARY 01-11 CARE PROVIDER 2001 2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 % CHANGE Clinic 8,243 9,503 10,534 11,468 11,956 12,717 14,582 13,160 59.7% Private Practice 11,136 13,230 13,631 14,308 14,356 14,929 15,178 10,798 -3.0% Administrative 2,589 3,329 3,822 3,877 3,675 3,769 3,801 9,785 277.9% Members (Not Linked) Total Alliance Medi- 21,968 26,062 27,987 29,646 29,987 31,415 33,561 33,743 53.6% Cal Members Source: Central California Alliance for Health. (June 2011). Medi-Cal Members Enrolled in the Alliance, 2001-2011. Personal Correspondence with Program Representative. Note: Central California Alliance for Health changed their patient designation in 2011. The number of administrative members increased due to this change. Percent of Enrolled Medi-Cal Members in the Alliance, Santa Cruz County, By Ethnicity 01-11 ETHNICITY 2001 2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NET CHANGE Caucasian 40% 37% 36% 34% 33% 32% 32% 32% -8.0 Hispanic 45% 51% 56% 58% 59% 59% 59% 58% 13.0 Other 15% 12% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 8% -7.0 Total Alliance Medi- 21,968 26,062 27,987 29,646 29,987 31,415 33,561 33,743 - Cal Members Source: Central California Alliance for Health. (June 2011). Medi-Cal Members Enrolled in the Alliance, 2001-2011. Personal Correspondence with Program Representative. Percent of Enrolled Medi-Cal Members in the Alliance, Santa Cruz County, By Region 01-11 AREA OF ORIGIN 2001 2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NET CHANGE South County1 47% 53% 44% 44% 56% 56% 55% 56% 9.0 North County2 50% 44% 53% 55% 43% 43% 44% 43% -7.0 Out of County 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -2.0 Total Alliance Medi- 21,968 26,062 27,987 29,646 29,987 31,415 33,561 33,743 - Cal Members Source: Central California Alliance for Health. (June 2011). Medi-Cal Members Enrolled in the Alliance, 2001-2011. Personal Correspondence with Program Representative. 1 CCAH defines South County as including the areas of Freedom and Watsonville. 2 CCAH defines North County as including the areas of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, Davenport, Felton, Ben Lomond, Boulder Creek, Brookdale, Aptos, Capitola, and Soquel.

40% California

16.9% 16.7% 15.7% 16.9% 20% 11.6% 17.2% 9.1% 13.9% 12.6% 14.1% 0% 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Source: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. (2011). 2001-2009 California Health Interview Survey. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. HEALTHY FAMILIES Number of Children Enrolled in Healthy Families, Santa Cruz County 8,000 6,838 6,413 6,531 5,789 5,284 6,000 4,681 4,276 4,000 2,814

2,000

0 May 2001 May 2003 May 2005 May 2007 May 2008 May 2009 May 2010 May 2011

Source: Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board. (2011). 2001-2011 Healthy Families Program Current Enrollment. Number of Children Enrolled in Healthy Families 01-11 REGION MAY 2001 MAY 2003 MAY 2005 MAY 2007 MAY 2008 MAY 2009 MAY 2010 MAY 2011 % CHANGE Santa Cruz County 2,814 4,276 4,681 5,284 5,789 6,413 6,531 6,838 143.0% California 432,004 658,203 743,638 814,547 872,553 919,542 877,617 870,970 101.6% Source: Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board. (2011). 2001-2011 Healthy Families Program Current Enrollment. Children Enrolled in Healthy Families by Ethnicity MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY 01-11 ETHNICITY 2001 2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NET CHANGE Alaska Native/Native 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% -0.2 American Indian Asian/Pacific Islander 1.4% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 1.7% 1.2% -0.2 Black/African American 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% -0.5 Hispanic 75.6% 70.7% 70.1% 71.0% 69.3% 67.2% 62.8% 57.2% -18.4 White 11.7% 14.8% 12.2% 11.0% 11.2% 10.2% 9.1% 9.8% -1.9 Other/Unknown 10.5% 11.7% 14.9% 15.7% 17.2% 20.7% 26.3% 31.5% 21.0 Santa Cruz County Total 2,814 4,276 4,681 5,284 5,789 6,413 6,531 6,838 - Source: Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board. (2011). 2001-2011 Healthy Families Program Current Enrollment.

72 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health Geographic Distribution of Children Enrolled in Healthy Families, Santa Cruz County MAY AUG. MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY 01-11 ZIP CODE 2001 2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NET CHANGE 95003 — Aptos/La Selva 2.2% 2.2% 3.3% 3.0% 3.6% 3.7% 3.6% 3.8% 1.6 Beach 95005 — Ben Lomond 0.8% 1.0% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.4% 0.6 95006 — Boulder Creek 0.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3% 0.5 95010 — Capitola 1.2% 1.7% 2.4% 2.6% 2.8% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 1.4 95018 — Felton/Lompico 0.5% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.0 95019 — Freedom 6.1% 6.6% 7.2% 7.1% 7.0% 7.4% 7.2% 6.5% 0.4 95060 — Santa Cruz 8.1% 6.7% 7.6% 6.7% 7.1% 6.8% 7.3% 7.6% -0.5 95062 — Santa Cruz/Live 8.0% 9.6% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3% 10.8% 10.5% 10.5% 2.5 Oak 95064 — UC Santa Cruz 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% -0.1 95065 — Santa Cruz 1.5% 1.4% 1.7% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.6% 1.9% 0.4 95066 — Scotts Valley 1.3% 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.1% 0.8 95073 — Soquel 1.3% 1.8% 2.2% 2.4% 2.2% 2.3% 2.1% 2.4% 1.1 95076 — Watsonville 66.3% 63.2% 57.7% 59.4% 58.3% 58.6% 58.1% 57.1% -9.2 7 Other ZIP Codes 1.5% 1.3% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.9% -0.6 Total Enrollment 3,184 4,931 4,566 5,263 5,778 6,391 6,533 6,842 - (Selected ZIP Codes) Source: Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board. (2011). 2001-2011 Healthy Families Program Current Enrollment. HEALTH INSURANCE While the percentage of CAP survey respondents indicating that they have health insurance increased in Santa Cruz County between 2000 and 2007, the percentage of respondents with health insurance decreased from 89% in 2007 to 80% in 2011. Fifty‐one percent (51%) of Latino CAP respondents had health insurance compared to 90% of Caucasian respondents in 2011.  Do you currently have health insurance? (Respondents answering “Yes”) 100% Overall 90.7% 91.8% 88.6% 89.8% 88.8% 88.7% 88.9% 89.5%* Caucasian Latino 88.8% 80% 85.2% 83.1% 84.0% 83.6% 81.1% 80.4% 80.3% 78.0% 71.8% 68.2% 68.8% 60% 59.3% 58.1% 52.6% 51.0%* 40% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2000=652; 2001=706; 2002=684; 2003=702; 2005=709; 2007=710; 2009=849, 2011=719; Caucasian N: 2000=441; 2001=493; 2002=478; 2003=491; 2005=496; 2007=496; 2009=595, 2011=501; Latino N: 2000=140; 2001=159; 2002=154; 2003=157; 2005=159; 2007=159; 2009=191, 2011=162 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to have health insurance.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 73 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  Does your health insurance cover...? (Respondents answering “Yes”) TYPE OF 00-09 COVERAGE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE Prescriptions 91.5% 79.4% 84.9% 83.3% 80.4% 89.3% 90.0% 88.6% -2.9 Dependents 68.6% 56.7% 60.0% 64.6% 61.7% 47.7% 52.4% 66.0% -2.6 Mental Health1 NA NA NA NA 82.0% 81.8% 61.1% 82.3% NA Prescriptions N: 2000=540; 2001=593; 2002=582; 2003=569; 2005=576; 2007=616; 2009=682; 2011=556; Dependents N: 2000=516; 2001=552; 2002=550; 2003=523; 2005=534; 2007=624; 2009=652; 2011=396; Mental Health N: 2005=434; 2007=472; 2009=682; 2011=380. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. 1 The question regarding mental health insurance coverage was added in 2005. Percent of Respondents Who Said They Had Delayed Getting, or Didn’t Get, Medical Care 07-09 REGION 2007 2009 NET CHANGE Santa Cruz County 17.8% 15.7% -2.1 California 13.4% 12.5% -0.9 Source: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (2011). 2007-2009 California Health Interview Survey. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Percent of Respondents Aged 65 and Older Who Said They Were Covered by MediCare and Medi-Cal, or MediCare and a Supplemental Policy COVERAGE/REGION 2003 2005 2007 2009 03-09 NET CHANGE MediCare & Medi-Cal Coverage Santa Cruz County 12.0%^ 14.7%^ 15.5%^ 14.7%^ 2.7 California 20.3% 20.0% 18.6% 18.6% -1.7 MediCare Coverage & a Supplemental Policy Santa Cruz County 78.7% 71.5% 68.1% 75.9% -2.8 California 68.2% 67.8% 68.9% 71.6% 3.4 Source: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (2011). 2003-2009 California Health Interview Survey. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Statistically unstable due to a low number of respondents. Healthy Kids Program Enrollment 06-11 PROGRAM ENROLLMENT 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 % CHANGE Program Enrollment Medi-Cal 186 175 378 907 1,590 754.8% Healthy Families 2,293 2,476 2,907 3,443 3,673 60.2% Healthy Kids 2,000 1,926 2,107 1,825 1,498 -25.1% Waitlist 227 370 193 224 125 -44.9% Total Enrollment1 4,479 4,577 5,392 6,180 6,886 -53.7% Unduplicated Program Enrollment Medi-Cal 185 165 307 874 1,522 722.7% Healthy Families 2,249 2,422 2,777 3,321 3,520 56.5% Healthy Kids 1,936 1,823 1,882 1,778 1,471 -24.0% Total Enrollment1 4,370 4,418 5,022 5,978 6,513 49.0% Source: Healthy Kids of Santa Cruz County (Personal Correspondence with Program Representative, June 2011). Note: Healthy Kids instated the Newborn Enrollment Project conducing Med-Cal enrollments for all new babies at the three county hospitals. 1 Total enrollment includes number of children enrolled on the Healthy Kids waiting list as well as adults who applied for Medi-Cal.

74 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health Percent of Children Ages 0-17 Currently Insured 01-09 REGION/AGE GROUP 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 NET CHANGE Santa Cruz County - Children 0-17 Years 93.3% 96.2% 97.4% 97.9% 92.1% -1.2 Children 0-4 Years 93.0% 100.0% 95.6% 100.0% 92.1% -0.9 Children 5-11 Years 89.7% 93.2% 98.1% 97.4% 99.1% 9.4 Children 12-14 Years 98.3% 97.3% 100.0% 100.0% 89.9% -8.4 Children 15-17 Years 96.7% 97.6% 95.2% 93.3% NA NA California – Children 0-17 Years 90.6% 92.9% 93.6% 94.3% 95.1% 4.5 Children 0-4 Years 93.4% 95.7% 94.4% 96.0% 96.4% 3.0 Children 5-11 Years 90.5% 93.1% 94.0% 94.2% 95.4% 4.9 Children 12-14 Years 88.7% 91.4% 92.9% 92.8% 93.4% 4.7 Children 15-17 Years 88.5% 89.8% 92.1% 93.7% 94.0% 5.5 Source: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (2011). 2001-2009 California Health Interview Survey. Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

 How many of your children have health insurance? - 2011

AGE GROUP NONE AT LEAST ONE Children 0 – 5 years old 5.8% 94.2% Children 6 – 17 years old 6.0% 94.0% Children 0-5 N: 2011=110; Children 6-17 N: 2011=173 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Survey question not asked in 2009. END OF LIFE WISHES (LIVING WILL OR ADVANCE DIRECTIVE) End of life wishes are instructions given by individuals specifying what actions should be taken for their health in the event they are no longer able to make decisions. In 2011, 40% of CAP survey respondents had their end‐of‐life wishes in a written document. However, only 8% of Latinos had a living will compared to 51% of Caucasians.  Do you have your end-of-life wishes for medical treatment in a written document? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Ethnicity 100% Overall Caucasian 80% Latino

60% 47.6% 51.5% 51.0%*

40% 43.5% 40.8% 40.0% 20% 29.9% 7.9% 7.6%* 0% 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2007=697; 2009=852; 2011=722; Caucasian N: 2007=488; 2009=595; 2011=504; Latino N: 2007=158; 2009=192: 2011=162 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to have their end-of-life wishes for medical treatment in a written document.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 75 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 BIRTHS The number of births to Santa Cruz County residents decreased 12% over the past five years, from 3,591 births in 2006 to 3,170 in 2010. An increasing number of county births have been paid for by Medi‐Cal, with 55% of county births paid for by Medi‐Cal. Number of Births - Santa Cruz County Residents (All Ages) DELIVERY LOCATION 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 06-10 % CHANGE Dominican Hospital 1,046 1,112 1,017 932 861 -17.7% Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center 826 853 829 871 845 2.3% Watsonville Community Hospital 1,462 1,326 1,453 1,236 1,213 -17.0% Out of County 186 209 192 193 195 4.8% Non-Hospital 71 70 53 58 56 -21.1% Santa Cruz County Total 3,591 3,570 3,544 3,290 3,170 -11.7% Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. (July 2011). Unpublished Data Percent of Deliveries Funded by Medi-Cal - Santa Cruz Residents (All Ages) DELIVERY LOCATION 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 06-10 NET CHANGE Dominican Hospital 38.5% 40.8% 40.3% 43.0% 45.3% 6.8 Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center 25.1% 24.6% 30.7% 30.1% 31.3% 6.2 Watsonville Community Hospital 78.9% 79.1% 77.4% 79.5% 85.4% 6.5 Santa Cruz County Total 50.2% 49.6% 51.4% 51.4% 54.5% 4.3 Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. (July 2011). Unpublished Data TEEN BIRTHS Teen parents and their children are often at greater risk for experiencing short and long‐term health, economic, social, and academic challenges compared to parents who have children later in life.23 The birth rate among teens ages 15‐19 in Santa Cruz County fell from 32.9 per 1,000 in 2006 to 30.2 per 1,000 in 2010. Births to Latina mothers (225) were much higher than to Caucasian mothers (27), making up 87% of total teen births in 2010.

Birth Rate per 1,000 Teens (Ages 15-19) 60 Santa Cruz County 38.2 37.1 35.2 40 32.1 California 36.1 32.9 32.5 33.6 20 30.2

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010¹

Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. Births, (July 2011).Unpublished Data Note: Birth rates per 1,000 teens ages 15-19 include only births to mothers who were residents of Santa Cruz County. 1 2010 California data was not available.

23 Klein, J.D., & the Committee on Adolescence. (2005). Adolescent pregnancy: Current trends and issues. Pediatrics, 116(1), 281‐286. 76 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health Number and Percent of Births to Teens (Ages 19 and Under), Santa Cruz County Residents 06-10 INDICATOR 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Number of Births to Teens 310 301 304 319 258 -16.8% Number of Births, All Ages 3,591 3,570 3,526 3,290 3,170 -11.7% Percent of Births to Teens, Santa Cruz County 8.6% 8.4% 8.6% 9.7% 8.1% - Percent of Births to Teens, California 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.2% NA - Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. (July 2011). Unpublished Data. Number of Births to Teens (Ages 19 and Under) by Location, Santa Cruz County Residents 06-10 DELIVERY LOCATION 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Dominican Hospital 41 60 51 61 57 39.0% Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center 42 32 36 51 26 -38.1% Watsonville Community Hospital 219 198 207 195 166 24.2% Out of County 7 11 10 10 8 ^ Non-Hospital 1 0 0 2 1 ^ Total Number of Births to Teens 310 301 304 319 258 -16.8% Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. (July 2011). Unpublished Data. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Number of Births to Teens (Ages 19 and Under) by Age of Mother, Santa Cruz County Residents 06-10 AGE GROUP 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Under 15 Years 6 4 2 5 1 ^ 15-17 Years 109 103 99 114 88 -19.3% 18-19 Years 195 194 203 200 169 -13.3% Total Number of Births to Teens 310 301 304 319 258 -16.8% Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. Births, (July 2011). Unpublished Data. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Number of Births to Teens (Ages 19 and Under) by Ethnicity of Mother, Santa Cruz County Residents 06-10 ETHNICITY 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE African American 1 1 5 8 1 ^ Asian 1 0 1 1 0 ^ Caucasian 30 33 28 32 27 -10.0% Hispanic/Latina 274 264 267 273 225 -17.9% Other/Unknown 3 2 2 1 2 ^ Total Number of Births to Teens 310 301 304 319 258 -16.8% Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. Births, (July 2011). Unpublished Data. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 77 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 ADEQUATE PRENATAL CARE Access to and utilization of prenatal care services can be crucial in protecting the health of an expecting mother as well as her unborn child. Based on the Kotelchuck Index,24 the standard for adequate prenatal care based on health indicators, almost one‐third (32%) of all teen births had less than adequate prenatal care in 2010, compared to 19% of all births with less than adequate care. Percent of Births with Less Than Adequate Care (Kotelchuck Index), Santa Cruz County Percent of All 100% Births

80% Percent of Births to Teens (Ages 60% 19 and Younger) 38.0% 35.0% 40% 30.0% 32.0% 32.0%

20% 22.0% 17.0% 20.0% 18.0% 19.0% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. (July 2011). Unpublished Data. Percent of Births with Less Than Adequate Care (Kotelchuck Index) 06-10 DELIVERY LOCATION 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Dominican Hospital 14% 16% 15% 15% 14% 0.0 Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center 11% 11% 12% 11% 13% 2.0 Watsonville Community Hospital 22% 31% 32% 24% 24% 2.0 Out of County 18% 16% 24% 24% 27% 9.0 Non-Hospital 14% 16% 13% 16% 11% -3.0 Santa Cruz County 17% 20% 22% 18% 19% 2.0 Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. (July 2011). Unpublished Data. Percent of Births to Teens (Ages 19 and Younger) with Less than Adequate Care (Kotelchuck Index) 06-10 DELIVERY LOCATION 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Dominican Hospital 22% 24% 25% 27% 18% -4.0 Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center 24% 10% 17% 22% 21% -3.0 Watsonville Community Hospital 32% 46% 42% 35% 38% 6.0 Santa Cruz County 30% 38% 35% 32% 32% 2.0 Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. (July 2011). Unpublished Data.

24 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Kotelchuck Index.” 78 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health BIRTH WEIGHT Large percentages of babies born at low birth weight in a community may indicate a need for improving the health of pregnant mothers through prenatal care services and reducing environmental stressors.25 In Santa Cruz County, the percentage of all births born at low birth weight was 5.7% in 2010, down from 6.5% in 2009. The percentage of low births weight deliveries to teen mothers remained higher than in the general population except in 2006 and 2010. Percent of Births with Babies Born at Low Birth Weight1, Santa Cruz County

10% Percent of All Births 7.8% 7.0% 6.9% 4.5% 5.7% Percent of Births to Teens (Ages 15-19) 5% 6.5% 5.8% 6.3% 5.5% 5.4%

0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. (July 2011). Unpublished Data. 1 Babies born weighing less than 2,500 grams. Percent of Low Birth Weight Deliveries, All Births 00-10 DELIVERY LOCATION 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Dominican Hospital 7.0% 8.9% 9.3% 10.6% 9.1% 2.1 Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center 2.2% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 0.9% -1.3 Watsonville Community Hospital 4.7% 3.7% 5.6% 4.3% 4.3% -0.4 Out of County 19.4% 21.5% 17.7% 34.0% 22.6% 3.2 Non-Hospital 0.0% 1.4% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% NA Santa Cruz County 5.5% 5.8% 6.3% 6.5% 5.7% 0.2 California 6.8% 6.9% 6.8% 6.8% NA NA Source: Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. (July 2011). Unpublished Data. Number and Percent of Low Birth Weight Deliveries, Births to Teens (Ages 15-19) 00-10 BIRTH WEIGHT 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Under 1500 Grams (2.5 lbs.) 3 4 2 5 3 ^ 1500 - 2499 Grams (5.5 lbs.) 11 17 19 20 11 ^ 2500 Grams & Over (Normal) 296 280 283 294 244 -17.6% Santa Cruz County Teen Births 310 301 304 319 258 -16.8% Percent Low Birth Weight 4.5% 7.0% 6.9% 7.8% 5.4% - Source: County of Santa Cruz, Public Health Department. (July 2011). Unpublished Data. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted.

25 Community Health Network. (2011). High‐Risk Newborn— Low Birth weight. Retrieved January 4, 2011 from http://www.ecommunity.com/health/index.aspx?pageid=P02382. © 2011 Applied Survey Research 79 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 BREASTFEEDING According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), breastfeeding has been shown to have a number of health advantages for infants, mothers, families, and society. There is strong evidence that children who are breastfed experience a decreased incidence of infectious disease, a decreased rate of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and enhanced cognitive development. Greater social benefits include decreased annual health care costs, decreased parental absenteeism from work, and a decreased environmental burden. Because of such benefits, the AAP recommends that infants should be exclusively breastfed for at least six months after birth.26

In 2010, a large majority of Santa Cruz County mothers engaged in any in‐hospital breastfeeding (98%), much higher than California overall (91%). Latina mothers had much lower percentages of exclusive in‐hospital breastfeeding (64%), compared to Caucasian (93%) in 2010. Percent of Any In-Hospital Breastfeeding - 2010 98.1% 100% 90.8% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Santa Cruz County California

Source: California Department of Public Health (2011). 2008-2011 California In-Hospital Breastfeeding Statistics as Indicated on the Newborn Screening Test Form. Note: 2010 data presented cannot be compared to data published in prior years due to recent revisions to the NBS data collection tool (NBS Form) as well as changes in their data analysis methodology. Percent of In-Hospital Breastfeeding DELIVERY LOCATION 2010 Dominican Hospital Any Breastfeeding 98.6% Exclusive Breastfeeding 91.0% Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center Any Breastfeeding 98.8% Exclusive Breastfeeding 92.6% Watsonville Community Hospital Any Breastfeeding 97.5% Exclusive Breastfeeding 53.4% Santa Cruz County Any Breastfeeding 98.1% Exclusive Breastfeeding 74.0% California Any Breastfeeding 90.8% Exclusive Breastfeeding 56.8% Source: California Department of Public Health (2011). 2008-2010 California In-Hospital Breastfeeding Statistics as Indicated on the Newborn Screening Test Form. Note: 2010 data presented cannot be compared to data published in prior years due to recent revisions to the NBS data collection tool (NBS Form) as well as changes in their data analysis methodology.

26 American Academy of Pediatrics, Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk, retrieved January 14, 2011. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;115/2/496 80 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health Percent of In-Hospital Breastfeeding by Ethnicity, Santa Cruz County

ETHNICITY 2010 ETHNICITY 2010 Asian White Any Breastfeeding 100% Any Breastfeeding 98.7% Exclusive Breastfeeding 80.9% Exclusive Breastfeeding 93.1% Hispanic/Latina Multiple Race Any Breastfeeding 97.8% Any Breastfeeding 98.6% Exclusive Breastfeeding 63.9% Exclusive Breastfeeding 88.9% Source: California Department of Public Health (2011). 2008-2010 California In-Hospital Breastfeeding Statistics as Indicated on the Newborn Screening Test Form. Note: 2010 data presented cannot be compared to data published in prior years (2004-2008, or 2009) due to recent revisions to the NBS data collection tool (NBS Form) as well as changes in their data analysis methodology. Note: Percents were not calculated for ethnicities with fewer than 20 events. IMMUNIZATION LEVELS

The percent of child care center and kindergarten entrants who had all required immunizations27 decreased from 2000 to 2010. The percentages of Santa Cruz County child care center and kindergarten entrants with all required immunizations continue to be lower than those of California. Percent of Child Care Center and Kindergarten Entrants with All Required Immunizations, Santa Cruz County 100% 92.4% Child Care 88.5% 88.0% 88.4% 88.5% 85.9% 85.3% 82.5% Center Entrants 80% 90.1% Kindergarten 87.8% 87.0% 86.8% 85.1% 84.0% 83.1% 81.4% Entrants 60% 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: California Department of Health Services, Immunization Branch (2011). 2000-2010 Kindergarten Assessment Results. California Department of Health Services, Immunization Branch (2011). 2000-2010 Child Care Assessment Results. Immunization Levels of Child Care Center Entrants1 00-10 CHILD CARE CENTER ENTRANTS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Number of Children 3,095 3,101 3,343 3,263 3,582 3,516 4,576 3,348 253.0 Number of Child Care Centers 70 75 75 77 84 79 85 89 19.0 Percent with Permanent Medical 0.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1 Exemptions Percent with Personal Belief Exemptions 2.1% 4.6% 4.4% 3.1% 4.0% 5.4% 4.8% 7.0% 4.9 Percent Needing One or More 7.5% 11.5% 6.9% 8.2% 7.3% 9.3% 9.2% 11.3% 3.8 Immunizations (Conditional Entrants) Santa Cruz County – Percent with All 92.4% 88.5% 88.0% 88.4% 88.5% 85.1% 85.9% 81.4% -11.0 Required Immunizations California – Percent with All Required 94.1% 94.3% 93.7% 93.6% 93.5% 92.9% 91.9% 90.6% -3.5 Immunizations Source: California Department of Health Services, Immunization Branch (2011). 2000-2010 Child Care Assessment Results. Note: As of July 2001, one dose of Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine or physician-documented disease and/or immunity is required for entry into child care and Kindergarten. 1 Includes children ages 2 years to 4 years, 11 months.

27 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Required Immunizations.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 81 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Immunization Levels of Kindergarten Entrants1 00-10 KINDERGARTEN ENTRANTS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Number of Students 3,359 3,351 3,063 3,309 3,281 2,941 3,371 3,452 - Number of Schools 59 62 57 65 66 58 63 64 - Percent with Permanent Medical 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% -0.1 Exemptions Percent with Personal Belief Exemptions 3.4% 5.4% 4.6% 7.6% 6.3% 7.3% 6.5% 9.8% 6.4 Percent Needing One or More 6.3% 6.5% 8.1% 5.1% 8.9% 6.9% 10.2% 7.6% 1.3 Immunizations (Conditional Entrants) Santa Cruz County – Percent with All 90.1% 87.8% 87.0% 86.8% 84.0% 85.3% 83.1% 82.5% -7.6 Required Immunizations California – Percent with All Required 92.2% 92.3% 92.9% 92.7% 92.1% 91.7% 91.1% 90.7% -1.5 Immunizations Source: California Department of Health Services, Immunization Branch (2011). 2000-2010 Kindergarten Assessment Results. Note: As of July 2001, one dose of Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine or physician-documented disease and/or immunity is required for entry into child care and Kindergarten. 1 Includes children ages 4 years to 6 years, 11 months. DENTAL CARE Since 2003 the percentage of CAP survey respondents with dental insurance decreased from 72% in 2003 to 57% in 2011. Although the majority of CAP survey respondents (87%) reported being able to get dental care they needed in the past year, Caucasian respondents (90%) were significantly more likely than Latino respondents (77%) to receive dental care when they needed it.  Does your health insurance cover dental care? RESPONSE 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 03-11 NET CHANGE Yes 71.6% 64.8% 66.5% 62.4% 57.1% -14.5 No 28.4% 35.2% 33.5% 36.6% 42.9% 14.5 Total Respondents 568 589 628 682 571 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2003-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to respondents answering “Don’t Know.” Note: Question reworded in 2007 from “Do you also have additional health insurance coverage for dental care?”  How many of your children have dental insurance? - 2011 AGE GROUP NONE AT LEAST ONE Children 0 – 5 years old 15.9% 84.1% Children 6 – 17 years old 13.8% 86.2% Children 0-5 N: 2011=107; Children 6-17 N: 2011=169 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Survey question not asked in 2009.  Have you needed dental care in the past year and been unable to receive it? (Respondents answering “Yes”) - 2011 40% 23.5%* 20% 13.2% 9.6%* 0% Overall Caucasian Latino N: Overall=717; Caucasian=504; Latino=159. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents in the past year to have been unable to receive dental care when needed. 82 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health  If you needed dental care and were unable to receive it, why couldn’t you receive it? RESPONSE 2009 2011 Too Expensive 42.4% 41.1% No Insurance 30.5% 26.4% Insurance Wouldn’t Cover It 13.9% 12.5% Couldn’t Afford Co-Pay 4.6% 10.0% Couldn’t Afford Premiums 2.6% 7.9% Other 6.0% 2.2% Total Respondents 127 93 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. MENTAL HEALTH When asked about their mental health, Latino CAP survey respondents (26%) were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents (9%) to feel so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row during the past 12 months that they stopped doing some usual activities.

 During the past 12 months, did you ever feel so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row that you stopped doing some usual activities? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Ethnicity - 2011 40% 26.4%*

20% 13.5% 9.3%*

0% Overall Caucasian Latino

N: Overall=720; Caucasian=504 Latino=161. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to feel so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row during the past 12 months that they stopped doing some usual activities. Percent of Adult Respondents (Ages 18 and Older) Who Indicated that, in the Past 12 Months, They Had … EVENT/REGION 2007 2009 Needed to See a Professional for Problems with Their Emotional/Mental Health or Alcohol/Drug Use Santa Cruz County 19.7% 13.1% California 16.5% 14.3% Seen a Health Care Provider for Problems with Their Emotional/Mental Health or Alcohol/Drug Use Santa Cruz County 16.3% 11.2% California 12.4% 10.9% Taken Prescription Medication for Their Mental Health or Emotional Problems Almost Daily for Two Weeks or More Santa Cruz County 9.2% 10.0% California 10.0% 9.7% Source: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (2011). 2007-2009.California Health Interview Survey. Note: Data presented are the most recent data available.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 83 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 PHYSICAL HEALTH 1 in 3 (30%) Latino CAP survey respondents in 2011 indicated that in general their overall health was “fair” or “poor” compared to 14% of Caucasian respondents, a statistically significant difference. For those whose income was less than $35,000 per year, 30% of survey respondents indicated their health was “fair” or “poor”, compared to only 6% of survey respondents earning $65,500 or more per year, a statistically significant difference.  How would you describe, in general, your overall health? - 2011 Excellent Overall 22.9%* 34.1%* 25.7% 13.1%* 4.1%* Very Good Good Caucasian 24.6%* 37.9%* 23.6% 10.4%* 3.5%* Fair Latino 17.2% 22.3% 30.4% 23.3% 6.9% Poor

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

N: Overall=719; Caucasian=501; Latino=162 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Significantly more Caucasian respondents than Latino respondents had excellent or very good overall health compared to Latino respondents. And significantly more Latino Respondents than Caucasian respondents reported their overall health was fair or poor. PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Physical activity is an important factor in achieving and maintaining good health. The CDC recommends 30 minutes of moderate‐intensity physical activity, five or more times a week for adults, and 60 minutes or more each day for children.21  How many days per week do you engage in physical activity, such as brisk walking or gardening, for a combined total of 30 minutes or more? (Respondents answering “At Least One Day a Week”) By Income Level 100% Overall 96.0% 95.9% 96.0% 95.1% 95.4% $34,999 or less 94.3% 93.1% 92.8% $35,000 to $65,499 91.6% 95.2% 91.1% 93.4% $65,500 or more 89.8% 91.8% 90% 91.2% 90.5% 91.3% 87.1% 88.9% 89.1% 87.0% 87.6% 86.9% 86.5% 86.7% 86.2% 84.4% 83.0% 80% 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2001=705; 2002=684; 2003=699; 2005=706; 2007=711; 2009=848, 2011=720; $34,999 or less N: 2001=257; 2002=280; 2003=311; 2005=267; 2007=176; 2009=164, 2011=276; $35,000 to $65,499 N: 2001=173; 2002=158; 2003=164; 2005=130; 2007=157; 2009=195, 2011=136; $65,500 or more N: 2001=210; 2002=195; 2003=172; 2005=242; 2007=311; 2009=218, 2011=247 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2001-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

21 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Nutrition and Physical Activity. (2010). The Importance of Physical Activity. Retrieved 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov.

84 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health Percentage of Students Achieving Physical Fitness Goals in At Least 5 Out of 6 Fitness Areas by Grade 01-10 GRADE 2001/02 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 NET CHANGE Santa Cruz County 5th Grade 51.7% 55.1% 52.7% 53.9% 55.0% 54.6% 53.0% 54.0% 2.3 7th Grade 52.6% 61.3% 62.2% 63.3% 60.7% 64.2% 63.4% 57.2% 4.6 9th Grade 60.1% 55.8% 63.6% 65.3% 62.6% 66.7% 67.6% 63.1% 3.0 California 5th Grade 48.0% 51.0% 50.8% 52.0% 53.3% 55.1% 55.9% 55.4% 7.4 7th Grade 52.2% 55.4% 55.4% 55.7% 57.1% 59.3% 60.7% 61.8% 9.6 9th Grade 48.0% 52.2% 53.0% 53.8% 56.6% 62.7% 64.8% 66.1% 18.1 Source: California Department of Education. (2011). 2001-2010 Physical Fitness Testing Statewide Research Files. Note: The Fitness Areas include Aerobic Capacity, Body Composition, Abdominal Strength, Trunk Extensor Strength, Upper Body Strength, and Flexibility. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CONSUMPTION Fruits and vegetables provide vitamins, minerals, fiber and other nutrients important to good health. Diets rich in fruits and vegetables may help reduce the risk of chronic disease and cancer. Over half (56%) of CAP survey respondents reported eating 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Fifty‐three percent (53%) of Caucasian respondents (lower than previous years), and 64% of Latino respondents (higher than previous years) reported eating 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day.  Do you eat 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Ethnicity 80% Overall 70.5% Caucasian 64.4%* 61.1% Latino 58.0% 59.1% 60% 55.3% 56.7% 57.1% 55.7% 52.8%* 48.9% 50.8%

40% 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2005=703; 2007=699; 2009=842, 2011=711; Caucasian N: 2005=492; 2007=486; 2009=592, 2011=494; Latino N: 2005=159; 2007=160; 2009=187, 2011=162 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2005-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: A serving is 1 medium apple or a cereal bowl full of salad. Fresh, frozen, canned, 100% juice or dried fruits or vegetables all count. *Significance testing: Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to eat 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day.  Thinking about physical activity and nutrition, do you know what the 5210 campaign1 stands for? RESPONSE 2009 2011 Yes 3.6% 2.1% No 96.4% 97.9% Total Respondents 849 722 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. 1 Please see Appendix II for definition of “5210 Campaign”.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 85 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  How many times in the past 7 days did you eat fast food? (Respondents answering at least once) - 2011 100% 80% 57.6% 60% 38.8% 40% 32.7% 20% 0% Overall Caucasian Latino

Overall N: 2011=717; Caucasian N: 2011=500; Latino N:2011=161 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Survey question was not asked in 2009. OBESITY Based on the Body Mass Index, the percentage of CAP survey respondents who are overweight or obese increased from 50% in 2007 to 57% in 2011. Latinos had higher percentages of overweight/obesity (70%) as compared to Caucasians (54%) in 2011. Moreover, in 2008, Santa Cruz County ranked 40th (1 being the best) out of California’s 66 counties and health jurisdictions22 for overweight children aged less than five years. Over two‐thirds of students in 5th, 7th, and 9th grade in Santa Cruz County schools were considered at healthy weight in 2010.

For adults, overweight is defined as a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 25.0 or greater. The formula for calculating the BMI of adults is: Weight in Pounds BMI =( (Height in inches) x (Height in inches) ) x 703  Overweight and Obese Adult Respondents in Santa Cruz County (Based on BMI) By Ethnicity

100% Overall

80% 71.6% 69.7%* Caucasian Latino 51.9% 55.8% 60% 57.1% 50.3% 54.3%* 40% 49.3% 50.3%

20%

0% 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2007=673; 2009=792, 2011=650; Caucasian N: 2007=473; 2009=570, 2011=470; Latino N: 2007=152; 2009=161, 2011=132 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to be obese.

22 The health jurisdictions include: City of Berkeley, Pasadena, Long Beach, Los Angeles North, Los Angeles South, Los Angeles West and Los Angeles East, and Los Angeles Other. 86 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health Percent of Low-Income Children Under 5 Years and Ages 5-19 Who Are Obese (≥95th Percentile), Santa Cruz County 40% Under 5 Years

Ages 5-19 24.3% 25.9% 23.2% 23.1% 23.8% 22.3% 23.0% 24.4% 20%

15.2% 16.2% 15.6% 15.2% 13.2% 13.5% 15.0% 13.5%

0% 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: Center for Disease Control (2011). 2000-2009 Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance. Growth Indicators by Race/Ethnicity and Age. Note: The data are collected from participants in the Child Health and Disability Prevention Program, which serves Medi-Cal recipients and children/youth with family incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). These data on overweight/obesity capture approximately 22% of low-income (up to 200% FPL) children in California. Percent of Low-Income Children Who Are Obese (≥95th Percentile) 00-09 AGE GROUP/REGION 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 NET CHANGE Children Under 5 Years Santa Cruz County 15.2% 16.2% 13.2% 13.5% 15.6% 15.2% 15.0% 13.5% -1.7 California 16.1% 16.2% 16.3% 15.9% 15.4% 15.5% 15.5% 15.7% -0.4 Children 5-19 Years Santa Cruz County 23.2% 24.3% 23.1% 23.8% 22.3% 23.0% 25.9% 24.4% 1.2 California 19.7% 20.8% 22.4% 22.7% 23.1% 23.1% 22.8% 23.1% 3.4 Source: Center for Disease Control (2011). 2000-2009 Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance. Growth Indicators by Race/Ethnicity and Age. Note: The data are collected from participants in the Child Health and Disability Prevention Program, which serves Medi-Cal recipients and children/youth with family incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). These data on overweight/obesity capture approximately 22% of low-income (up to 200% FPL) children in California. Students at a Healthy Weight,1 by Grade Level 06-10 NET GRADE LEVEL/REGION 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CHANGE 5th Grade Santa Cruz County 65.4% 67.7% 67.2% 68.7% 67.3% 1.9 California 67.4% 67.9% 68.4% 68.4% 68.5% 1.1 7th Grade Santa Cruz County 67.5% 68.1% 68.7% 70.9% 68.2% 0.7 California 67.0% 67.7% 68.4% 68.7% 68.8% 1.8 9th Grade Santa Cruz County 74.2% 72.0% 72.1% 73.2% 71.9% -2.3 California 68.0% 68.7% 69.7% 69.8% 71.3% 3.3 Source: Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health. (2011). Kidsdata.org. 1 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Healthy Weight”.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 87 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 DIABETES Diabetes affects 25.8 million people of all ages in the US, about 8% of the US population. It is a major cause of heart disease and stroke and is the seventh leading cause of death in the nation.23 In Santa Cruz County, the percentage of CAP survey respondents who reported that a doctor had told them that they had diabetes or pre‐diabetes (other than during pregnancy) increased from 10% in 2007 to 12% in 2011.  Other than during pregnancy, has a doctor ever told you that you have diabetes or pre-diabetes? (Respondents answering “Yes”) 12.3% Overall 15% 12.2% 12.2% 11.8% Caucasian 10% 9.7% 11.7% 12.6% 10.7% Latino 5% 9.1% 0% 2007 2009 2011 Over all N: 2007=700; 2009=849, 2011=716 Latino N: 2007= 159: 2009= 593:2011= 162: Caucasian N: 2007= 159: 2009=191: 2011= 498. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  If a doctor has told you that you have diabetes or pre-diabetes, were you told it was: 80% 53.9% 59.4% 62.4% Diabetes 60% 40% Pre-Diabetes 20% 46.1% 40.6% 37.6% 0% 2007 2009 2011 N: 2007=64; 2009=98, 2011=82 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Percent of Adult Respondents (Ages 18 and Older) Who Have Ever Been Diagnosed with Diabetes 03-09 REGION 2003 2005 2007 2009 NET CHANGE Santa Cruz County 4.1% 3.5% 7.3%^ 4.3% 0.2 California 6.6% 7.0% 7.8% 8.5% 1.9 Source: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (2011). 2003-2009 California Health Interview Survey. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Statistically unstable due to a low number of respondents. Adult Respondents (Ages 18 and Older) with Diabetes, By Type 03-09 TYPE/REGION 2003 2005 2007 2009 NET CHANGE Type 1 Santa Cruz County 13.2%^ 30.8%^ 9.9%^ 14.7%^ 1.5 California 15.7% 17.4% 12.9% 14.9% -0.8 Type 2 Santa Cruz County 86.8% 69.2% 90.1% 82.3% -4.5 California 84.3% 82.6% 87.1% 82.8% -1.5 Source: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (2011). 2003-2009 California Health Interview Survey. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^Statistically unstable due to a low number of respondents.

23 US Department of Health and Human Services. National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse (NDIC). (2011). National Diabetes Statistics. Retrieved September 2011 from www.diabetes.niddk.nih.gov. 88 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health ALCOHOL USE In 2009, 52% of Americans age 12 and older had used alcohol at least once in the 30 days prior to being surveyed and 24% had engaged in binge drinking (5 or more drinks within 2 hours).24 Thirteen percent (13%) of CAP survey respondents engaged in binge drinking “one or more times” in the past 30 days in 2011.  Considering all types of alcoholic beverages, during the past 30 days about how many times did you have 5 or more drinks on an occasion? An occasion is considered about 2 hours. (Respondents answering “One or more times”) 20% 10.7% 12.2% 10% 16.7% 12.9% 0% 2005 2007 2009 2011 N: 2005=705; 2007=707; 2009=848, 2011=719 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2005-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. AVAILABILITY OF ALCOHOL The number of retail alcohol outlets25 has been demonstrated to significantly correlate with assault rates, or higher crime.26 Over the past decade, the number of retail alcohol outlets in Santa Cruz County and California remained virtually the same. However, Santa Cruz County consistently had a higher rate of retail alcohol outlets in 2010 (around 2.5 per 1,000) than California (around 1.9 per 1,000). Number of Retail Alcohol Outlets1 APRIL APRIL JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE 01-10 INDICATOR 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Retail Alcohol Outlets – Santa Cruz 641 633 634 634 631 638 647 689 7.5% County Retail Alcohol Outlets – California 71,216 66,9922 68,072 68,953 69,891 70,813 71,087 71,599 0.5% Outlets per 1,000 People - Santa Cruz 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 - County Outlets per 1,000 People - California 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 - Source: California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (2011). 2001-2011 Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Report. California Department of Finance (2011). 2001-2011 E-1: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change. 1Includes both on-sale and off-sale outlets. 2 As of 2003, a more accurate calculation of total California wholesale and retail alcohol outlets was performed, and this accounts for the apparent reduction in the total number of California outlets. Retail Alcohol Outlets, by City - 2010 INDICATOR UNINCORPORATED CAPITOLA SANTA CRUZ WATSONVILLE SCOTTS VALLEY Number of Retail Outlets 240 59 245 104 40 Outlets per 1,000 People 1.7 5.8 4.1 2.0 3.4 Percentage of County Retail Outlets 34.8% 8.6% 35.6% 15.1% 5.8% Source: California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (2011). 2011 Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Report. California Department of Finance (2011). 2011 E-1: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change.

24 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. (2010). Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Volume I. Summary of National Findings. Retrieved November 2011 from http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k9nsduh/2k9resultsp.pdf. 25 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Retail Alcohol Outlets.” 26 Gruenewald et al. (1995). Ecological models of alcohol outlets and violent assaults: crime potentials and geospatial analysis. Society for the Study of Addiction, 2006. © 2011 Applied Survey Research 89 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  How much of an impact has drug and alcohol abuse had in your neighborhood? (Respondents answering “Big Impact”) By Region - 2011 100%

80%

60%

40% 17.5% 16.5% 20% 14.4% 11.5%

0% Overall North County South County SLV N: Overall=680 North County=259; South County=215; SLV=210. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. ACCEPTANCE OF ADULT ALCOHOL PROVISION One in five CAP survey respondents (21%) reported feeling that it is “very” or “somewhat” acceptable for adults to provide alcohol to underage youth in their home. Twenty‐four percent (24%) of Caucasian survey respondents felt it is “very” or “somewhat” acceptable for adults to provide alcohol to underage youth in their home compared to only 11% of Latino respondents, a statistically significant difference.  How acceptable do you think it is for adults to provide alcohol to underage youth in their home? (Respondents answering “Very acceptable” or “Somewhat acceptable”) By Ethnicity 40% Overall 22.1% 24.0%* Caucasian 20% 20.4% 21.2% Latino

13.5% 11.4%* 0% 2009 2011

2009 N: Overall=700; Caucasian= 582; Latino=187. 2011 N: Overall=700; Caucasian= 482; Latino=162 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to think that it is unacceptable for adults to provide alcohol to underage youth in their home. COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE OF MARIJUANA USE Overall, the percentage of CAP survey respondents who reported feeling that marijuana use for recreational or non‐medicinal use is “acceptable” decreased from 55% in 2003 to 50% in 2011. Significantly more Caucasian respondents found it acceptable to use marijuana than Latino respondents, and significantly more San Lorenzo Valley respondents found it acceptable to use marijuana than in South County respondents.

90 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health  How acceptable do you find the use of marijuana for recreational or non-medicinal use? (Respondents answering “Very Acceptable” or “Somewhat Acceptable”) 100% Very Acceptable

80% Somewhat Acceptable

60% 55.1% 48.5% 50.3% 49.1% 52.6% 49.9% 44.0% 44.5% 40% 13.3% 23.7% 28.3% 25.6% 33.5% 29.2% 17.5% 13.3% 20% 31.2% 36.6% 24.8% 22.0% 23.5% 21.6% 23.4% 26.5% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2000=657; 2001=700; 2002=681; 2003=693; 2005=680; 2007=688; 2009=833, 2011=690 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: “Very” was added to the response option “Very acceptable” in 2011.

 How acceptable do you find the use of marijuana for recreational or non-medicinal use? (Respondents answering “Very Acceptable” or “Somewhat Acceptable”) by Ethnicity 80% Overall 59.9%* 52.8% Caucasian 60% Latino 49.9% 40% 44.5% 20% 20.2% 20.3%* 0% 2009 2011 2009 N: Overall=700; Caucasian= 582; Latino=187. 2011 N: Overall=690; Caucasian= 479; Latino=159 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to think that it is very or somewhat acceptable for recreational or non-medicinal use of marijuana. Note: “Very” was added to the response option “Very acceptable” in 2011.

 How acceptable do you find the use of marijuana for recreational or non-medicinal use? (Respondents answering “Very Acceptable”) by Region

00-11 REGION 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE North County 29.8% 35.0% 30.4% 44.6% 31.5% 17.0% 16.0% 15.8%* -14.0 South County 13.3% 16.5% 16.1% 16.8% 25.8% 13.7% 8.7% 7.0%* -6.3 San Lorenzo Valley 23.2% 37.9% 34.7% 38.7% 35.2% 29.7% 16.4% 24.7%* 1.5 North County N: 2000=346; 2001=202; 2002=232; 2003=233; 2005=229; 2007=228; 2009=334, 2011=257; South County N: 2000=195; 2001=288; 2002=226; 2003=239; 2005=231; 2007=237; 2009=281, 2011=225; SLV N: 2000=112; 2001=210; 2002=222; 2003=221; 2005=218; 2007=227; 2009=217, 2011=209 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: San Lorenzo Valley respondents were significantly more likely than North and South County respondents to find the use of marijuana for recreational or non- medicinal use acceptable in 2011. Note: “Very” was added to the response option “Very acceptable” in 2011.

Overall, the percentage of Santa Cruz County 11th grade students who have smoked cigarettes in the last 30 days decreased from 19% in 2000/01 to 14% in 2008/09. 9th and 11th grade students using smokeless tobacco in the last 30 days increased to 6% in the county, greater than California at 4% in 2008/09. Percent of Students Who Reported Using Cigarettes in the Last 30 Days, By Grade SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2006/07 2008/09 00-09 NET CHANGE 7th Grade 6% 5% 5% 4% 6% 0.0 9th Grade 13% 9% 11% 10% 12% -1.0 11th Grade 19% 11% 18% 14% 14% -5.0

CALIFORNIA1 2003/05 2004/06 2005/07 2006/08 2007/09 2008/10 03-10 NET CHANGE 7th Grade 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 1.0 9th Grade 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 10% 1.0 11th Grade 13% 14% 13% 14% 13% 13% 0.0 Source: West Ed for California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 California Healthy Kids Survey, Santa Cruz County. Note: Data are weighted. Data presented are the most recent available. 1 Data for previous years in California are not available, as the survey instrument has changed. Percent of Students Who Reported Using Smokeless Tobacco in the Last 30 Days, By Grade SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 2000/01 2004/05 2006/07 2008/09 00-09 NET CHANGE 7th Grade NA 2% 2% 3% - 9th Grade 3% 4% 4% 6% 3 11th Grade 3% 4% 5% 6% 3

CALIFORNIA1 2003/05 2004/06 2005/07 2006/08 2007/09 2008/10 03-10 NET CHANGE 7th Grade 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1.0 9th Grade 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 2.0 11th Grade 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 1.0 Source: West Ed for California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 California Healthy Kids Survey, Santa Cruz County. Note: Data are weighted. Data presented are the most recent available. 1 Data for previous years in California are not available, as the survey instrument has changed. METHAMPHETAMINE ADMISSIONS When asked about how big of an impact methamphetamine use has had in their neighborhood, the percentage of CAP survey respondents who believed methamphetamine use had had a “big impact” or “somewhat of an impact” increased from 31% in 2009 to 35% in 2011. Yet, 2009/10 methamphetamine treatment admissions decreased from the previous year in both Santa Cruz County and statewide.

92 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health  How big of an impact has methamphetamine use had in your neighborhood? (Respondents answering “A Big Impact” or “Somewhat”) By Region 100% 2009 80% 2011 60% 43.0% 46.0%* 34.5% 33.8% 33.0% 40% 30.9% 25.9% 30.9%* 20% 0% Overall North County South County SLV

2009 N: Overall=853; North County=340; South County=289; SLV=223; 2011 N: Overall=639; North County=245; South County=198; SLV=206. Source: Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey, 2011. *Significance testing: SLV respondents were significantly more likely to report methamphetamine use having a big or somewhat big impact in their neighborhood compared to South County respondents. Methamphetamine Treatment Admissions FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 01-10 AREA 2001/02 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 % CHANGE Santa Cruz County 361 445 631 771 775 600 524 363 0.6% California 61,038 73,128 79,088 70,077 79,769 69,174 61,663 49,268 -19.3% Source: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Office of Applied Research and Analysis, 2011. Note: This table presents the number of annual admissions for which methamphetamine was the primary drug of abuse. PRESCRIPTION DRUG USE In 2011, 2% of CAP survey respondents reported using a prescription medication without a prescription. There were no significant differences between income, gender, race/ethnicity, or region.  During the past 30 days, on how many days have you taken prescription medication without a prescription? RESPONSE 2011 None 97.8% 1 1.1% 2 0.4% 3 0.2% 4 0.1% 6 0.2% 30 0.1% N:720 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. SUBSTANCE USE BY STUDENTS

Alcohol use among Santa Cruz County 11th grade students decreased over the past ten years from 51% in 2000/01 to 41% in 2008/09. However, the use of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, inhalants, and psychedelics went up for 9th graders between 2000/01 and 2008/09.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 93 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Percent of 11th Grade Students Who Reported Using Alcohol1 or Marijuana in the Past 30 Days, Santa Cruz County 60% 51% 46% 47% 44% 41% Alcohol Use 40% Marijuana Use

20% 32% 25% 29% 26% 30% 0% 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2006/07 2008/09

Source: West Ed for California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2009 California Healthy Kids Survey, Santa Cruz County. Note: Data are weighted. 1 Alcohol use refers to at least one drink. Self-Reported Drug and Alcohol Use Among Youth in the Past 30 Days, Santa Cruz County 2000/ 2002/ 2004/ 2006/ 2008/ 00-09 NET 2000/ 2002/ 2004/ 2006/ 2008/ 00-09 NET SUBSTANCE 01 03 05 07 09 CHANGE SUBSTANCE 01 03 05 07 09 CHANGE Alcohol1 Methamphetamines/Amphetamines 7th Grade 18% 13% 16% 15% 18% 0.0 7th Grade2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 9th Grade 39% 31% 33% 33% 34% -5.0 9th Grade 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 1.0 11th Grade 51% 46% 47% 44% 41% -10.0 11th Grade 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 0.0 Marijuana Inhalants 7th Grade 7% 6% 6% 7% 10% 3.0 7th Grade 4% 5% 3% 5% 8% 4.0 9th Grade 22% 19% 18% 20% 26% 4.0 9th Grade 5% 5% 5% 5% 8% 3.0 11th Grade 32% 25% 29% 26% 30% -2.0 11th Grade 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 0.0 Cocaine Psychedelics (Includes Ecstasy, LSD, or other psychedelics) 7th Grade2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7th Grade2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 9th Grade 4% 3% 3% 3% 6% 2.0 9th Grade 4% 4% 3% 3% 8% 4.0 11th Grade 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% -1.0 11th Grade 5% 3% 3% 3% 7% 2.0 Source: West Ed for California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2009 California Healthy Kids Survey, Santa Cruz County. Note: Data are weighted. Data presented are the most recent available. 1 Alcohol use refers to at least one drink. 2 Questions regarding use of Methamphetamines and Psychedelics were not asked of 7th middle school students.

Self-Reported Drug and Alcohol Use Among Youth in the Past 30 Days, California 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 03-10 NET 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 03-10 NET SUBSTANCE 05 06 07 08 09 10 CHANGE SUBSTANCE 05 06 07 08 09 10 CHANGE Alcohol1 Methamphetamines/Amphetamines 7th Grade 13% 13% 13% 14% 15% 14% 1.0 7th Grade2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9th Grade 27% 28% 27% 26% 27% 25% -2.0 9th Grade 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1.0 11th Grade 37% 37% 37% 37% 36% 34% -3.0 11th Grade 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1.0 Marijuana Inhalants 7th Grade 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 2.0 7th Grade 4% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 2.0 9th Grade 12% 12% 12% 12% 13% 15% 3.0 9th Grade 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 2.0 11th Grade 16% 16% 16% 18% 19% 20% 4.0 11th Grade 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 2.0 Cocaine Psychedelics (Includes Ecstasy, LSD, or other psychedelics) 7th Grade2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7th Grade2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9th Grade 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1.0 9th Grade 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 5% 3.0 11th Grade 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1.0 11th Grade 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 6% 4.0 Source: West Ed for California Department of Education (2011). 2003-2010 California Healthy Kids Survey, Santa Cruz County. Note: Data are weighted. Data presented are the most recent available. 1 Alcohol use refers to at least one drink. 2 Questions regarding use of Methamphetamines and Psychedelics were not asked of 7th middle school students. 94 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health

UNINTENTIONAL INJURIES The rate of nonfatal unintentional injuries in Santa Cruz County decreased between 2001 (2.5 per 1,000) and 2009 (2.1 per 1,000). Total unintentional injuries in the county were down 17% from 2001 to 2009. There was a decrease in falls and motor vehicle injuries between 2001 and 2009. Unintentional Non-Fatal Injuries (Ages 0-20) by Age Group AGE GROUP 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 01-09 % CHANGE Under 1 Year 10 6 11 9 8 5 10 ^ 1- 4 Years 25 27 29 28 27 30 33 32.0% 5-12 Years 53 31 34 31 32 35 22 -58.5% 13-15 Years 30 22 32 19 26 20 15 ^ 16-20 Years 70 55 68 67 66 55 65 -7.1% Santa Cruz County Total Ages 0-20 188 141 174 154 159 145 145 -22.9% Rate per 1,000 – Santa Cruz County 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.1 - Rate per 1,000 – California 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 - Source: California Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development. (2011). 2001-2009 Inpatient Discharge Data. State of California, Department of Finance (2011). 2001-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Unintentional Non-Fatal Injuries (Ages 0-20), Santa Cruz County CAUSE OF INJURY 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 01-09 % CHANGE Falls 64 52 53 42 52 38 37 -42.2% Motor Vehicle Traffic 47 29 35 41 37 31 34 -27.7% Poisoning 16 16 16 10 10 11 19 ^ Struck by Object 10 6 8 10 11 11 12 ^ Firearms 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 NA Source: California Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development. (2011). 2001-2009 Inpatient Discharge Data.State of California, Department of Finance (2011). 2001-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. INTENTIONAL INJURIES There were 47 intentional non‐fatal injuries for ages 0‐20 in 2001, decreasing to 35 in 2009. Number of Intentional Non-Fatal Injuries (Ages 0-20) AGE GROUP 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 01-09 % CHANGE Under 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA 1 to 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 5 to 12 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 ^ 13 to 15 10 6 2 6 8 5 6 ^ 16 to 20 34 27 29 27 37 35 28 -17.6% Santa Cruz County Total (Ages 0-20) 47 34 32 36 45 41 35 -25.5% Rate per 1,000 – Santa Cruz County 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 - Rate per 1,000 – California 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 - Source: California Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development. (2011). 2001-2009 Inpatient Discharge Data. State of California, Department of Finance (2011) 2001-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 95 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Number of Intentional Non-Fatal Injuries for Persons (Ages 0-20), Santa Cruz County CAUSE OF INJURY 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Self-Inflicted 33 21 13 18 26 13 17 Cut/Pierce 3 2 1 0 3 2 3 Poisoning 30 18 12 18 19 9 12 Other (Jump) 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 Hanging/Suffocation 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Assault 14 13 19 18 19 28 18 Blunt Object 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 Cut/ Pierce 10 10 12 9 13 16 11 Fight, Unarmed 2 1 1 0 2 3 1 Firearm 2 1 2 4 2 3 5 Other (Abuse & Neglect) 0 0 2 3 0 5 1 Total 47 34 32 36 45 41 35 Source: California Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development. (2011). 2001-2009 Inpatient Discharge Data. Note: Intentional injuries include intentional self-harm/suicide and assault/homicide injuries. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. REPORTED COMMUNICABLE DISEASES Communicable diseases are an indicator of a community’s overall health and are largely preventable and/or treatable. Over the past decade, the most commonly reported communicable disease in Santa Cruz County was Chlamydia, which increased 26% from 2000. Gonorrhea and Whooping Cough were also up from 2000/02 to 2008/10 (35% and 47%, respectively). Reported Cases of Communicable Diseases, Three Year Averages, Santa Cruz County 00-10 DISEASE 2000/02 2002/04 2004/06 2005/07 2006/08 2007/09 2008/10 % CHANGE Chlamydia 547 566 598 621 647 657 690 26.1% Gonorrhea 40 58 86 89 72 68 54 35.0% Hepatitis A1 15 10 3 2 2 2 1 ^ Hepatitis B (Acute)1 5 3 3 3 3 2 1 ^ Lyme Disease 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 ^ Measles1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA Pertussis (Whooping 30 47 42 33 25 20 44 46.7% Cough)1 Salmonellosis 44 43 37 35 45 52 49 11.4% Shigellosis 18 27 23 20 11 8 6 ^ Syphilis (Infections) 1 8 7 5 4 6 9 ^ Tuberculosis (Active) 6 8 9 9 9 8 7 ^ Source: Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency (2011). 2000-2010 Communicable Disease Morbidity Comparisons. 1 Vaccine-preventable. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted.

96 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is the final stage of Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. People at this stage of HIV disease have badly damaged immune systems, which put them at risk for opportunistic infections. AIDS requires medical intervention and treatment to prevent death. Newly diagnosed cases of AIDS have decreased, from 23 cases in 2000 to 2 in 2010. Newly Diagnosed Cases of AIDS ETHNICITY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 African American 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Caucasian 13 11 9 8 10 4 3 0 Hispanic 7 6 5 5 6 0 4 2 Native American 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Other/Unknown 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz County Total 23 18 15 14 16 4 9 2 Source: Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency Public Health Division (2011). 2000-2010 HIV /AIDS in Santa Cruz County. (Personal Correspondence with Program Representative, June 2011). Note: AIDS cases are attributed to the year in which the criteria for case definition were met, rather than to the year in which the disease was reported. Cases may thus be attributed retroactively, for example, to 1997 even if not reported until 2000. Updates are continual. SUICIDES The suicide age‐adjusted death rate decreased slightly in Santa Cruz County between 2001/03 (13 per 100,000) and 2009 (12 per 100,000), but did not meet the Healthy People 2020 National Objectives27 (10 per 100,000). Suicide Age-Adjusted Death Rate per 100,000 Population, Three-Year Averages HEALTHY PEOPLE 2020 NATIONAL 01-09 AREA 2001/03 2003/05 2004/06 2005/07 2006/08 2007/09 OBJECTIVE NET CHANGE Santa Cruz County 13.0 12.7 10.5 10.4 10.8 12.4 -0.6 10.2 California 9.5 9.2 9.0 9.0 9.4 9.6 0.1 Source: California Department of Public Health (2011). 2001-2009 County Health Status Profiles. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Number of Suicides AGE GROUP 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Under 18 Years 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 18-29 Years 3 6 4 2 5 1 8 7 30-39 Years 5 2 3 4 6 2 4 3 40-49 Years 8 12 10 5 8 10 12 4 50-59 Years 6 7 5 2 14 12 7 9 60 Years & Older 11 9 10 10 6 6 5 16 Unknown 0 0 NA NA 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz County Total 34 36 33 24 40 31 36 40 Source: 2000-2002 data: Santa Cruz County Coroner's Office, 2003-2010 data: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office, 2011. (Personal Correspondence with Program Representative, June 2011). Note: Percentage change calculations are not included as calculations based on small number of cases are unstable and can be misinterpreted.

27 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Healthy People 2020 Objectives.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 97 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH Monitoring the causes of death is important for planning prevention activities and helps inform both the public and health practitioners about health risks and areas for prevention. The top four leading causes of death were heart disease, cancer (especially lung cancer), stroke, and unintentional injuries in 2007/09. Drug‐related deaths in the county were higher than the state and Health People 2020 objectives. Breast cancer in the county was also higher than the state and Healthy People 2020 objectives, and according to the community health guide was an area for concern in comparison to the US and similar demographic (peer) counties’ death rate.

Disparities were seen between Hispanic and Caucasian death rates, in which higher death rates for Hispanic residents occurred in diseases of the liver and type 2 diabetes. Caucasians had higher death rates for unintentional injuries and suicide. For youth ages 15‐24, the leading cause of death over the last decade was unintentional injuries. Age-Adjusted Death Rate per 100,000 Population by Cause of Death, Three-Year Averages HEALTHY PEOPLE 2020 NATIONAL 00-09 CAUSE OF DEATH 2000/02 2001/03 2003/05 2004/06 2005/07 2006/08 2007/09 OBJECTIVE NET CHANGE Coronary Heart Disease Santa Cruz County 132.1 141.8 134.7 119.9 113.2 112.5 114.5 -17.6 100.8 California 186.0 175.9 162.6 154.0 145.2 137.1 128.0 -58.0 All Cancers Santa Cruz County 147.3 163.2 171.7 166.8 166.7 164.6 168.5 21.2 160.6 California 172.7 169.6 165.1 161.3 159.3 155.9 154.0 -18.7 Lung Cancer Santa Cruz County 37.6 42.7 45.6 41.3 37.9 36.1 39.3 1.7 45.5 California 44.8 43.8 41.5 40.2 39.2 38.1 37.2 -7.6 Breast Cancer Santa Cruz County 19.9 22.0 27.1 26.5 26.92 28.0 25.8 5.9 20.6 California 24.1 23.4 22.7 22.1 21.7 21.2 21.2 -2.9 Stroke Santa Cruz County 45.5 48.5 48.8 42.1 38.1 35.9 38.9 -6.6 33.8 California 58.9 55.6 51.7 47.8 43.5 40.8 38.4 -20.5 Drug-Related Santa Cruz County 10.3 10.9 10.5 10.9 11.9 12.1 11.6 1.3 11.3 California 8.6 9.4 9.6 10.3 10.5 10.6 10.7 2.1 Unintentional Injuries Santa Cruz County 24.6 26.3 29.3 31.2 32.6 34.2 32.5 7.9 36.0 California 27.6 28.6 29.5 30.2 30.4 29.7 28.7 1.1 Suicide Santa Cruz County 12.0 13.0 12.7 10.5 10.4 10.8 12.4 0.4 10.2 California 9.5 9.5 9.2 9.0 9.0 9.4 9.6 0.1 Firearm-Related Santa Cruz County 7.8^ 7.2^ 5.7^ 5.3^ 5.3^ 5.4^ 5.9^ -1.9 9.2 California 9.5 9.6 9.4 9.2 8.9 8.5 8.2 -1.3 Homicide Santa Cruz County 3.1^ 3.3^ 2.8^ 3.0^ 2.6^ 2.8^ 2.2^ -0.9 5.5 California 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.3 5.8 -0.7 Motor Vehicle Crashes Santa Cruz County 9.5 11.0 10.2 9.7 9.9 10.4 9.5 0.0 12.4 California 11.1 12.0 11.7 11.9 11.1 10.3 9.2 -1.9 Deaths Due to All Causes Santa Cruz County 659.5 709.4 699.8 670.5 671.7 669.8 686.8 27.3 None Set California 745.0 729.0 716.7 697.5 683.5 666.4 647.2 -97.8 Source: California Department of Public Health (2011). 2000-2009 Death Statistical Master Files. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Death rate unreliable, relative standard of error is greater than or equal to 23%.

98 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Health Age-Adjusted Death Rate per 100,000 Population by Selected Ethnicities, Santa Cruz County 01-09 CAUSE OF DEATH 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 NET CHANGE Cancer White 174.1 173.7 189.2 174.9 194.9 176.4 195.2 21.1 Hispanic 94.6 148.3 111.5 98.0 104.9 140.4 128.6 34.0 Diseases of the Heart & Circulatory System White 298.1 287.2 239.3 230.6 251.9 237.7 248.2 -49.9 Hispanic 182.9 207.6 171.7 208.8 192.0 208.4 189.6 6.7 Diseases of the Liver White 11.4 11.9 11.9 16.7 10.0 17.9 14.9 3.5 Hispanic 18.0 22.8 21.7 17.6 22.4 24.8 21.2 3.2 Diabetes Mellitus (type 2) White 15.6 12.1 15.1 13.8 15.9 19.3 17.8 2.2 Hispanic 32.9 17.5 55.1 25.7 13.2 32.1 32.5 -0.4 Pneumonia White 20.6 23.1 24.8 14.2 16.0 9.1 15.6 -5.0 Hispanic 7.1 20.5 11.3 10.6 16.1 24.3 14.0 6.9 Emphysema White 6.5 5.9 14.7 8.2 5.1 7.6 7.5 1.0 Hispanic 7.1 0.0 4.8 9.2 0.0 4.1 4.0 -3.1 HIV/AIDS White 2.1 3.5 3.6 2.2 1.1 2.2 2.2 0.1 Hispanic 1.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.5 2.5 Unintentional Injuries White 24.6 27.7 28.5 41.5 37.6 34.7 33.4 8.8 Hispanic 38.5 30.7 36.7 36.8 36.1 32.2 25.2 -13.3 Suicide White 16.5 19.1 12.3 10.2 16.7 16.4 19.8 3.3 Hispanic 1.0 1.0 3.9 3.7 9.1 3.1 3.6 2.6 Homicide White 4.0 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.5 0.7 -3.3 Hispanic 6.2 5.4 1.7 9.6 0.0 3.3 5.8 -0.4 Deaths Due to All Causes White 766.1 762.8 730.6 703.7 746.9 717.0 773.0 6.9 Hispanic 523.2 560.9 527.3 554.8 476.1 614.8 578.0 54.8 Source: California Department of Public Health (2011). 2001-2009 County Health Status Profiles. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Note: Age-adjusted death rates were calculated using the 2000 U.S. Standard Population.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 99 Health Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Selected Leading Causes of Death by Age Group, Santa Cruz County CAUSE OF DEATH 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Children Under Age 1 Year Conditions Originating in the Perinatal Period 30 34 33 35 38 40 58 Congenital Malformations & Chromosomal 5 3 3 6 4 3 2 Abnormalities Cancer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diseases of the Heart & Circulatory System 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Unintentional Injuries 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Homicide 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 All Causes 13 15 14 15 19 8 8 Children Ages 1-4 Years Congenital Malformations & Chromosomal 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 Abnormalities Cancer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diseases of the Heart & Circulatory System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unintentional Injuries 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Homicide 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 All Causes 2 2 1 1 4 3 0 Children Ages 5-14 Years Congenital Malformations & Chromosomal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormalities Cancer 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 Diseases of the Heart & Circulatory System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unintentional Injuries 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 Homicide 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 All Causes 7 5 2 5 3 5 4 Youth Ages 15-24 Years Congenital Malformations & Chromosomal 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Abnormalities Cancer 0 1 4 0 2 1 3 Diseases of the Heart & Circulatory System 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Unintentional Injuries 10 10 13 7 15 17 7 Homicide 3 2 1 1 0 2 4 All Causes 18 20 28 10 28 27 21 Source: California Department of Public Health (2011). 2001-2009 County Health Status Profiles. Death Statistical Data, Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

Public Safety Snapshot Law Enforcement Effectiveness ...... 112 of Santa Cruz County ...... 102 Fire Response ...... 113 Public Safety Community Goals ...... 102 Family Violence ...... 114 Crime Rate  ...... 103 Elder Abuse ...... 116 Jail Population Characteristics ...... 106 Child Abuse  ...... 117 Juvenile Arrests  ...... 107 Foster Care Placements ...... 118 Concern About Crime/ Driving Under the Influence ...... 119 Neighborhood Safety  ...... 109 Drug Arrests ...... 120 Police Officers ...... 111 Disaster Preparedness ...... 122 Police Response ...... 112

OVERALL RECENT INDICATOR MEASUREMENT DATA TREND TREND

CRIME RATE Crime rate (per 1,000 Residents) 39.6

JUVENILE ARRESTS Juvenile arrest rate (per 1,000 youth ages 10-17) 69.2

Percent of CAP survey respondents who reported FAMILY VIOLENCE that a family member or friend experienced domestic 10.4% NA NA violence in the last year Rate of substantiated cases of child abuse (per CHILD ABUSE 7.6 1,000 youth ages 0-17)

GOAL: By the year 2015, more youth will be involved in prevention and positive social activities and fewer youth will enter the juvenile delinquency system. » Community Hero: Monica DaCosta, Unity Temple of Santa Cruz » Community Hero: Garrett Neier, The Museum of Art & History @ the McPherson Center » Community Hero: Sergeant Michael Harms, Santa Cruz City Police Department

GOAL: By the year 2015, adult and juvenile violence, including family violence and gang violence, will decrease, as will the impact of violence in the community. » Community Hero: Vicki Assegued, Santa Cruz County Probation Department » Community Hero: Carmen Arriaga-Kumasaka, Catholic Charities » Community Hero: Elizabeth Schilling, Live Oak Family Resource Center .

102 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Public Safety CRIME RATE Total crime increased from 34 crimes per 1,000 residents in 2000 to 40 crimes in 2009 in the county overall. Robberies in Santa Cruz County have increased by 30% since 2000. Property crime increased for all types, with motor vehicle theft being the highest increase by 63% from 2000 to 2009, especially in Watsonville. The city of Santa Cruz had an increase in total crime of 21% while Scotts Valley had a 21% drop. Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents 60 Santa Cruz County 45.0 43.5 40.1 41.8 39.7 39.6 California 38.0 35.6 40 40.3 39.0 34.3 39.9 37.7 36.1 34.8 20 32.2

0 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2011). 2000-2009 E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2000-2010, with 2000 and 2010 Census Counts. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents by Jurisdiction TYPE OF CRIME 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09 NET CHANGE Violent Crime Rate1 City of Capitola 6.2 6.7 7.1 7.2 6.3 8.7 10.1 10.9 4.7 City of Santa Cruz 10.0 8.4 8.7 8.9 7.0 8.4 7.7 7.6 -2.4 City of Scotts Valley ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ NA City of Watsonville 6.9 6.8 6.0 4.9 6.2 7.9 7.0 6.9 0.0 Unincorporated 1.6 1.7 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.6 2.3 0.7 Santa Cruz County3 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.4 4.1 4.7 4.7 4.5 -0.1 Property Crime Rate2 City of Capitola 19.0 30.6 36.5 37.4 34.6 31.8 22.1 22.4 3.4 City of Santa Cruz 19.9 25.6 24.0 26.7 28.4 21.3 17.7 24.9 5.0 City of Scotts Valley 11.5 10.2 8.9 14.8 12.6 10.3 9.9 11.2 -0.3 City of Watsonville 15.8 15.5 14.9 19.2 17.8 19.4 16.9 17.3 1.5 Unincorporated 8.4 9.4 11.0 13.0 12.1 11.6 11.0 12.2 3.8 Santa Cruz County3 13.3 15.8 17.3 20.2 19.2 17.1 15.4 17.7 4.4 Total Crime City of Capitola 67.4 98.3 106.9 108.3 102.3 92.6 72.5 74.7 7.3 City of Santa Cruz 54.6 65.9 62.4 65.0 64.0 51.2 44.0 60.5 5.9 City of Scotts Valley 32.7 29.0 24.8 32.3 30.7 24.9 24.9 25.6 -7.1 City of Watsonville 43.1 48.0 43.8 46.8 47.4 53.5 44.2 43.0 -0.1 Unincorporated 17.9 18.8 22.4 24.4 22.8 21.0 20.7 21.6 3.7 Santa Cruz County3 34.3 39.9 41.8 45.0 43.5 39.7 35.6 39.6 5.3 California 38.0 40.1 40.3 39.0 37.7 36.1 34.8 32.2 -5.8 Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2011). 2000-2009 E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2000-2010, with 2000 and 2010 Census Counts. Note: Please see Appendix II for definitions of “Aggravated Assault,” “Arson,” “Burglary,” “Homicide,” “Larceny,” “Motor Vehicle Theft,” “Rape,” and “Robbery.” Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Rate is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. 1 Violent crime rate includes: homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. 2 Property crime rate includes: burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny-theft over $400. 3 Santa Cruz County totals include the California Highway Patrol, U.C. Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz Mountains Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Union Pacific Railroad.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 103 Public Safety Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Number of Crimes, Santa Cruz County1 TYPE OF CRIME 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09 % CHANGE Violent Crime 1,187 1,099 1,198 1,155 1,083 1,239 1,247 1,215 2.4% Aggravated Assault 905 746 864 806 744 878 886 904 -0.1% Robbery 171 238 205 232 227 275 276 222 29.8% Forcible Rape 102 109 124 112 96 80 77 79 -22.5% Homicide 9 6 5 5 16 6 8 10 ^ Property Crime 3,445 4,093 4,485 5,270 5,062 4,541 4,132 4,805 39.5% Larceny over $400 1,457 1,900 1,937 2,271 2,244 2,222 1,851 2,226 52.8% Burglary 1,468 1,676 1,697 1,940 1,961 1,602 1,585 1,732 18.0% Motor Vehicle Theft 520 517 851 1,059 857 717 696 847 62.9% Total Larceny Theft 5,516 6,844 6,849 7,256 7,118 6,547 5,601 6,480 17.5% Over $400 1,457 1,900 1,937 2,271 2,244 2,222 1,851 2,226 52.8% $400 & under 4,059 4,944 4,912 4,985 4,874 4,325 3,750 4,254 4.8% Arson 44 72 59 49 85 89 72 67 52.3% Total Crime 8,735 10,208 10,654 11,459 11,104 10,194 9,201 10,341 18.4% Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. 1 Santa Cruz County totals include the California Highway Patrol, U.C. Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz Mountains Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Union Pacific Railroad. Number of Crimes, City of Capitola TYPE OF CRIME 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09 % CHANGE Violent Crime 62 67 70 70 61 85 99 107 72.6% Aggravated Assault 49 38 46 54 49 63 76 99 102.0% Robbery 11 17 17 9 9 13 18 4 ^ Forcible Rape 2 12 7 7 3 9 5 4 ^ Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA Property Crime 191 307 361 365 336 310 216 221 15.7% Larceny over $400 99 177 197 213 172 179 132 132 33.3% Burglary 75 102 130 110 122 104 70 71 -5.3% Motor Vehicle Theft 17 28 34 42 42 27 14 18 5.9% Total Larceny Theft 519 787 823 835 770 680 525 534 2.9% Over $400 99 177 197 213 172 179 132 132 33.3% $400 & under 420 610 626 622 598 501 393 402 -4.3% Arson 3 1 0 0 0 5 2 7 ^ Total Crime 676 985 1,057 1,057 995 901 710 737 9.0% Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Number of Crimes, City of Santa Cruz TYPE OF CRIME 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09 % CHANGE Violent Crime 544 460 490 503 399 481 446 453 -16.7% Aggravated Assault 421 316 348 356 251 335 313 322 -23.5% Robbery 72 97 82 96 107 117 112 91 26.4% Forcible Rape 48 43 59 49 38 28 19 36 -25.0% Homicide 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 4 ^ Property Crime 1,084 1,398 1,347 1,507 1,613 1,226 1,031 1,478 36.3% Larceny over $400 487 660 622 686 827 641 474 829 70.2% Burglary 400 534 534 573 537 410 412 466 16.5% Motor Vehicle Theft 197 204 191 248 249 175 145 183 -7.1% Total Larceny Theft 1,823 2,371 2,251 2,316 2,412 1,847 1,534 2,467 35.3% Over $400 487 660 622 686 827 641 474 829 70.2% $400 & under 1,336 1,711 1,629 1,630 1,585 1,206 1,060 1,638 22.6% Arson 10 27 32 25 32 33 24 23 ^ Total Crime 2,974 3,596 3,498 3,665 3,629 2,946 2,561 3,592 20.8% Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. 104 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Public Safety Number of Crimes, City of Scotts Valley TYPE OF CRIME 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09 % CHANGE Violent Crime 44 12 15 16 13 11 10 9 ^ Aggravated Assault 38 10 10 11 9 8 2 6 ^ Robbery 4 1 3 2 2 1 4 1 ^ Forcible Rape 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 2 ^ Homicide 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ^ Property Crime 131 116 101 168 143 117 113 129 -1.5% Larceny over $400 56 59 56 74 71 60 54 62 10.7% Burglary 67 45 35 79 60 51 53 59 -11.9% Motor Vehicle Theft 8 12 10 15 12 6 6 8 ^ Total Larceny Theft 252 260 220 257 262 212 213 219 -13.1% Over $400 56 59 56 74 71 60 54 62 10.7% $400 & under 196 201 164 183 191 152 159 157 -19.9% Arson 0 2 3 1 2 3 3 0 ^ Total Crime 371 331 283 368 349 283 285 295 -20.5% Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Number of Crimes, City of Watsonville TYPE OF CRIME 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09 % CHANGE Violent Crime 303 322 283 237 304 397 353 350 15.5% Aggravated Assault 224 215 180 137 199 269 255 243 8.5% Robbery 59 84 76 81 82 110 81 86 45.8% Forcible Rape 19 23 25 17 17 17 14 17 ^ Homicide 1 0 2 2 6 1 3 4 ^ Property Crime 692 731 708 938 874 976 856 881 27.3% Larceny over $400 253 327 296 376 352 470 342 315 24.5% Burglary 305 293 236 284 359 284 290 285 -6.6% Motor Vehicle Theft 134 111 176 278 163 222 224 281 109.7% Total Larceny Theft 1,149 1,533 1,377 1,481 1,485 1,770 1,358 1,259 9.6% Over $400 253 327 296 376 352 470 342 315 24.5% $400 & under 896 1,206 1,081 1,105 1,133 1,300 1,016 944 5.4% Arson 2 9 10 7 21 11 14 15 ^ Total Crime 1,893 2,268 2,082 2,287 2,332 2,684 2,239 2,190 15.7% Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Number of Crimes, Unincorporated Areas (Sheriff’s Office) TYPE OF CRIME 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09 % CHANGE Violent Crime 219 228 324 315 298 256 332 291 32.9% Aggravated Assault 163 160 270 237 233 198 236 231 41.7% Robbery 25 38 23 44 25 33 61 40 60.0% Forcible Rape 27 28 29 34 33 21 32 18 ^ Homicide 4 2 2 0 7 4 3 2 ^ Property Crime 1,129 1,253 1,437 1,672 1,546 1,480 1,419 1,577 39.7% Larceny over $400 518 608 691 813 700 758 716 761 46.9% Burglary 599 635 730 844 830 710 692 804 34.2% Motor Vehicle Theft 12 10 16 15 16 12 11 12 ^ Total Larceny Theft 1,560 1,592 1,827 1,947 1,750 1,674 1,595 1,663 6.6% Over $400 518 608 691 813 700 758 716 761 46.9% $400 & under 1,042 984 1,136 1,134 1.050 916 879 902 -13.4% Arson 28 30 14 15 25 29 27 21 -25.0% Total Crime 2,418 2,495 2,911 3,136 2,919 2,681 2,657 2,791 15.4% Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 105 Public Safety Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 JAIL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS About 66% of Santa Cruz County inmates in 2010 were repeat offenders. Alcohol‐related bookings increased to 50% of total bookings in 2010 from 43% in 2009. The average daily jail population has decreased by 20% from 580 in 2000 to 463 in 2010. Average Daily Jail Population, Santa Cruz County 00-10 FACILITY 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Water Street Facility 337 370 400 389 347 346 315 336 350 3.9% Roundtree Lane Facilities 219 192 180 190 161 157 158 128 93 -57.5% Blaine Street Facility 24 22 26 25 24 25 23 20 19 ^ Total Average Daily Jail 580 584 606 604 532 528 496 484 463 -20.2% Population Source: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. (2011). Personal Correspondence. Note: The Water Street Facility figure includes pre-trial sentenced men and women; Blaine Street Facility figure includes sentenced men and women; Roundtree Lane Facility figure includes sentenced men in medium and minimum security. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Number and Percent of Prisoners Who Are Repeat Offenders, Santa Cruz County 00-10 PRISON POPULATION 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Total Inmates 8,350 8,324 8,057 8,043 8,028 8,192 7,922 7,695 8,273 -0.9% Repeat Offenders 5,830 5,562 5,497 5,612 5,637 5,643 5,579 5,350 5,486 -5.9% Percent of Repeat Offenders 69.8% 66.8% 68.2% 69.8% 70.2% 68.9% 70.4% 69.5% 66.3% - Source: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. (2011). Personal Correspondence. Prison Population by Ethnicity, Santa Cruz 00-10 ETHNICITY 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE African American 4.0% 4.2% 4.5% 4.2% 4.3% 4.6% 4.7% 4.9% 4.7% 0.7 Asian 0.6% 0.9% 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2 Caucasian 58.0% 58.6% 59.3% 58.2% 58.4% 57.8% 56.6% 56.4% 59.1% 1.1 Hispanic 36.2% 35.1% 33.8% 35.2% 35.1% 35.2% 36.7% 36.7% 35.8% -0.4 Other 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.2% 1.3% 1.6% 0.4 Santa Cruz County Total 8,350 8,324 8,057 8,043 8,028 8,192 7,922 7,695 8,273 - Inmates Source: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. (2011). Personal Correspondence. Number and Percent of All Bookings That Are Alcohol Related, Santa Cruz County 00-10 BOOKINGS 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Total Bookings 12,540 12,472 12,580 12,807 12,653 12,957 13,170 12,476 11,153 -11.1% Alcohol Related Bookings 5,768 5,265 4,969 4,759 4,980 5,465 5,920 5,314 5,627 -2.4% Percent of Alcohol Related 46.0% 42.2% 39.5% 37.2% 39.4% 42.2% 45.0% 42.6% 50.4% - Bookings Source: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. (2011). Personal Correspondence.

106 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Public Safety JUVENILE ARRESTS The juvenile misdemeanor and felony arrest rate in Santa Cruz County increased from 57 per 1,000 youth ages 10‐17 in 2006 to 69 per 1,000 youth in 2009. Juvenile arrest data by ethnicity showed that there was a considerably large increase among the Hispanic/Latino juvenile population, when compared to other ethnic groups. Juvenile arrest by age has increased, especially for 17 year olds. Juvenile Arrest Rate per 1,000 Youth (Ages 10-17), Santa Cruz County 100 80 60 69.2 72.4 69.2 40 63.6 59.4 56.7 56.6 64.4 20 0 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2011). 2000-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Juvenile Arrests by Jurisdiction, Santa Cruz County 00-09 JURISDICTION 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 % CHANGE Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Capitola Police Department 177 211 184 174 135 131 113 107 -39.5% Santa Cruz Police Department 360 320 275 283 249 247 248 245 -31.9% Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office 393 442 415 347 299 320 323 269 -31.6% Scotts Valley Police Department 69 85 44 65 90 77 87 63 -8.7% Watsonville Police Department 407 291 236 212 272 359 446 407 0.0% Santa Cruz County Total Juvenile 1,471 1,411 1,212 1,165 1,114 1,216 1,326 1,188 -19.2% Misdemeanor Arrests1 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrest Rate per 1,0002 52.6 46.3 43.6 42.3 40.9 45.5 53.2 49.1 - Juvenile Felony Arrests Capitola Police Department 47 37 22 23 20 33 45 21 -55.3% Santa Cruz Police Department 124 91 92 86 80 89 88 85 -31.5% Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office 160 191 147 138 136 123 117 89 -44.4% Scotts Valley Police Department 21 41 21 22 12 24 15 23 9.5% Watsonville Police Department 103 162 146 112 176 228 203 261 153.4% Santa Cruz County Total Juvenile Felony 465 530 439 397 428 506 478 486 4.5% Arrests1 Juvenile Felony Arrest Rate per 1,0002 16.6 17.4 15.8 14.4 15.7 18.9 19.2 20.1 - Juvenile Misdemeanor & Felony Arrests Santa Cruz County Total Juvenile Arrests1,2 1,936 1,941 1,651 1,562 1,542 1,722 1,804 1,674 -13.5% Total Juvenile Arrest Rate per 1,0002,3 69.2 63.6 59.4 56.7 56.6 64.4 72.4 69.2 - Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2011). 2000-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 The total of all jurisdictions will not equal Santa Cruz County total. The County total includes the California Highway Patrol, U.C. Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz Mountains Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Union Pacific Railroad. 2 Total juvenile arrests and the total juvenile arrest rate do not include status offenses. 3 Juvenile arrest rates are calculated using the youth population ages 10-17.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 107 Public Safety Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity, Santa Cruz County 00-09 ETHNICITY 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 NET CHANGE Black 3.4% 2.8% 2.5% 3.3% 2.0% 4.0% 3.4% 3.0% -0.4 Hispanic 40.4% 43.4% 44.3% 38.1% 45.3% 48.7% 56.3% 59.3% 18.9 White (Not Hispanic) 54.2% 50.7% 50.1% 55.2% 51.1% 44.6% 38.3% 35.6% -18.6 Other 2.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.4% 1.6% 2.7% 2.0% 2.1% 0.1 Total Juvenile Arrests1 2,043 1,941 1,672 1,585 1,578 1,783 1,866 1,789 - Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 Total Juvenile Arrests, total does not compare to the previous total because it includes Status Offenses in addition to Misdemeanor and Felony arrests. Juvenile Arrests by Age, Santa Cruz County 00-09 AGE 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 NET CHANGE 10 Years & Younger 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% -0.1 11 Years 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% -0.5 12 Years 2.5% 2.9% 2.6% 3.0% 1.9% 2.2% 2.5% 2.9% 0.4 13 Years 7.1% 7.0% 7.6% 6.9% 5.4% 6.6% 6.9% 5.3% -1.8 14 Years 15.4% 14.4% 13.7% 14.1% 13.0% 15.8% 11.7% 13.6% -1.8 15 Years 20.0% 20.8% 19.9% 22.4% 22.3% 22.7% 21.4% 18.7% -1.3 16 Years 26.7% 24.7% 26.1% 24.0% 27.9% 25.6% 27.4% 25.9% -0.8 17 Years 27.3% 29.1% 29.5% 29.0% 29.1% 26.8% 29.8% 33.3% 6.0 Total Juvenile Arrests1 2,043 1,941 1,672 1,585 1,578 1,783 1,866 1,789 - Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 Total Juvenile Arrests, total does not compare to the previous total because it includes Status Offenses in addition to Misdemeanor and Felony arrests.

Juvenile Felony Arrests/Adjudications, Santa Cruz County 40 Juvenile 30 Felony Arrest 20.9 Rate per 17.0 16.5 19.1 20 15.5 1,000¹ Juvenile 10 20.1 14.4 15.7 18.9 19.2 Adjudication Rate per 0 1,000¹ 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Santa Cruz County Probation Department (2011). 2005-2009 California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Only a portion of youth who are arrested are referred to juvenile court for adjudication (formal handling by the court). Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 Juvenile arrest rates are calculated using the youth population ages 10-17. Juvenile Hall Admissions, Santa Cruz County 00-10 CATEGORY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Annual Admissions 1,583 1,068 892 851 858 794 844 611 -61.4% Average Monthly Admissions 132 89 74 71 72 66 70 51 -61.4% Juvenile Admission Rate per 56.6 35.0 32.1 30.9 32.0 31.9 34.9 25.8 - 1,0001 Source: Santa Cruz County Probation Department (2011). 2000-2010 California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. 1 Juvenile arrest rates are calculated using the youth population ages 10-17.

108 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Public Safety Juvenile Hall Admissions by Gender, Santa Cruz County 00-10 GENDER 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Male 76.6% 79.9% 75.9% 82.1% 81.6% 84.1% 83.2% 81.5% 4.9 Female 23.3% 20.1% 24.1% 17.9% 18.4% 15.9% 16.8% 18.5% -4.8 Source: Santa Cruz County Probation Department (2011). 2000-2010 California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. CONCERN ABOUT CRIME/NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY Overall, the percentage of CAP survey respondents who reported being “very concerned” about crime in the county decreased from 72% in 2000 to 65% in 2011. Regional breakdowns showed that South County (47%) had a significantly higher percentage of respondents who felt “very concerned” compared to San Lorenzo Valley (22%) and North County (33%). South County CAP respondents reported the most impact from gangs in their neighborhood (22% compared to 11% in North County and 3% in San Lorenzo Valley), a statistically significant difference.  How concerned are you about crime in Santa Cruz County? How safe would you say you feel in your neighborhood? 80% "Very Concerned" 76.1% about crime 72.0% 72.0% 73.0% 60% 68.1% 64.7% 63.8% 65.2% "Very Safe" in their neighborhood 40% 43.0% 38.3% 38.1% 40.2% 40.1% 35.7% 34.2% 36.1% 20% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Concerned about Crime Overall N: 2000=658; 2001=699; 2002=683; 2003=701, 2005=708; 2007=708; 2009=846, 2011=718; Safe in neighborhood Overall N: 2000=657; 2001=706; 2002=684; 2003=702; 2005=707; 2007=711; 2009=854: 2011=721 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  How concerned are you about crime in Santa Cruz County? (Respondents answering “Very Concerned”) By Region 00-11 REGION 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE North County % 33.8% 27.6% 33.9% 31.1% 38.8% 47.5% 35.7% 33.1%* -0.7 Respondents 346 200 233 235 243 239 336 271 - South County % 51.3% 48.6% 47.3% 42.1% 45.4% 43.3% 52.0% 46.5%* -4.8 Respondents 195 290 226 242 238 240 287 231 - SLV % 30.1% 24.3% 26.4% 23.5% 24.9% 25.1% 23.1% 21.6%* -8.5 Respondents 113 212 223 222 227 227 223 216 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: South County respondents were significantly more likely than North County and San Lorenzo Valley respondents to be very concerned about crime in Santa Cruz County. North County respondents were significantly more likely than San Lorenzo Valley respondents to be very concerned about crime in Santa Cruz County. © 2011 Applied Survey Research 109 Public Safety Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  How safe would you say you feel in your neighborhood? (Respondents answering “Very Safe”) By Region 00-11 REGION 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE North County % 73.0% 73.7% 74.6% 77.3% 63.0% 66.9% 68.1% 65.5%* -7.5 Respondents 345 203 233 236 242 239 341 272 - South County % 64.6% 67.6% 67.6% 69.9% 67.8% 54.4% 51.0% 58.9%* -5.7 Respondents 195 290 227 241 237 241 287 233 - SLV % 82.3% 83.7% 83.5% 88.6% 83.0% 85.4% 83.4% 86.1%* 3.8 Respondents 113 212 224 225 228 231 224 216 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: San Lorenzo Valley respondents were significantly more likely than North County and South County respondents to feel very safe in their neighborhood.  How much of an impact have gangs had in your neighborhood? (Respondents answering “Big Impact”) By Region 100% 2009 80% 2011 60% 40% 20.5% 21.5%* 20% 12.8% 13.8% 10.2% 11.2%* 1.1% 2.8%* 0% Overall North County South County SLV 2011 N: Overall=708; North County=266; South County=230; SLV=214; 2009 N: Overall=852; North County=341; South County=287; SLV=224. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: South County respondents were significantly more likely than North County and San Lorenzo Valley respondents to believe that gangs have had a big impact in their neighborhood; North County respondents were significantly more likely than San Lorenzo Valley respondents to believe that gangs have had a big impact in their neighborhood.  Do you feel children have a safe place to play in your neighborhood? (Respondents answering “Yes”) 100% 73.8% 73.1% 74.1% 73.8% 80% 68.3% 69.2% 69.5% 67.0% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 Overall N: 2000=657; 2001=696; 2002=673; 2003=700; 2005=698; 2007=701; 2009=841: 2011=710 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

110 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Public Safety  Do you feel your children have a safe place to play in your neighborhood? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Region REGION 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 00-11 NET CHANGE North County % 69.9% 70.4% 74.6% 75.1% 65.9% 70.2% 78.6% 73.7% 3.8 Respondents 345 200 229 236 240 235 334 268 - South County % 66.2% 63.5% 72.0% 68.3% 70.0% 60.6% 65.9% 72.5% 6.3 Respondents 195 286 222 240 234 238 286 228 - SLV % 67.3% 80.0% 75.6% 78.5% 77.9% 72.9% 80.8% 80.1% 12.8 Respondents 113 211 224 223 224 229 221 214 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. POLICE OFFICERS In Santa Cruz County, the number of sworn police officers increased from 340 in 2000 to 368 in 2009 and then decreased to 341 in 2010. Capitola had the highest rate of officers per capita (1 per 486) while the Sheriff’s Department (1 per 959) and Watsonville had the lowest (1 per 796) in 2010. Number of Sworn Officers AGENCY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 % CHANGE Capitola Police Department 23 19 19 22 23 21 21 21 -8.7% Santa Cruz Police Department 96 99 100 94 95 93 94 94 -2.1% Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office 137 135 129 153 163 177 169 140 2.2% (Unincorporated Areas) Scotts Valley Police Department 22 22 20 20 20 20 20 20 -9.1% Watsonville Police Department 62 61 64 65 60 64 64 66 6.5% Santa Cruz County Total 340 336 332 354 361 375 368 341 0.3% Source: All Santa Cruz County Law Enforcement Jurisdictions, 2011. Note: Officer count is typically performed during the month of October. Officers per Capita, Santa Cruz County AGENCY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Capitola Police Department 1 per 487 1 per 532 1 per 527 1 per 450 1 per 433 1 per 476 1 per 456 1 per 486 Santa Cruz Police Department 1 per 583 1 per 553 1 per 560 1 per 604 1 per 604 1 per 623 1 per 638 1 per 635 Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s 1 per 1,013 1 per 996 1 per 1,033 1 per 870 1 per 819 1 per 760 1 per 805 1 per 959 Office (Unincorporated Areas) Scotts Valley Police 1 per 493 1 per 523 1 per 577 1 per 578 1 per 497 1 per 583 1 per 589 1 per 595 Department Watsonville Police Department 1 per 615 1 per 780 1 per 751 1 per 770 1 per 852 1 per 806 1 per 811 1 per 796 Santa Cruz County Average 1 per 638 1 per 677 1 per 690 1 per 654 1 per 641 1 per 650 1 per 581 1 per 798 Source: All Santa Cruz County Law Enforcement Jurisdictions, 2011. California Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2000-2010, with 2000 DRU Benchmark, Sacramento, California, 2011. Note: The officers per capita figure is calculated by dividing the total population in a given jurisdiction by the number of sworn officers in that jurisdiction. Officer count is typically performed during the month of October.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 111 Public Safety Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 POLICE RESPONSE Since 2002, average police response times to high priority (Priority 1) calls decreased for the Santa Cruz County Sherriff’s Office by 5 seconds and the Capitola Police Department by 23 seconds, although the average response times for the Santa Cruz Police Department increased by 14 seconds and Watsonville Police Department by 9 seconds. Average Response Time, Priority 1 (In Minutes: Seconds) 02-10 AGENCY 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Capitola Police Department 4:11 4:05 4:08 3:45 3:34 3:47 3:51 3:48 -0:23 Santa Cruz Police Department 4:19 4:30 4:33 4:22 4:26 4:38 4:38 4:33 0:14 Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s 8:57 8:25 8:12 8:17 8:14 8:27 8:39 8:52 -0:05 Office (Unincorporated Areas) Scotts Valley Police Department 2:42 2:11 2:45 3:27 2:53 2:57 NA NA NA Watsonville Police Department 4:00 4:04 3:54 3:50 3:52 3:46 3:57 4:09 0:09 Source: Santa Cruz Consolidated Emergency Communications Center and Scotts Valley Police Department, 2011. Note: Priority 1 is defined as a call for assistance that involves a person or an accident. Average Response Time, Priority 2 (In Minutes: Seconds) 02-10 AGENCY 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Capitola Police Department 8:11 7:47 7:14 6:53 6:11 6:21 5:52 6:56 -1:15 Santa Cruz Police Department 7:48 7:30 7:47 8:41 8:07 7:57 8:29 8:36 0:48 Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s 16:20 15:46 14:56 16:07 16:20 16:17 15:53 15:56 -0:24 Office (Unincorporated Areas) Scotts Valley Police Department 4:12 6:20 12:07 13:00 13:00 11:07 NA NA NA Watsonville Police Department 7:28 7:35 6:56 7:60 7:48 8:01 8:14 8:56 1:28 Source: Santa Cruz Consolidated Emergency Communications Center and Scotts Valley Police Department, 2011. Note: Priority 2 involves property crimes. Average Response Time, Priority 3 (In Minutes: Seconds) 02-10 AGENCY 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NET CHANGE Capitola Police Department 18:20 15:28 14:04 17:30 18:08 17:15 15:22 15:45 -2:35 Santa Cruz Police Department 17:15 17:14 16:21 18:29 16:43 17:30 17:30 17:22 0:07 Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s 25:43 24:07 25:28 30:29 32:00 31:58 32:52 31:17 5:34 Office (Unincorporated Areas) Scotts Valley Police Department 19:42 16:42 21:00 26:07 21:12 19:02 NA NA NA Watsonville Police Department 19:51 18:40 16:36 18:31 18:16 19:20 18:45 17:57 -1:54 Source: Santa Cruz Consolidated Emergency Communications Center and Scotts Valley Police Department, 2011. Note: Priority 3 calls are informational. LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVENESS Over the past decade, the percentage of CAP survey respondents who reported feeling that law enforcement in their community is “very” effective remained below 50%. More Latino CAP respondents (49%) reported thinking law enforcement was “very” effective in their community that did Caucasian respondents (33%), a statistically significant difference.

112 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Public Safety  How effective do you think law enforcement is in our community? (Respondents answering “Very”) 50% 40.9% 40.7% 41.3% 38.3% 38.0% 38.8% 40% 35.3% 36.0%

30%

20% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2000=658; 2001=701; 2002=681; 2003=699; 2005=705; 2007=681; 2009=826: 2011=704 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  How effective do you think law enforcement is in our community? (Respondents answering “Very”) By Ethnicity REGION 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 Caucasian % 40.7% 40.5% 36.7% 41.1% 35.7% 36.6% 41.4% 32.6%* Respondents 445 488 474 487 493 470 576 493 Latino % 45.1% 29.0% 42.1% 35.9% 47.3% 35.4% 45.4% 49.1%* Respondents 142 159 154 158 159 159 189 157 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to feel that law enforcement is very effective. FIRE RESPONSE Although data showed a considerably large increase (42%) in the number of medical related calls to firefighters in Santa Cruz County, the average response time to high priority calls decreased for 6 out of 10 fire districts between 2004 and 2010. Number of Fire Related Calls by Fire District FIRE DISTRICT/DEPARTMENT 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 04-10 % CHANGE Aptos/La Selva 717 747 742 772 762 678 -5.4% Ben Lomond 128 136 162 148 137 133 3.9% Boulder Creek 251 253 259 291 268 269 7.2% Branciforte 80 69 88 114 95 89 11.3% Central 1,188 1,297 1,163 1,337 1,283 1,163 -2.1% Felton 193 203 206 251 227 228 18.1% Santa Cruz 1,561 1,519 1,519 1,717 1,467 1,503 -3.7% Scotts Valley 446 523 479 462 479 464 4.0% Watsonville 1,180 1,325 1,250 1,306 1,272 1,171 -0.8% Zayante 112 96 100 131 115 69 -38.4% Santa Cruz County Total 5,856 6,168 5,968 6,529 6,105 5,767 -1.5% Source: Santa Cruz Consolidated Emergency Communications Center. (2011). Personal Correspondence.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 113 Public Safety Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Number of Medical Related Calls by Fire District FIRE DISTRICT/DEPARTMENT 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 04-10 % CHANGE Aptos/La Selva 951 1,074 1,156 1,275 1293 1,262 32.7% Ben Lomond 167 190 201 184 195 195 16.8% Boulder Creek 299 375 317 375 420 401 34.1% Branciforte 39 43 64 43 69 46 17.9% Central 2,627 2,737 3,088 3,539 3,489 3,402 29.5% Felton 222 302 319 308 345 291 31.1% Santa Cruz 3,459 4,001 4,596 5,142 5,354 5,551 60.5% Scotts Valley 806 929 983 1,063 1,100 1,149 42.6% Watsonville 2,503 2,569 3,007 3,249 3,307 3,422 36.7% Zayante 98 87 89 95 98 91 -7.1% Santa Cruz County Total 11,171 12,307 13,820 15,273 15,670 15,810 41.5% Source: Santa Cruz Consolidated Emergency Communications Center. (2011). Personal Correspondence. Code 3 Average Response Time for Emergency Calls by Fire District (In Minutes: Seconds) FIRE DISTRICT/DEPARTMENT 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 04-10 NET CHANGE Aptos/La Selva 5:29 5:26 5:27 5:24 5:22 5:22 -0:07 Ben Lomond 6:12 5:60 6:14 5:36 6:10 6:15 0:03 Boulder Creek 7:16 6:32 6:14 5:59 6:33 6:34 -0:42 Branciforte 6:50 5:38 6:47 6:57 6:07 7:43 0:53 Central 4:45 4:34 4:42 4:49 5:19 4:35 -0:10 Felton 5:54 6:02 6:07 5:49 6:02 5:46 -0:08 Santa Cruz 4:51 4:21 4:24 4:36 3:56 4:18 -0:33 Scotts Valley 5:14 5:04 5:09 4:54 4:50 5:00 -0:14 Watsonville 4:11 4:51 4:49 4:30 4:10 4:17 0:06 Zayante 7:12 8:24 7:20 7:42 7:21 7:45 0:33 Urban Areas - Santa Cruz County 5:38 6:02 5:47 5:28 5:38 5:45 0:07 Rural Areas - Santa Cruz County 10:31 10:08 10:14 9:39 10:02 9:44 -0:47 Source: Santa Cruz Consolidated Emergency Communications Center. (2011). Personal Correspondence. Note: Code 3 is red lights and siren emergencies. FAMILY VIOLENCE The rate of domestic violence calls has decreased in both Santa Cruz County and California since 2002. However, it should be noted that family violence is typically underreported so these numbers are likely an underrepresentation. Capitola had the largest increase in domestic violence calls and domestic violence calls with weapons. More South County CAP survey respondents (13%) reported having friends or family members who have experienced domestic violence in the last year than North County (8%) or San Lorenzo Valley survey respondents (11%). Rate of Domestic Violence Calls per 1,000 Population 10 Santa Cruz County 5.6 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.4 California 5 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.2 0 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2002-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2011). 2002-2009 E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 114 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Public Safety Domestic Violence Calls AGENCY 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 02-09 % CHANGE Capitola Police Department 26 13 20 38 32 33 47 80.8% Santa Cruz Police Department 191 438 417 311 300 297 265 38.7% Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office 456 344 357 283 213 275 283 -37.9% (Unincorporated Areas) Scotts Valley Police Department 43 35 51 31 33 26 41 -4.7% Watsonville Police Department 242 196 221 220 241 206 214 -11.6% Santa Cruz County Total Number of Calls1 968 1,032 1,077 890 823 847 856 -11.6% Santa Cruz County Rate per 1,000 3.7 4.0 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.2 - California Rate per 1,000 5.6 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.4 - Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2002-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2011). 2002-2009 E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 The total of all jurisdictions does not equal Santa Cruz County total. The County total also includes the California Highway Patrol, U.C. Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz Mountains Department of Parks and Recreation and the Union Pacific Railroad. Domestic Violence Cases with Weapons AGENCY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 04-09 % CHANGE Capitola Police Department 9 17 32 29 32 34 ^ Santa Cruz Police Department 41 30 29 35 23 26 -36.6% Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office 61 46 64 51 65 69 13.1% (Unincorporated Areas) Scotts Valley Police Department 3 10 5 2 1 3 ^ Watsonville Police Department 24 16 22 26 20 38 58.3% Santa Cruz County Total Number of Cases1 264 123 152 144 141 173 -34.5% Santa Cruz County Rate per 1,000 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 - California Rate per 1,000 2.7 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.8 - Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2004-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2011). 2002-2009 E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. 1 The total of all jurisdictions will not equal Santa Cruz County total. The County total includes the California Highway Patrol, U.C. Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz Mountains Department of Parks and Recreation and the Union Pacific Railroad.  How concerned are you about family violence in our community (including domestic violence, child abuse, and senior abuse)? (Respondents answering “Very Concerned”) 100%

80% 62.0% 55.8% 54.8% 54.8% 60% 50.3% 51.0% 41.0% 37.4% 40%

20%

0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 Overall N: 2000=658; 2001=698; 2002=679; 2003=699; 2005=700; 2007=688; 2009=834; 2011=707 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: In 2009, survey question changed from “in Santa Cruz County” to “in our community.”

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 115 Public Safety Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  How concerned are you about family violence in our community (including domestic violence, child abuse, and senior abuse)? (Respondents answering “Very Concerned”) By Region 00-11 REGION 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE North County % 61.0% 52.2% 54.3% 54.9% 51.5% 56.0% 37.8% 36.3% -24.7 Respondents 346 203 230 235 235 230 333 264 - South County % 63.6% 50.0% 56.7% 59.0% 50.4% 43.2% 47.5% 37.8% -25.8 Respondents 195 284 227 240 239 235 281 232 - SLV % 63.7% 61.9% 50.8% 43.2% 46.7% 54.9% 35.2% 39.6% -24.1 Respondents 113 209 221 225 228 223 221 215 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: In 2009, survey question changed from “in Santa Cruz County” to “in our community.”  Have any of your family members or friends in Santa Cruz County experienced domestic violence or intimate partner violence in the last year? - 2011 100% 80% 60% 40%

20% 10.4% 8.1% 13.0% 10.7% 0% Overall North County South County SLV N: Overall=705; North County=266; South County=228; SLV=213. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. ELDER ABUSE The rate of reported cases of elder abuse in Santa Cruz County decreased to 429 in 2010, down from a decade high of 652 in 2007. However, the number of reported cases increased by more than 47% over the past decade. Reported Cases of Elder Abuse REPORTED CASES 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 % CHANGE Cases of Elder Abuse by 167 183 203 269 301 301 391 235 40.7% Another

Cases of Elder Self-Neglect 124 132 134 255 351 230 140 194 56.5% Santa Cruz County Total 291 315 337 524 652 531 531 429 47.4% Number of Cases Santa Cruz County Rate per 10.4 11.0 12.8 19.5 23.8 21.0 20.5 16.1 - 1,0001 Source: Santa Cruz County Human Resources Agency, Adult and Long Term Care Division (2011). 2000-2010 Health and Welfare Agency Annual Statistical Report. California Department of Finance (2011). 2000-2010 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Measured by fiscal year, not calendar year. 1 Elder abuse rate is calculated using the population ages 65 and older.

116 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Public Safety  Have any of your family members or friends in Santa Cruz County experienced elder abuse or neglect in the last year? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Region – 2011 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 3.2% 2.8% 3.2% 4.0% 0% Overall North County South County SLV N: Overall=708; North County=267; South County=228; SLV=215. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. CHILD ABUSE

The number of substantiated cases of child abuse28 in Santa Cruz County decreased by 50% over the past ten years, from 872 in 2000 to 435 in 2010. In 2010, child abuse rates in Santa Cruz County dropped below those of the state for the first time in a decade. Rate of Substantiated Cases of Child Abuse per 1,000 Children (Ages 0-17) 20 15.8 14.3 13.6 13.5 14.7 Santa Cruz 15 12.2 County 9.2 8.7 10 California 12.2 12.0 11.2 10.8 10.7 5 9.7 9.1 7.6 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Needell, B. et al. (2011). 2000-2010 Child Welfare Services Reports for California, University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research. Substantiated Child Abuse Cases by Type of Abuse 00-10 TYPE OF ABUSE 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE General Neglect 232 201 351 308 363 290 244 259 11.6% Substantial Risk 5 3 71 154 226 146 82 0 NA Emotional Abuse 316 376 283 165 98 128 68 41 -87.0% Physical Abuse 114 95 74 74 52 58 44 32 -71.9% Severe Neglect 37 14 23 13 41 47 52 72 94.6% Sexual Abuse 48 51 49 44 33 25 26 21 -56.3% At Risk, Sibling Abused 48 18 15 18 8 3 8 9 -81.3% Caretaker Absence or 70 55 56 12 4 3 3 1 ^ Incapacity Exploitation 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 NA Santa Cruz County Total 872 813 923 788 825 700 527 435 -50.1% California Total 113,904 115,668 111,003 108,309 107,483 96,575 90,472 87,311 -23.3% Source: Needell, B. et al. (2011). 2000-2010 Child Welfare Services Reports for California, University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research. Note: A child is counted only once per year, in category of highest severity. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted.

28 Please see Appendix II for definitions of “Child” and these child abuse types: “Caretaker Absence or Incapacity,” “Emotional Abuse,” “Exploitation,” “General Neglect,” “Physical Abuse,” “Severe Neglect,” and “Sexual Abuse.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 117 Public Safety Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Rate of Substantiated Cases of Child Abuse per 1,000 Children (Ages 0-17) by Ethnicity ETHNICITY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 NET CHANGE Hispanic 21.9 17.1 18.3 15.2 16.1 12.2 9.4 7.6 -14.3 White 8.5 10.3 13.0 12.3 14.1 12.5 9.9 8.5 0.0 Santa Cruz County Total 14.3 13.6 15.8 13.5 14.7 12.2 9.2 7.6 -6.7 California Total 12.2 12.0 11.2 10.8 10.7 9.7 9.1 8.7 -3.5 Source: Needell, B. et al. (2011). 2000-2010 Child Welfare Services Reports for California, University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research. Note: Rates are not calculated for ethnicities with less than 20 substantiated cases of child abuse, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted.  Have any of your family members or friends in Santa Cruz County experienced child abuse or neglect in the last year? (Respondents Answering “Yes”) By Region – 2011 40%

20% 2.4% 1.6% 2.4% 5.3% 0% Overall North County South County SLV

N: Overall=707; North County=268; South County=226; SLV=214. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. FOSTER CARE PLACEMENTS Over the past decade, the rate of first entries into foster care among Santa Cruz County children ages 0‐17 years decreased from a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 in 2000 to 2.6 per 1,000 in 2010. The percentage of children who, after 12 months in foster care, exited and were reunified with their parents also decreased between 2000 and 2010, from 51% to 49%. Rate of First Entries into Foster Care per 1,000 Children Ages 0-17 by Ethnicity ETHNICITY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 NET CHANGE Asian/Pacific Islander 2.8 1.3 0.0 2.7 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 -2.3 Black 12.0 10.0 12.0 7.6 5.5 28.6 7.0 5.1 -6.9 Hispanic 4.6 2.8 4.5 3.2 3.0 2.6 1.9 2.3 -2.3 Native American 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 White 2.4 1.8 3.5 2.7 3.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 0.9 Missing 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Total Foster Care First Entries 201 135 224 170 179 162 132 148 - Santa Cruz County Rate per 1,000 3.3 2.3 3.8 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.3 2.6 -0.7 California Rate per 1,000 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4 -0.8 Source: Needell, B. et al. (2011). 2000-2010 Child Welfare Services Reports for California, University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research. Exit Status After 12 Months in Foster Care EXIT STATUS 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09 NET CHANGE Reunified 50.6% 54.6% 44.5% 48.7% 62.9% 48.6% 48.7% -1.9 Still In Foster Care 40.0% 38.0% 47.4% 40.9% 25.7% 35.5% 47.0% 7.0 Guardianship 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 3.6% 3.6% 0.0% -1.3 Emancipated 2.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.6% 2.4% 2.2% 0.0% -2.0 Adopted 3.3% 1.9% 2.4% 3.9% 1.2% 2.2% 4.3% 1.0 Other 2.7% 4.6% 4.8% 2.6% 4.2% 8.0% 0.0% -2.7 Santa Cruz County Total 150 108 209 154 167 138 115 - Source: Needell, B. et al. (2011). 2000-2010 Child Welfare Services Reports for California, University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research. Note: This indicator is based on children who entered foster care for the first time during the period, and who remained in care for eight days or longer. Note: Data presented are most recent available.

118 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Public Safety DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE The Adult DUI arrest rate in Santa Cruz County dropped from 100 to 76 per 10,000 residents ages 18‐69 between 2007 to 2009. The juvenile misdemeanor DUI arrest rate per 10,000 youth ages 16‐17 also dropped from 42 in 2000 to 31 in 2009. Adult DUI Arrest Rate per 10,000 (Ages 18-69), Santa Cruz County 120

80 104.7 102.5 100.1 90.9 91.8 84.9 76.9 76.3 40

0 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2001). 2000-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Adult DUI Arrests by Ethnicity (Ages 18-69) 00-09 CATEGORY 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 % CHANGE Adult Misdemeanor DUI Arrests Black 36 49 32 34 34 38 27 23 -36.1% Hispanic 565 576 551 495 556 630 574 554 -1.9% White (Not Hispanic) 1,142 1,125 984 965 1,035 1,118 783 789 -30.9% Other 53 47 63 38 57 74 39 58 9.4% Santa Cruz County Total Adult 1,796 1,797 1,630 1,532 1,682 1,860 1,423 1,424 -20.7% Misdemeanor DUI Arrests Santa Cruz County Rate per 10,000 101.8 100.0 89.0 82.8 89.7 98.3 74.6 74.1 - California Rate per 10,000 79.8 74.8 73.7 72.5 78.0 79.6 82.9 79.3 - Adult Felony DUI Arrests Black 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 ^ Hispanic 15 14 7 15 11 11 17 17 ^ White (Not Hispanic) 35 30 25 24 27 20 25 25 -28.6% Other 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 ^ Santa Cruz County Total Adult Felony 51 46 34 40 39 34 44 43 -15.7% DUI Arrests Santa Cruz County Rate per 10,000 2.9 2.6 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.3 2.2 - California Rate per 10,000 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 - Total Adult DUI Arrests (Misdemeanor & Felony) Black 37 49 32 34 34 40 28 24 -35.1% Hispanic 580 590 558 510 567 641 591 571 -1.6% White (Not Hispanic) 1,177 1,155 1,009 989 1,062 1,138 808 814 -30.8% Other 53 49 65 39 58 75 40 58 9.4% Santa Cruz County Total Adult DUI Arrests 1,847 1,843 1,664 1,572 1,721 1,894 1,467 1,467 -20.6% Santa Cruz County Rate per 10,000 104.7 102.5 90.9 84.9 91.8 100.1 76.9 76.3 - California Rate per 10,000 82.3 77.3 76.1 74.9 80.5 82.1 85.2 81.5 - Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2001). 2000-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 119 Public Safety Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Juvenile Misdemeanor DUI Arrest Rate per 10,000 Youth (Ages 16 -17) 60 Santa Cruz 46.0 45.3 County 41.5 34.0 California 40 31.6 31.0 25.3 25.1

15.5 14.9 13.1 12.5 14.0 13.2 11.7 9.9 0 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2001). 2000-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Juvenile Misdemeanor DUI Arrests by Ethnicity CATEGORY 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Juvenile Misdemeanor DUI Arrests Black 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Hispanic 11 6 11 6 9 5 8 10 White (Not Hispanic) 16 12 19 25 13 19 8 9 Other 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 Santa Cruz County Total Juvenile 28 18 32 32 23 25 17 20 Misdemeanor DUI Arrests Santa Cruz County Rate per 10,0001 41.5 25.3 46.0 45.3 31.6 34.0 25.1 31.0 California Rate per 10,000 15.5 14.9 13.1 12.5 14.0 13.2 11.7 9.9 Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2001). 2000-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 Juvenile DUI arrest rate is calculated using the population ages 16-17. DRUG ARRESTS Over the last ten years, total adult drug arrests (misdemeanor and felony) per 10,000 people fluctuated from a low of 101 in 2002 to a high of 179 in 2007 to 135 in 2009. Marijuana continues to be the most common drug arrest/violation among juveniles. Drug Arrest Rate per 10,000 Adults (Ages 18-69) and Youth (Ages 10-17), Santa Cruz County 200 179.4 Adult Rate per 10,000 Adults (Ages 135.4 160 123.9 129.1 125.4 114.3 109.8 113.0 18-69) 120 Juvenile Rate per 10,000 Youth (Ages 80 101.2 104.5 111.2 110.0 82.4 82.5 82.3 79.9 10-17) 40 0 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2001). 2000-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 120 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Public Safety Adult Drug Arrests (Ages 18-69) CATEGORY 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09 % CHANGE Adult Misdemeanor Drug Arrests Marijuana 367 354 228 289 293 359 452 429 16.9% Other Drug Violations 787 681 893 1,004 1,186 2,191 1,208 1,341 70.4% Santa Cruz County Total Adult 1,154 1,035 1,121 1,293 1,479 2,550 1,660 1,770 53.4% Misdemeanor Drug Arrests Santa Cruz County Rate per 10,000 65.4 57.6 61.2 69.8 78.9 134.8 87.0 92.1 - Adult Felony Drug Arrests Narcotics 504 412 478 383 409 428 392 439 -12.9% Marijuana 109 127 67 73 64 84 95 104 -4.6% Dangerous Drugs 225 227 394 527 456 316 229 273 21.3% Other Drug Violations 24 18 10 18 13 15 16 16 ^ Santa Cruz County Total Adult 862 784 949 1,001 942 843 732 832 -3.5% Felony Drug Arrests Santa Cruz County Rate per 10,000 48.9 43.6 51.8 54.1 50.2 44.6 38.4 43.3 - Total Adult Drug Arrests (Misdemeanor & Felony) Narcotics 504 412 478 383 409 428 392 439 -12.9% Marijuana 476 481 295 362 357 443 547 533 12.0% Dangerous Drugs 225 227 394 527 456 316 229 273 21.3% Other Drug Violations 811 699 903 1,022 1,199 2,206 1,224 1,357 67.3% Santa Cruz County Total Adult Drug 2,016 1,819 2,070 2,294 2,421 3,393 2,392 2,602 29.1% Arrests Santa Cruz County Rate per 10,000 114.3 101.2 113.0 123.9 129.1 179.4 125.4 135.4 - Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2001). 2000-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Number of Juvenile Drug Arrests (Ages 10-17) CATEGORY 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09% CHANGE Juvenile Misdemeanor Drug Arrests Marijuana 116 184 133 141 130 172 190 192 65.5% Other Drug Violations 52 56 40 37 39 60 45 34 -34.6% Santa Cruz County Total Juvenile 168 240 173 178 169 232 235 226 34.5% Misdemeanor Drug Arrests Santa Cruz County Rate per 10,000 59.4 85.5 63.7 66.6 64.0 90.1 94.3 93.5 - Juvenile Felony Drug Arrests Narcotics 26 32 21 10 13 9 11 12 ^ Marijuana 23 21 18 16 15 20 21 20 -13.0% Dangerous Drugs 16 14 12 16 14 8 10 8 ^ Other Drug Violations 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ Santa Cruz County Total Juvenile Felony 65 68 51 42 42 37 42 40 -38.5% Drug Arrests Santa Cruz County Rate per 10,000 23.0 24.2 18.8 15.7 15.9 14.4 16.9 16.5 - Total Juvenile Drug Arrests (Misdemeanor & Felony) Narcotics 26 32 21 10 13 9 11 12 ^ Marijuana 139 205 151 157 145 192 211 212 52.5% Dangerous Drugs 16 14 12 16 14 8 10 8 ^ Other Drug Violations 52 57 40 37 39 60 45 34 -34.6% Santa Cruz County Total Juvenile Drug 233 308 224 220 211 269 277 266 -14.2% Arrests Santa Cruz County Rate per 10,000 82.4 109.8 82.5 82.3 79.9 104.5 111.2 110.0 - Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2009 California Criminal Justice Profile. California Department of Finance (2001). 2000-2009 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. © 2011 Applied Survey Research 121 Public Safety Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS Over half of CAP survey respondents (57%) reported that they have an emergency supply kit set aside for immediate use that could sustain all members of the family or household for three days. Significance testing revealed that Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to have an emergency kit set aside.  Does your family or household have an emergency supply kit set aside for immediate use that could sustain all members of the family or household for 72 hours? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Ethnicity -2011 100% 2009 80% 2011 59.6% 57.0% 63.4% 62.2%* 60% 45.1% 42.9%* 40% 20% 0% Overall Caucasian Latino 2001 N: Overall=719; Caucasian=502, Latino=161; 2009 N: Overall=853; Caucasian=595; Latino=192 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to have an emergency supply kit set aside.

Social Environment Snapshot Hate Crimes ...... 133 of Santa Cruz County ...... 124 Quality of Life ...... 134 Social Environment Community Goals ...... 124 Youth Activities ...... 136 Basic Needs  ...... 125 People with Disabilities  ...... 137 Homelessness ...... 126 Community Support ...... 142 People Served by Food Bank ...... 130 Volunteerism/Charitable Giving  ...... 143 Students Receiving Free or Reduced Knowledge about Local Government ...... 145 Cost Meals ...... 131 Voting and Political Engagement  ...... 145 Racism and Discrimination ...... 132

OVERALL RECENT INDICATOR MEASUREMENT DATA TREND TREND Percent of CAP survey respondents who went without BASIC NEEDS 14.0% basic needs in the past twelve months

Number of homeless persons counted on a single HOMELESSNESS 2,771 day in January

Percent of CAP survey respondents who reported that they or a member of their household had been PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 18.9% diagnosed with a disability that significantly limits one or more major life activities Percent of CAP survey respondents who reported SOCIAL ACTIVISM that in the past twelve months they had met with, e- 54.4% NA NA mailed, called or a sent a letter to any local politician Indicates data moving in a positive direction; Indicates data moving in a negative direction; Increasing (Upward) trend; Declining (Downward) trend; Inconclusive; variable; no clear trend; NA Not applicable or data unavailable. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY GOALS

GOAL: By the year 2015, more Santa Cruz County residents will have access to housing, both rental and home ownership, that they can afford.

GOAL: By the year 2015, more Santa Cruz County residents will be actively engaged in improving their community through public participation. » Community Hero: Adrian Lemke, Community Volunteer » Community Hero: Michelle Whiting, Santa Cruz Bible Church » Community Hero: Triple P Practioners (Andrew Castro, Chris O’Halloran, Donica Ericsson, Celia Organista), First 5 Positive Parenting Program

GOAL: By the year 2015, county residents with disabilities will be able to obtain services needed to support increasing options, pursue goals and participate in community life at levels consistent with their ability. » Community Hero: Betsy Clark, Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center – Community Support Services

124 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment BASIC NEEDS The inability to meet basic needs often underlies other social and familial issues such as educational performance, family relationships, and health status. The number of CAP survey respondents who reported needing to go without basic needs decreased from 16% in 2009 to 14% in 2011. In addition, ethnicity data showed that Latino respondents (26%) were significantly more likely to go without basic needs in the past year than Caucasian respondents (10%).  In any given month in the last 12 months, did you find yourself having to go without basic needs such as child care, health care, food, or housing? (Respondents answering “Yes”) 40% Overall 32.8% 31.4% Caucasian 27.7% Latino 25.0% 25.9%* 23.2% 23.2% 18.6% 20% 15.6% 15.9% 13.0% 13.3% 13.6% 14.0% 6.5% 13.9% 5.8% 9.5% 10.1% 10.0% 10.1% 10.9% 9.9%* 0% 5.8% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2000=654; 2001=706; 2002=684; 2003=700; 2005=707; 2007=711; 2009=848; 2011=722; Caucasian N: 2000=442; 2001=493; 2002=478; 2003=489; 2005=495; 2007=497; 2009=593; 2011=504; Latino N: 2000=142; 2001=159; 2002=154; 2003=158; 2005=159; 2007=159; 2009=191, 2011=162. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to go without basic needs in any given month in the last 12 months.  If you had to go without basic needs, what did you go without? (Selected Responses) 00-11 RESPONSE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE Health Care (Including 41.0% 60.8% 36.1% 51.8% 63.5% 67.7% 61.8% NA NA Dental)1 Health Care1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 57.2% NA Dental Care1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.1% NA Food/Limited Food Choices 56.6% 31.2% 40.8% 46.2% 46.7% 21.1% 25.9% 30.5% -26.1 Rent/Housing 2.4% 1.9% 12.8% 2.7% 16.0% 8.7% 22.0% 14.0% 11.6 Child Care 19.3% 12.4% 6.8% 7.2% 12.0% 12.9% 13.5% 16.2% -3.1 Year 2011: 100 respondents offering 124 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. 1 In 2011, health care and dental care were divided up into two categories and is therefore no longer comparable to previous years.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 125 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  If you had to go without basic needs, did you get help from a social service program? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Ethnicity – 2011 60% 43.0% 38.2% 37.8% 40%

20%

0% Overall Caucasian Latino

Overall N: 98; Caucasian N: 50; Latino N: 39 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  If you did not get help from a social service program, why didn’t you get help? By Ethnicity RESPONSE 2011 RESPONSE 2011 Didn’t Know Where to Get Help 15.1% Didn’t Think I Qualified 12.2% Caucasian 10.7% Caucasian 12.6% Latino 23.2% Latino 13.8% Applied for Public Assistance 40.8% Other 10.5% Caucasian 35.1% Caucasian 18.9% Latino 43.5% Latino 0.0% Didn’t Want To 22.9% Caucasian 24.1% Latino 19.5% Overall N: 59 respondents offering 60 responses; Caucasian N: 28 respondents offering 28 responses; Latino N: 23 respondents offering 23 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. HOMELESSNESS In 2011, less than 1% of CAP survey respondents reported that they had been homeless in the past year, a decrease from 2% in 2009. Four percent (4%) of CAP survey respondents also reported that they had someone living at their address on a temporary basis who might otherwise be homeless, almost half (47%) of whom were immediate family members.

Nine percent (9%) of students in Santa Cruz County Schools in the 2010/11 school year were considered homeless and receiving services under the McKinney‐Vento Act.28 The majority (79%) of those students were living in doubled or tripled up housing.

The biennial point‐in‐time count of homeless persons provides a snapshot of the local homeless population. It offers an estimate of the number of persons homeless on any given night during the year. There was a 22% increase in the number of homeless persons counted in biennial point‐in‐ time count, from 2,265 in 2009 to 2,771 in 2011. In 2011, 21% of the homeless population was under 25 years old.

28 Please see Appendix II for definition of “The McKinney-Vento Act.” 126 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment  Have you been without housing in Santa Cruz County during the past year (homeless, in a shelter, on the street, or living in your vehicle)? (Respondents answering “Yes”) 10% 8% 6% 3.2% 4% 3.0% 1.5% 1.6% 2% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% 0% 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

N: 2001=706; 2002=684; 2003=702; 2005=708; 2007=711; 2009=854; 2011=722. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2001-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  Is anyone staying at your address on a temporary basis who otherwise might be considered homeless? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Ethnicity 18% 2009

12% 8.8% 2011 6.6% 5.7% 5.0%* 6% 4.2% 1.4%* 0% Overall Caucasian Latino

Overall: 2009 N=851; 2011 N=719; Caucasian: 2009 N=592; 2011N=503; Latino: 2009 N=192; 2011 N=160. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to have someone staying at their address on a temporary basis who otherwise might be considered homeless.  How many people staying at this address might be considered homeless? – 2011 RESPONSE 2009 2011 1 74.1% 78.9% 2 20.6% 17.1% 3 3.0% 1.5% 4 2.4% 2.5% Total Respondents 56 30 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  Relationship of this person or persons to the owner, leaseholder, or primary renter of this property RESPONSE 2009 2011 Immediate Family (Mother, Father, Son, Daughter, Sister, Brother) 49.4% 47.3% Friend 37.0% 32.6% Extended Family (Grandparent, Aunt, Uncle, Cousin or Other Relative) 13.4% 16.1% Non-family Member (Including In-laws) 8.2% 14.7% Year 2009: 53 respondents offering 59 responses; Year 2011: 30 respondents offering 33 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This was a multiple response question so percentages do not add up to 100%.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 127 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 HOMELESS CHILDREN, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Number of Children Who Are Homeless and Receiving Services Under the McKinney-Vento Act HOMELESS CHILDREN 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 07-11 NET CHANGE Percent of Students Who Are Homeless & Receiving 4.9% 8.2% 8.1% 8.6% 3.7 Services under the McKinney-Vento Act Total Student Enrollment in Santa Cruz County 38,132 38,279 38,502 38,971 - Source: Santa Cruz County Office of Education (2011). 2007-2011 Homeless Education Outreach. Homeless Children Receiving Services Under the McKinney-Vento Act by Housing Situation HOUSING SITUATION 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 07-11 NET CHANGE Doubled-up Homeless1 81.3% 83.6% 66.7% 79.0% -2.3 Shelters2 9.8% 7.1% 18.3% 13.5% 3.7 Unsheltered3 4.1% 7.0% 12.8% 6.1% 2.0 Motels 2.3% 2.4% 2.2% 1.4% -0.9 Other Situations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 Unknown 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 Total Number of Homeless Children Receiving Services 1,880 3,139 3,112 3,357 - Source: Santa Cruz County Office of Education (2011). 2007-2011 Homeless Education Outreach. 1 The term “Doubled-up Homeless” refers to families doubled or tripled up in housing due to an inability to find permanent housing. 2 The “Shelter” count includes youth living in “Transitional Housing.” 3 The “Unsheltered” numbers do not include migrant youth living in a homeless situation. Homeless Children Receiving Services Under the McKinney-Vento Act by Age Group AGE GROUP 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 07-11 NET CHANGE Pre-school 7.0% 9.0% 13.5% 5.7% -1.3 Primary (Grades K-3) 28.2% 29.8% 23.2% 36.3% 8.1 Intermediate (Grades 4-6) 21.5% 18.7% 17.0% 19.3% -2.2 Middle School (Grades 7-8) 13.8% 13.4% 14.8% 14.3% 0.5 High School (Grades 9-12) 29.5% 29.0% 31.5% 24.3% -5.2 Total Number of Homeless Children Receiving Services 1,880 3,139 3,112 3,357 - Source: Santa Cruz County Office of Education (2011). 2007-2011 Homeless Education Outreach.

128 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment POINT-IN-TIME (PIT) HOMELESS CENSUS AND SURVEY Key Findings About Homelessness in Santa Cruz County CHARACTERISTIC 2005 2007 2009 2011 Point-in-Time Homeless Enumeration 3,371 2,789 2,265 2,771 Unsheltered & Sheltered Homeless 79.9% Unsheltered 82.6% Unsheltered 67.8% Unsheltered 76.7% Unsheltered Persons 20.1% Sheltered 17.4% Sheltered 32.2% Sheltered 23.3% Sheltered Unaccompanied Homeless Persons 2,767 2,408 1,815 2,391 Persons in Homeless Families with 536 381 450 498 Children Homeless Subpopulations 1,374 Chronically 1,151 Chronically 842 Chronically 1,004 Chronically Homeless1 Homeless1 Homeless1 Homeless1 609 Mentally Ill 1,062 Mentally Ill 663 Mentally Ill 696 Mentally Ill 1,189 Substance Abuse 161 Substance Abuse 627 Substance Abuse 983 Substance Abuse 464 Veterans 424 Veterans 272 Veterans 275 Veterans 95 HIV/AIDS 83 HIV/AIDS 18 HIV/AIDS 36 HIV/AIDS 334 Domestic Violence 407 Domestic Violence 119 Domestic Violence 221 Domestic Violence 38 Children 10 Children 17 Children 88 Children (Unaccompanied) (Unaccompanied) (Unaccompanied) (Unaccompanied) Homeless One Year or More 59.0% 61.5% 53.9% 59.7% Age 41 Years & Older 54.6% 63.5% 50.7% 46.2% Gender 61.3% Male 69.8% Male 73.1% Male 66.5% Male 38.7% Female 30.2% Female 26.2% Female 32.1% Female 0.7% Other 1.4% Other Race/Ethnicity 58.1% Caucasian 64.3% Caucasian 50.1% Caucasian 63.4% Caucasian 27.9% Hispanic 23.4% Hispanic 30.2% Hispanic 22.5% Hispanic 4.2% Multi-Race 5.1% African American 7.7% African American 5.8% African American 4.2% Native American 3.5% Multi-Race 5.0% Multi-Race 4.0% Multi-Race 3.7% African American 2.1% Native American 4.7% Native American 2.8% Native American 1.2% Asian/Pacific 1.7% Asian/Pacific 2.2% Asian/Pacific 1.4% Asian/Pacific Islander Islander Islander Islander Santa Cruz County Resident Before 62.3% 66.9% 62.3% 67.3% Becoming Homeless Employment 12.0% Employed 12.8% Employed 15.0% Employed 23.9% Employed 88.0% Unemployed 87.1% Unemployed 85.0% Unemployed 76.1% Unemployed Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2005-2011 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey. 1 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Chronically Homeless.” Usual Nighttime Accommodations RESPONSE 2007 2009 2011 07-11 NET CHANGE Outdoors/Streets/Parks/Encampments 34.4% 30.9% 35.7% 1.3 Emergency or Other Shelter 30.7% 28.9% 14.3% -16.4 Vehicle 8.0% 14.2% 22.3% 14.3 A Structure or Indoor Area Not Normally Used for Sleeping 8.7% 10.6% 10.0% 1.3 Transitional Housing 6.4% 5.6% 10.0% 3.6 Motel/Hotel 4.7% 4.6% 3.0% -1.7 Other 7.1% 3.3% 4.6% -2.5 Total Respondents 424 395 498 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 129 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Primary Causes of Current Episode of Homelessness (Top 5 Responses in 2011) RESPONSE 2007 2009 2011 07-11 NET CHANGE Lost Job 30.2% 29.9% 25.2% -5.0 Alcohol/Drug Use 10.8% 15.6% 17.0% 6.2 Argument/Family or Friend Asked Them to Leave 6.6% 6.5% 12.4% 5.8 Family or Domestic Violence 5.9% 4.0% 8.7% 2.8 Illness or medical problem 5.6% 4.5% 4.9% 0.7 Total Respondents 427 398 493 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey. CALWORKS REQUESTS FOR HOMELESS ASSISTANCE Number of Requests Received for Homeless Assistance1 RESPONSE 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 % CHANGE Santa Cruz County 179 170 174 134 110 168 1742 152 144 -19.6% California 48,687 68,056 65,159 55,001 49,025 51,622 57,1832 57,447 54,604 12.2% Source: CalWORKS Homeless Assistance Program (2011). 2000-2010 Monthly Statistical Report. 1 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Homeless Assistance.” 2 Data exclude requests made in the month of April in Santa Cruz County due to Santa Cruz County not reporting. PEOPLE SERVED BY FOOD BANK While services are not a good proxy for need, this indicator helps identify the scope of efforts to fight poverty and hunger. Data indicated that the number of people served by the Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz County increased considerably, from 32,618 in 2003 to 52,400 in 2010. Number of People Served by the Second Harvest Food Bank, Santa Cruz County 60,000

40,000 52,400 45,205 45,754 48,161 48,612 40,075 20,000 32,618

0 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz County (2011). 2003-2010 Personal Correspondence. Number of People Served by the Second Harvest Food Bank by Jurisdiction JURISDICTION 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 03-10 % CHANGE Capitola 897 899 1,241 916 1,516 1,344 1,540 71.7% Santa Cruz 9,548 11,403 13,611 19,010 15,165 11,848 12,582 31.8% Scotts Valley 889 1,363 1,494 1,197 1,363 2,137 1,675 88.4% Watsonville 11,258 13,112 16,246 15,294 18,285 17,955 23,585 109.5% Unincorporated 10,026 9,930 12,613 9,337 11,832 15,328 13,018 29.8% Santa Cruz County Total 32,618 36,707 45,205 45,754 48,161 48,612 52,400 60.6% Source: Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz County (2011). 2003-2010 Personal Correspondence.

130 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment Percent of People Served by the Second Harvest Food Bank by Ethnicity ETHNICITY 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 03-10 NET CHANGE African American 3.4% 3.9% 4.4% 2.4% 2.2% 1.8% 1.9% -1.5 Asian 2.4% 2.1% 3.9% 2.3% 3.4% 2.0% 2.0% -0.4 Caucasian 33.0% 29.3% 28.5% 34.7% 29.2% 25.9% 27.8% -5.2 Latino 59.0% 62.8% 58.7% 57.0% 63.0% 67.8% 65.9% 6.9 Native American 1.6% 0.8% 1.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% -0.9 Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2 Other 0.5% 0.6% 1.9% 2.2% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 0.9 Santa Cruz County Total 32,618 36,707 45,205 45,754 48,161 48,612 52,400 - Source: Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz County (2011). 2003-2010 Personal Correspondence. Percent of Low-Income Children Who Are Underweight (<5th Percentile) AGE GROUP 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 00-09 NET CHANGE Children Under 5 Years Santa Cruz County 5.0% 5.1% 7.0% 8.2% 7.1% 6.5% 5.3% 6.9% 1.9 California 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.5% 5.4% 5.6% 6.2% 0.9 Children 5-19 Years Santa Cruz County 1.6% 1.9% 1.1% 1.2% 0.9% 2.2% 1.0% 2.4% 0.8 California 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% -0.3 Source: Center for Disease Control (2011). 2000-2009 Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance, Growth Indicators by Race/Ethnicity and Age. Note: The data are collected from participants in the Child Health and Disability Prevention Program, which serves Medi-Cal recipients and children/youth with family incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). These data on overweight/obesity capture approximately 22% of low-income (up to 200% FPL) children in California. STUDENTS RECEIVING FREE OR REDUCED COST MEALS

There was a 15% increase in the percentage of students receiving free or reduced cost meals29 from 36% in 2000/01 to 51% in 2009/10. The Pajaro Valley Unified School District had 71% of students in 2009/10 receiving free or reduced cost meals, the highest percentage in the county. Percent of Students Receiving Free or Reduced Cost Meals 80% Santa Cruz County 55.9% 60% 51.1% 51.0% 51.2% 53.7% 46.8% 48.7% 49.7% California

50.9% 40% 47.1% 43.5% 45.1% 43.8% 44.6% 36.4% 38.6% 20%

0% 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Educational Demographics Unit.

29 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Free or Reduced Cost Meal.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 131 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Percent of Students Receiving Free or Reduced Cost Meals by School District SCHOOL DISTRICT 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 00-10 NET CHANGE Bonny Doon Elementary 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.7% 0.0% 2.3% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8 Happy Valley Elementary 8.7% 13.6% 11.9% 7.7% 8.7% 8.5% 7.8% 10.9% 2.2 Live Oak Elementary 34.4% 39.1% 43.5% 42.3% 47.0% 42.0% 45.3% 55.2% 20.8 Mountain Elementary 11.7% 11.9% 11.7% 9.0% 9.9% 7.3% 7.5% 3.8% -7.9 Pacific Elementary 25.3% 26.1% 28.1% 24.3% 32.7% 37.7% 34.9% 42.9% 17.6 Pajaro Valley Unified 53.9% 58.2% 64.2% 63.3% 60.6% 63.3% 67.3% 71.3% 17.4 San Lorenzo Valley 13.3% 12.2% 10.6% 10.5% 17.4% 15.2% 16.2% 18.8% 5.5 Unified Santa Cruz City 38.0% 39.3% 40.4% 40.9% 43.7% 40.3% 41.4% 43.4% 5.4 Elementary Santa Cruz City High 11.6% 14.0% 19.1% 22.5% 25.9% 26.2% 25.8% 29.2% 17.6 Santa Cruz County Office 0.0% 12.7% 65.4% 35.1% 24.0% 37.6% 32.8% 31.2% 31.2 of Education Scotts Valley Unified 5.9% 4.6% 6.0% 7.0% 6.8% 7.3% 7.7% 12.7% 6.8 Soquel Union Elementary 23.9% 26.0% 28.8% 28.7% 29.2% 24.0% 29.7% 36.5% 12.6 Santa Cruz County 36.4% 38.6% 43.5% 45.1% 43.8% 44.6% 47.1% 50.9% 14.5 California 46.8% 48.7% 49.7% 51.1% 51.0% 51.2% 53.7% 55.9% 9.1 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2000-2010 Educational Demographics Unit. RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION Social indicators like racism and discrimination are important to measure because they adversely affect mental and physical health.30 In 2011, approximately 11% of overall CAP survey respondents felt racism was a big problem in Santa Cruz County and nearly 12% felt discriminated against or treated unfairly in the last 12 months.  How much of a problem is racism in Santa Cruz County? (Respondents answering “A Big Problem”) By Ethnicity 100% 2009 80% 2011 60% 40% 13.9% 15.6%* 20% 12.8% 10.6% 8.0%* 8.3% 0% Overall Caucasian Latino 2009 N: Overall= 794, Caucasian=555, Latino=176; 2011 N: Overall=669; Caucasian=461; Latino=158. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Significantly more Latino respondents than Caucasian respondents said racism was a big problem in Santa Cruz County in 2011.

30 Berkman L., Kawachi I Krieger N. (2000). Discrimination and health. Social Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 36‐75. 132 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment  Have you felt discriminated against or treated unfairly in Santa Cruz County in the last 12 months? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Ethnicity - 2011 30% Overall 22.1% Caucasian 18.7% 18.3%* 20% 18.2% Latino 14.3% 13.8% 16.3% 11.6% 11.8% 10% 12.0% 9.2% 8.7%* 0% 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2005=707; 2007=706; 2009=851; 2011=720; Caucasian N: 2005=495, 2007=493, 2009=594, 2011=502; Latino N: 2005=159, 2007=160, 2009=191, 2011=162 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2005-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Question was asked slightly different in 2011. *Significance testing: Significantly more Latino respondents than Caucasian respondents felt discriminated against or treated unfairly.

 If you have felt discriminated against or treated unfairly, for what reason? (Selected Responses) 05-11 RESPONSE 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE Ethnicity/Race 51.8% 48.7% 46.7% 51.1% -0.7 Language 2.1% 22.9% 13.3% 10.7% 8.6 Age 6.4% 12.2% 12.1% 14.7% 8.3 Socio-economic Status 16.7% 9.6% 11.5% 13.4% -3.3 Appearance 16.0% 6.8% 7.5% 5.8% -10.2 Gender 6.4% 3.9% 7.1% 9.5% 3.1 Year 2011: 82 respondents offering 106 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2005-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. HATE CRIMES Data from the California Department of Justice show that, between 2000 and 2009, Santa Cruz County saw an overall increase in the number of hate crime31 events. However, the number of hate crimes has recently decreased from 28 in 2008 to 16 in 2009, a decrease particularly evident in crimes motivated by religious or racial bias. Number of Hate Crime Events by Bias Motivation BIAS MOTIVATION 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Religion 2 3 2 1 4 6 15 6 Race/Ethnicity 4 10 9 14 10 13 8 3 Sexual Orientation 5 7 6 6 10 9 5 7 Gender 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Physical/Mental Disability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz County Total 11 20 17 21 25 28 28 16 Source: California Department of Justice (2011). 2000-2008 Bias Motivation Report. Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

31 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Hate Crime.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 133 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 QUALITY OF LIFE Two‐thirds (67%) of CAP survey respondents reported being “very satisfied” with their overall quality of life in 2011. Over three‐quarters (80%) of Caucasian respondents reported enjoying their life “to a great extent,” as compared to less than half of Latino respondents (48%), a statistically significant difference. According to the telephone survey, the number one factor that has contributed to their quality of life in Santa Cruz County since 2000 is the scenery, geography, and climate of the region.

 How satisfied are you with your overall quality of life? 100% 2009 2011 80% 72.0% 66.6% 60% 40% 26.5% 31.4% 20% 1.5% 2.0% 0% Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Not at all Satisfied Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009- 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  How satisfied are you with your overall quality of life? By Income – 2011 100% $34,999 or Less 80% 74.1%* 67.5% $35,000 to 58.5%* 60% $65,499 39.3% $65,500 or 40% 30.6% 24.9% More 20% 2.2% 1.9% 1.0% 0% Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Not at all Satisfied

N Overall=722; $34,999 or Less= 276; $35,000 to $65,499= 137; $65,500 or More= 247. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Significantly more respondents with incomes of $65,500 or more per were very satisfied with their overall quality of life year compared to respondents with incomes of less than $35,000 per year.

 How much do you enjoy your life? (Respondents answering “To a great extent”) By Ethnicity – 2011 100% 79.5%* 80% 72.0% 60% 47.5%* 40% 20% 0% Overall Caucasian Latino Overall N=716, Caucasian N=500, Latino N=161 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Question was not asked in 2009. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to say that they enjoy their life to a great extent. 134 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment  Generally speaking, what contributes most to your quality of life in Santa Cruz County? (Top 5 Responses)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 1. Scenery/ 1. Scenery/ 1. Scenery/ 1. Scenery/ 1. Scenery/ 1. Scenery/ 1. Scenery/ 1. Scenery/ geography/ geography/ geography/ geography/ geography/ geography/ geography/ geography/ climate climate climate climate climate climate climate climate (65.7%) (67.8%) (59.3%) (61.6%) (70.8%) (73.0%) (76.2%) (75.2%) 2. Family/ 2. Community/ 2. Family/ 2. Family/ 2. Outdoor 2. Family/ 2. Family/ 2. Family/ friends/ low friends/ friends/ recreation friends/ friends/ friends/ friendly population/ friendly friendly (12.1%) friendly friendly friendly people slow pace people people people people people (25.7%) (12.4%) (14.3%) (12.8%) (15.2%) (17.0%) (20.9%) 3. Community/ 3. Family/ 3. Community/ 3. Social climate 3. Community/ 3. Diversity of 3. Community/ 3. Community/ low friends/ low (10.2%) low people low low population/ friendly population/ population/ (12.3%) population/ population/ slow pace people slow pace slow pace slow pace slow pace (8.9%) (10.2%) (8.7%) (10.8%) (15.5%) (18.0%) 4. Quiet/ 4. Social climate 4. Social climate 4. Community/ 4. Family/ 4. Clean air 4. Social climate 4. Social climate peaceful (9.7%) (8.5%) low friends/ (8.6%) (14.9%) (14.4%) (7.5%) population/ friendly slow pace people (8.7%) (10.8%) 5. Diversity of 5. Outdoor 5. Outdoor 5. Quiet/ 5. Diversity of 5. Quiet/ 5. Quiet/ 5. Quiet/ people (6.3%) recreation recreation peaceful people (8.7%) peaceful peaceful peaceful (6.2%) (7.6%) (7.7%) (8.4%) (7.5%) (6.8%) Year 2011: 696 respondents offering 1,011 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This was an open-ended survey question which allowed the respondent to provide any answer. Due to variance in coding, data should be compared by top responses rather than tracking individual responses over time.  What do you think takes away from your quality of life in Santa Cruz County? (Top 5 Responses) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 1. Traffic 1. Traffic 1. Traffic 1. Cost of living/ 1. Traffic 1. Traffic 1. Nothing takes 1. Nothing takes (30.4%) (34.0%) (30.7%) housing (32.3%) (31.1%) away (18.6%) away (19.3%) (26.9%) 2. Cost of living/ 2. Cost of living/ 2. Cost of living/ 2. Traffic 2. Cost of living/ 2. Cost of living/ 2. Traffic 2. Traffic housing housing housing (23.3%) housing housing (13.8%) (15.7%) (22.7%) (21.6%) (23.5%) (23.2%) (20.1%) 3. Overcrowding 3. Overcrowding 3. Overcrowding 3. Overcrowding 3. Overcrowding 3. Overcrowding 3. Cost of living/ 3. Gangs/ crime (15.5%) (18.8%) (15.3%) (9.2%) (12.6%) (10.7%) housing (15.2%) (13.5%) 4. Low wage/ 4. Nothing takes 4. Government 4. Nothing takes 4. Government 4. Gangs/ crime 4. Gangs/ crime 4. Cost of living/ poor away (8.0%) (5.5%) away (6.8%) (6.7%) (9.7%) (11.3%) housing economic (14.4%) opportunities (10.1%) 5. Road 5. Low wage/ 5. Homeless 5. Low wage/ 5. Gangs/crime 5. Homeless 5. 5. conditions poor (5.4%) poor (5.5%) (9.4%) Overcrowding/ Overcrowding (6.8%) economic economic unplanned /unplanned opportunities opportunities growth (9.5%) growth (9.0%) (5.8%) (6.4%) Year 2011: 666 respondents offering 771 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2001-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This was an open-ended survey question which allowed the respondent to provide any answer. Due to variance in coding, data should be compared by top responses rather than tracking individual responses over time.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 135 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  What do you think takes away from your quality of life in Santa Cruz County? (Top 5 responses) By Ethnicity – 2011

CAUCASIAN LATINO 1. Traffic (18.2%*) 1. Nothing Takes Away (35.7%*) 2. Nothing Takes Away (14.7%*) 2. Gangs/Crime (22.9%*) 3. Cost of Living (13.8%) 3. Cost of Living (17.4%) 4. Gangs/Crime (13.7%*) 4. Traffic (6.7%*) 5. Overcrowding/Unplanned Growth (9.5%) 5. Overcrowding/Unplanned Growth (6.2%) Caucasian: 481 respondents offering 559 responses; Latino: 134 respondents offering 148 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to say that traffic takes away from their quality of life in Santa Cruz County and significantly less likely than Latino respondents to say that gangs/crime took away from their quality of life; Latino respondents were significantly more likely than Caucasian respondents to say that nothing takes away from their quality of life in Santa Cruz County. YOUTH ACTIVITIES After school activities provide a safe and positive environment for youth. Overall, the percentage of CAP survey respondents who felt that their child had enough activities after school and on weekends decreased from 89% in 2000 to 75% in 2011. In addition, Caucasian respondents (85%) were significantly more likely than Latino respondents (66%) to believe that their child has enough activities after school and on weekends.  Does your child have enough activities after school and on weekends? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Ethnicity

100% 96.2% Overall

87.2% 85.9% 87.0% 86.6% 85.4%* Caucasian 82.5% 89.2% 79.3% Latino 77.0% 80% 78.8% 77.9% 72.4% 75.3% 78.1% 78.3% 71.5% 69.7% 67.4% 60% 64.9% 66.4%* 62.2%

52.1% 53.3% 40% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Overall N: 2000=185; 2001=180; 2002=177; 2003=169; 2005=184; 2007=127; 2009=213; 2011=178; Caucasian N: 2000=108; 2001=84; 2002=92; 2003=90; 2005=77; 2007=64; 2009=106; 2011=77; Latino N: 2000=64; 2001=78; 2002=71; 2003=68; 2005=94; 2007=48; 2009=90; 2011=88. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to believe that their child had enough activities after school and on weekends.

136 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES It is important for every society to provide the resources necessary to allow all individuals to participate fully in their community, regardless of their physical, mental, or developmental disability.32 CAP survey respondents who have a disability, or whose family member has a disability, said that persons with a disability needed additional services to increase their involvement in community life including specialized transportation/mobility device (38%) and job development/employment training/coaching (34%).  Have you or a member of your household been diagnosed by a physician with a disability that significantly limits one or more major life activities? (Respondents answering “Yes”) 40% 16.7% 21.6% 18.9% 20% 0% 2007 2009 2011 N: 2007=706; 2009=847; 2011=714. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: In 2011, respondents were allowed to provide a response for each member of their family.  How many people in your household have been diagnosed as having a disability? RESPONSE 2009 2011 1 82.9% 84.0% 2 16.6% 16.0% 3 0.0% 0.0% 4 0.5% 0.0% Total Respondents 183 135 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Survey question was not asked until 2007.  What is/are the age(s) of the person(s) diagnosed as having a disability? RESPONSE 2007 2009 2011 07-11 NET CHANGE 0 to 5 Years 0.4% 0.7% 2.8% 2.4 6 to 18 Years 2.4% 5.1% 4.5% 2.1 19 to 24 Years 14.4% 3.3% 3.8% -10.6 25 to 34 Years 3.8% 2.6% 7.9% 4.1 35 to 44 Years 12.7% 11.2% 6.4% -6.3 45 to 54 Years 12.7% 14.4% 10.9% -1.8 55 to 64 Years 18.7% 22.3% 32.6% 13.9 65 to 74 Years 10.3% 19.8% 16.9% 6.6 75 to 84 Years 28.3% 21.1% 14.7% -13.6 85 Years & Older 7.9% 9.9% 10.5% 2.6 Year 2011: 135 respondents offering 150 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This was a multiple response question so percentages do not add up to 100%.  Is the person with a disability participating in community life at the level he or she desires? (Respondents answering “Yes”) 80% 63.1% 40% 57.4% 58.3% 0% 2007 2009 2011 N: 2007=178; 2009=185; 2011=154. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

32 Please see Appendix II for definitions of “Mental Disability,” “Physical Disability,” and “Sensory Disability.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 137 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  If the person with a disability is not participating in community life at the level he or she desires, in what areas would you/they like to increase their involvement? RESPONSE 2007 2009 2011 07-11 NET CHANGE Social Events/Activities 34.4% 23.8% 26.4% -8.0 Work/Donating Time 15.3% 22.4% 10.0% -5.3 All Aspects of Life 5.4% 13.3% 9.7% 4.3 Limited Mobility to Get Around/Get Out More 28.2% 10.9% 23.0% -5.2 Continued Education 5.5% 7.4% 3.3% -2.5 Other 11.2% 29.5% 23.0% 11.8 Year 2011: 57 respondents offering 66 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This was a multiple response question so percentages do not add up to 100%.  What types of additional services are needed to allow you/them to increase involvement? RESPONSE 2007 2009 2011 07-11 NET CHANGE Social/Recreational Services or Supports 36.3% 44.4% 34.1% -2.2 Personal Attendants 33.9% 35.2% 26.6% -7.3 Specialized Transportation/Mobility Device 36.6% 31.0% 38.3% 1.7 Financial Planning/Management 30.4% 30.4% 30.3% -0.1 Job Development/Employment Training/Coaching 34.8% 23.9% 33.6% -1.2 Academic Counseling/Tutoring 27.8% 18.0% 22.2% -5.6 Don’t Know 15.4% 17.7% 6.4% -9.0 Year 2011: 39 respondents offering 82 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This was a multiple response question so percentages do not add up to 100%. People with Any Disability by Age Group and Gender, Santa Cruz County AGE GROUP/GENDER 2008 2009 2010 08-10 NET CHANGE Under 5 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0 Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% -0.2 Female 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2 5-17 7.0% 9.4% 8.2% 1.2% Male 3.5% 6.5% 6.0% 2.5 Female 2.5% 2.9% 2.2% -0.3 18-34 9.6% 13.5% 13.0% 3.4 Male 5.2% 6.5% 7.5% 2.3 Female 4.4% 6.9% 5.5% 1.1 35-64 40.0% 39.4% 40.8% 0.8 Male 19.2% 18.6% 20.5% 1.3 Female 20.8% 20.8% 20.3% -0.5 65-74 13.6% 9.0% 12. 6% 1.0 Male 7.6% 3.6% 7.2% -0.4 Female 6.0% 5.4% 5.4% -0.6 75 & Older 30.4% 28.5% 25.1% -5.3 Male 10.0% 9.1% 9.9% -0.1 Female 20.4% 19.4% 15.2% -5.2 Santa Cruz County Population With Any Disability 23,078 20,875 24,009 - Percent of Santa Cruz County Total Population with Disability 9.2% 8.2% 9.3% 0.1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Disability Characteristics.

138 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment Adult Population (Ages 16-64) Employed 2008 2009 2010 08-10 %CHANGE With a Disability 11,677 11,349 13,719 17.5% Worked in the past 12 months 5,450 5,125 4,815 -11.7% Did not work in the past 12 months 6,227 6,224 8,904 43.0% Without a Disability 165,877 166,961 171,511 3.4% Worked in the past 12 months 139,008 133,180 130,846 -5.9% Did not work in the past 12 months 26,869 33,781 40,665 51.3% Percent of Disabled Workers 46.7% 45.2% 35.1% - Percent of Able Workers 83.8% 79.8% 76.3% - Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Disability Characteristics. Special Education Enrollment Rate per 1,000 Students 150 Santa Cruz 126.4 126.2 126.8 122.7 121.5 123.7 County California

100 107.9 108.2 108.1 108.0 108.5 109.9

50 Dec. 2004 Dec. 2005 Dec. 2006 Dec. 2007 Dec. 2008 Dec. 2009

Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2004-2009 Special Education Division and Educational Demographics Office. Special Education Enrollment Rate per 1,000 Students by Disability Type1 DISABILITY TYPE DEC. 2004 DEC. 2005 DEC. 2006 DEC. 2007 DEC. 2008 DEC. 2009 04-09 NET CHANGE Autism Santa Cruz County 3.6 4.5 5.2 6.5 6.9 7.0 3.4 California 4.6 5.5 6.3 7.4 8.5 9.6 5.0 Emotional Disturbance Santa Cruz County 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.3 3.6 1.1 California 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 0.0 Hard of Hearing Santa Cruz County 2.8 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.4 0.6 California 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.3 Mental Retardation Santa Cruz County 6.0 5.9 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.2 -0.8 California 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 -0.1 Orthopedic Impairment Santa Cruz County 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.7 -1.0 California 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 0.1 Specific Learning Disability Santa Cruz County 59.0 56.6 56.5 55.4 54.3 54.0 -5.0 California 51.9 49.9 48.8 47.5 46.6 46.5 -5.4

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 139 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Special Education Enrollment Rate per 1,000 Students by Disability Type1 (Continued) DISABILITY TYPE DEC. 2004 DEC. 2005 DEC. 2006 DEC. 2007 DEC. 2008 DEC. 2009 04-09 NET CHANGE Speech or Language Impairment Santa Cruz County 37.5 38.4 39.1 40.4 39.6 39.8 2.3 California 27.9 28.7 28.4 28.1 27.6 27.1 -0.8 Visual Impairment Santa Cruz County 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.8 -0.4 California 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 -0.1 Other Health Impairment Santa Cruz County 4.8 4.8 5.6 6.8 7.7 8.2 3.4 California 5.6 6.3 6.9 7.5 8.1 8.7 3.1 Multiple Disability Santa Cruz County 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.2 California 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 -0.1 Santa Cruz County Total Special 4,708 4,684 4,708 4,818 4,830 4,882 - Education Enrollment Santa Cruz County Rate per 1,000 122.7 121.5 123.7 126.4 126.2 126.8 4.1 California Percent Rate per 1,000 107.9 108.2 108.1 108.0 108.5 109.9 2.0 Source: California Department of Education (2011). 2004-2009 Special Education Division and Educational Demographics Office. Note: Disabilities with less than 20 students were not included as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. All disabilities are included in the total. 1 Please see Appendix II for definitions of these disability types: “Autism,” “Emotional Disturbance,” “Hard of Hearing,” “Mental Retardation,” “Multiple Disability,” “Orthopedic Impairment,” “Other Heath Impairment,” “Specific Learning Disability,” “Speech or Language Impairment,” and “Visual Impairment.” Cabrillo College’s Disabled Student Programs and Services (DSPS) Enrollment by Type of Disability TYPE OF DISABILITY 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 05-11 NET CHANGE Learning Disabilities (LD) 39.0% 37.7% 35.7% 35.7% 37.0% 34.2% -4.8 Psychological Disabilities 12.9% 13.0% 14.9% 14.9% 14.0% 15.0% 2.1 Mobility Impaired 12.4% 13.0% 13.4% 13.4% 12.1% 11.8% -0.6 Acquired Brain Injuries (ABI) 12.4% 12.7% 11.8% 11.8% 12.0% 11.7% -0.7 Developmentally Delayed Learners (DDL) 9.8% 10.1% 9.3% 9.3% 8.4% 7.6% -2.2 Deafness or Other Hearing Impairments 3.1% 3.4% 3.7% 3.7% 3.3% 1.7% -1.4 Blindness or Other Significant Visual Impairments 1.6% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.5% -0.1 Speech & Language Programs 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2 Other Health Impairments 8.5% 8.2% 9.4% 9.4% 11.5% 16.0% 7.5 Total Number of Students Enrolled in DSPS 1,641 1,651 1,698 1,698 1,855 1,784 - Source: Cabrillo College. (2011). Personal Correspondence. UC Santa Cruz Disability Resource Center (DRC) Enrollment TYPE OF PRIMARILY DISABILITY 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 04-10 NET CHANGE Learning Disabilities (LD) 40.3% 36.4% 29.2% 26.3% 28.3% 24.1% -16.2% Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)/Attention Deficit NA1 21.2% 26.3% 26.9% 25.0% 26.8% NA Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Psychological Disability NA1 15.5% 15.9% 18.9% 18.6% 22.6% NA Acquired Brain Injuries (ABI) NA1 2.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.2% 0.8% NA Chronic System Condition NA1 4.2% 4.0% 4.4% 7.2% 7.2% NA Asperger’s Syndrome or Disorder, Autism Spectrum NA1 NA1 NA1 46.7% 2.8% 2.8% NA Mobility or Orthopedic Impairment 11.6% 14.5% 12.7% 11.4% 9.6% 11.3% -0.3% Blind or Low Vision 2.5% 1.2% 1.5% 0.8% 2.4% 1.7% -0.8% Hearing Impairment, Hard of Hearing, or Deaf 3.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 2.0% 1.7% -1.5% Other Functional Disability 41.8% 3.7% 6.4% 5.7% 2.0% 1.4% -40.4% Total Number of Students Enrolled in DRC 404 401 472 475 544 725 - Source: State of California Postsecondary Education Commission (2011). 2004-2010. 1 Until recently these categories were included in “other.”

140 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Mental Health Services: Unduplicated Client Count by Primary Diagnosis PRIMARY DIAGNOSIS FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 Mood Disorders 1,423 1,513 1,616 1,725 1,678 Schizophrenia 1,028 981 997 991 999 Adjustment Disorders 929 942 934 749 712 Anxiety Disorders 645 725 694 662 662 Childhood & Adolescence 673 638 677 701 701 Substance-Related Disorders 182 147 131 156 94 Delirium, Dementia 11 13 56 80 93 Impulse Control Disorders 15 15 22 24 18 Personality Disorder 14 14 13 18 20 Eating Disorders 8 8 7 4 5 Somatoform Disorders 1 3 2 3 2 Dissociative Disorders 1 0 1 NA 1 Mental Disorders 1 4 1 NA 2 Sexual & Gender Disorders 2 3 1 1 4 Sleep Disorders 1 1 0 2 0 Other Disorders 550 757 781 707 806 Santa Cruz County Total Mental Health Services 5,484 5,764 5,933 5,823 5,797 Clients Source: Santa Cruz County Mental Health Services Agency (2011). 2006-2011.

Number of Clients Served by San Andreas Regional Center (SARC)1 by Diagnosis and Age Group DIAGNOSIS OCT. 2008 SEP. 2009 Autism 181 194 Under 18 Years 132 142 18 Years & Older 49 52 Chronic Major Medical Condition 393 400 Under 18 Years 90 87 18 Years & Older 303 313 Cerebral Palsy 125 124 Under 18 Years 41 41 18 Years & Older 84 83 Epilepsy 197 190 Under 18 Years 41 38 18 Years & Older 156 152 Psychiatric Disorders 171 163 Under 18 Years 18 16 18 Years & Older 153 147 Mental Retardation 713 738 Under 18 Years 207 224 18 Years & Older 506 514 Other Developmental Disorder 120 119 Under 18 Years 49 46 18 Years & Older 71 73 Santa Cruz County Unduplicated Total 1,248 1,265 Source: San Andreas Regional Center, 2011. Note: While the total number of clients served is unduplicated, the client count for each diagnosis may be duplicated. 1 Please see Appendix II for definition of “San Andreas Regional Center (SARC).”

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 141 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 COMMUNITY SUPPORT Slightly more than 45% of CAP survey respondents reported feeling that people in their neighborhood “often” help each other. Significance testing shows that Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to feel that people in their neighborhood “often” help each other.  How often do you feel that people in your neighborhood help each other? (Respondents answering “Often”) By Ethnicity 100% 2009 80% 2011 55.0%* 60% 50.5% 45.4% 50.0% 40% 34.2%* 33.4% 20% 0% Overall Caucasian Latino

2009 N: Overall=834, Caucasian= 588, Latino= 182; 2001 N: Overall=711, Caucasian=499, Latino=161. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Significantly more Caucasian respondents than Latino respondents felt that people in their neighborhood helped each other often.  How often do you feel that people in your neighborhood help each other? (Respondents answering “Often”) By Income 100% 2009 80% 2011

60% 51.1% 12.9%* 51.2% 44.7%* 44.8% 39.7% 40%

20%

0% $34,999 or Less $35,000 to $65,499 $65,500 or More 2009 N: $34,999 or Less=161; $35,000 to $65,499=192; $65,000 or More=219; 2011 N: $34,999 or Less=274; $35,000 to $65,499=133; $65,000 or More=243. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Significantly more respondents with incomes less than $65,500 per year felt that people in their neighborhood never helped each other compared to those with incomes greater than $65,500 per year. Significantly more respondents with incomes greater than $65,500 or more felt people in their neighborhood helped each other often compared to those with incomes less than $35,000 per year.

142 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment VOLUNTEERISM/CHARITABLE GIVING Volunteerism and charitable giving are measures of people’s sense of ownership of, and responsibility for, their community. The percentage of CAP survey respondents who indicated that they regularly do volunteer work in the community decreased from 47% in 2009 to 41% in 2011. The percentage of respondents who reported regularly contributing money to charitable organizations decreased from 74% in 2007 to 65% in 2011. Overall, charitable giving was highest in those aged 65 or older (78%), and volunteering was highest in adults 45‐65 years old (51%).  Do you regularly contribute money to charitable organizations? Do you regularly do volunteer work in the community? (Respondents answering “Yes”) 100% Yes, I regularly 73.4% 74.4% contribute money 80% 71.9% 72.4% 69.1% 62.8% 65.6% 64.8% Yes, I regularly do 60% volunteer work

40% 46.7% 39.8% 34.2% 39.9% 41.1% 20% 33.1% 35.5% 35.5%

0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Contribute Money Overall N: 2000=656; 2001=704; 2002=681; 2003=701; 2005=707; 2007=707; 2009=850; 2011=719; Volunteer Overall N: 2000=656; 2001=706; 2002=684; 2003=698; 2005=707; 2007=709; 2009=853; 2011=719. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  Do you regularly contribute money to charitable organizations? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Age Group 00-11 AGE GROUP 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE 18-24 years % 28.3% 55.7% 41.7% 35.5% 18.0% 45.6% 28.6% 30.6% 2.3 Respondents 92 76 54 109 62 35 58 54 - 25-44 years % 58.3% 63.3% 66.0% 57.9% 66.5% 73.1% 56.7% 49.7% -8.6 Respondents 278 214 251 228 221 163 221 185 - 45-64 years % 76.4% 77.2% 79.4% 77.2% 81.7% 73.0% 75.2% 72.7% -3.7 Respondents 191 258 255 252 270 282 355 283 - 65 or older % 81.7% 83.3% 91.0% 84.2% 87.0% 80.7% 82.6% 78.3% -3.4 Respondents 93 154 120 111 152 219 210 194 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 143 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  Do you regularly do volunteer work in the community? (Respondents answering “Yes”) By Age Group 00-11 AGE GROUP 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE 18-24 years % 31.5% 27.0% 15.8% 27.7% 18.2% 26.9% 63.8% 22.4% -9.1 Respondents 92 76 54 108 62 35 58 54 - 25-44 years % 41.4% 33.0% 26.1% 35.3% 35.1% 27.4% 36.0% 28.7% -12.7 Respondents 278 217 253 227 221 163 221 185 - 45-64 years % 40.0% 37.9% 38.7% 37.9% 39.1% 39.9% 53.9% 51.4% 11.4 Respondents 190 258 255 250 270 282 355 280 - 65 or older % 43.6% 33.7% 43.1% 37.9% 36.7% 51.6% 41.1% 42.8% -0.8 Respondents 94 154 120 113 152 221 213 196 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  If you contribute money, will you give: 00-11 RESPONSE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 NET CHANGE Less than last year 7.8% 11.6% 17.3% 24.2% 13.1% 22.1% 32.3% 22.4% 14.6 More than last year 22.6% 20.1% 17.7% 16.4% 19.1% 17.4% 10.3% 13.2% -9.4 About the same as last year 68.0% 66.1% 64.3% 57.8% 67.8% 60.5% 57.4% 64.4% -3.6 Total Respondents 412 506 503 458 490 512 576 457 - Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  If you volunteer, where do you volunteer? (Selected Responses) 00-11 NET RESPONSE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 CHANGE School 38.7% 23.0% 19.4% 22.6% 21.3% 29.0% 23.5% 20.2% -18.5 Church/Spiritual 20.7% 18.6% 27.3% 22.6% 31.1% 26.5% 22.1% 21.9% 1.2 Organizations Service Organizations 10.3% 13.9% 10.9% 8.3% 14.3% 16.7% 12.3% 9.1% -1.2 Youth Organizations 11.9% 14.3% 10.0% 10.2% 5.8% 7.5% 8.7% 9.8% -2.1 Year 2011: 288 respondents offering 379 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

144 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Social Environment KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LOCAL GOVERNMENT Most CAP survey respondents (80%) indicated they were “very” or “somewhat” knowledgeable about local government issues and decisions.  In general, how knowledgeable are you about local government issues and decisions? (Respondents answering “Very” or “Somewhat Knowledgeable”) By Ethnicity – 2011 2009 100% 90.3%* 85.8% 86.3%* 2011 79.5% 80% 70.1%* 57.8%* 60%

40%

20%

0% Overall Caucasian Latino N: Overall=713; Caucasian=498; Latino=162. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2009-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to feel they were very or somewhat knowledgeable about local government issues and decisions. VOTING AND POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT Registered voter turnout during all elections has been consistently higher in the county than the state. Almost 66% of registered voters turned out during the November 2010 general election, the highest of all previous non‐Presidential election years since November 2000. Percent of Registered Voters Who Voted in General Elections 100% Santa Cruz 84.3% 86.7% County 80% 66.0% 63.2% 64.8% California 59.0% 76.0% 79.4% 60% 56.2% 59.6% 40% 51.9% 50.6%

20%

0% Nov. 2000 Nov. 2002 Nov. 2004 Nov. 2006 Nov. 2008 Nov. 2010

Source: California Secretary of State, Elections Division (2011). 2000-2010.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 145 Social Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Voter Registration and Registered Voter Turnout, General Elections NOV. 2000 NOV. 2002 NOV. 2004 NOV. 2006 NOV. 2008 NOV. 2010 00-10 VOTERS GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL % CHANGE Registered 145,214 135,554 146,157 142,415 148,364 148,501 2.3% Turnout 78,878 80,023 123,275 92,236 128,555 98,037 24.3% % Santa Cruz County 63.2% 59.0% 84.3% 64.8% 86.7% 66.0% -- Turnout % California Turnout 51.9% 50.6% 76.0% 56.2% 79.4% 59.6% -- Source: California Secretary of State, Elections Division (2011). 2000-2010. Voter Registration and Registered Voter Turnout, Primary Elections MAR. 2000 MAR. 2002 MAR. 2004 JUNE 2006 FEB. 2008 JUNE 2008 JUNE 2010 00-10 VOTERS PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY % CHANGE Registered 134,997 127,582 132,307 141,370 136,415 139,834 146,974 8.9% Turnout 79,746 62,317 74,671 45,762 91,133 54,848 55,084 -30.9% % Santa Cruz County 59.1% 48.8% 56.4% 32.3% 66.8% 39.2% 37.5% - Turnout % California Turnout 53.9% 34.6% 44.3% 31.5% 57.7% 28.2% 33.3% - Source: California Secretary of State, Elections Division (2011). 2000-2010. Voter Registration and Registered Voter Turnout, Special Elections VOTERS OCT. 2003 SPECIAL NOV. 2005 SPECIAL MAY 2009 SPECIAL 03-09% CHANGE Registered 129,901 142,889 147,054 13.2% Turnout 94,759 81,368 49,900 -47.3% % Santa Cruz County Turnout 73.0% 56.9% 33.9% - % California Turnout 61.2% 50.1% 28.4% - Source: California Secretary of State, Elections Division (2011). 2003-2009.  In the last 12 months, have you done any of the following? By Ethnicity - 2011 RESPONSE OVERALL CAUCASIAN LATINO Signed a petition 71.2% 73.6% 53.0% Met with, e-mailed, called or sent a letter to any local politician 54.4% 55.8% 33.3% Attended a town meeting, public hearing or public affair 46.0% 44.8% 58.7% Joined an on-line political advocacy group 29.4% 31.8% 4.3% Joined a protest or demonstration 18.1% 17.7% 15.4% Other Political Action 4.4% 3.6% 4.6% Joined a political advocacy group 4.2% 4.2% 0.0% Vote 2.6% 2.9% 2.4% Total Responses 434 347 50 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Multiple response question totals may not add up to 100%.

Natural Environment Snapshot of Santa Cruz Beach Warnings and Closures ...... 158 County ...... 148 Water Pollution Reduction ...... 159 Natural Environment Community Goals ...... 148 Water Use Reduction  ...... 160 Concern for the Environment ...... 149 Non‐Agricultural Water Use ...... 161  Protected Land ...... 150 Air Quality ...... 162 Miles of Recreation Trails ...... 153 Motor Vehicle Registrations ...... 164 Farmers Market and Local Produce ...... 153 Roadway Congestion  ...... 164 Organic Farming ...... 154 Alternative Transportation ...... 165 Farmland Acreage ...... 156 Waste Reduction ...... 168 Pesticide Use ...... 157 Health of County Waterways ...... 157

OVERALL RECENT INDICATOR MEASUREMENT DATA TREND TREND Percent of CAP survey respondents who said water CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT pollution most concerned them about the natural 22.3%

environment

ORGANIC FARMING Number of organic certified businesses 112

Percent of CAP survey respondents who said that WATER POLLUTION REDUCTION they are taking steps to reduce water pollution at 72.1% NA NA home or work ROADWAY CONGESTION Number of daily vehicle miles traveled 5,302,780

GOAL: By the year 2015, reduce water pollution: health of rivers and ocean is improved by reducing erosion, chemical and biological pollution and improving riparian corridors. » Community Hero: Steve Pleich, Save Our Shores » Community Hero: John Ricker, County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency

GOAL: By the year 2015, develop a local sustainable food system: all community members have access to affordable locally grown food produced in a sustainable manner that preserves farmland fertility. » Community Hero: Lloyd Williams, Land Trust of Santa Cruz County

GOAL: By the year 2015, support clean/alternative energy: use of clean alternative energy and sustainable fuels are increased through financial incentives and reduced policy barriers.

Indicators CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Water pollution, litter, and water availability were the top community concerns about the natural environment reported by CAP survey respondents in 2011. South County residents also identified general pollution as a problem, while San Lorenzo Valley residents reported drinking water quality as one of their top concerns.  What one thing concerns you the most about the natural environment in Santa Cruz County? (Top 5 Responses) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Pollution Air pollution Pollution Pollution Water pollution Water pollution Water Water pollution (27.8%) (18.9%) (18.6%) (16.1%) (23.7%) (22.8%) availability (22.3%) (18.1%) 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. Traffic (15.0%) Water pollution Air pollution Water pollution Traffic (17.6%) Air pollution Water pollution Litter (10.4%) (17.0%) (14.6%) (14.7%) (13.8%) (15.3%) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Water pollution Pollution Water pollution Air pollution Development of Traffic (13.4%) Water quality Water (13.2%) (16.5%) (12.8%) (13.0%) open space/ (10.1%) availability agricultural land (10.0%) (12.5%) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Water quality Overpopulation Development of No preservation Air pollution Development of Traffic (9.2%) No preservation (12.1%) (14.7%) open space/ of natural (12.1%) open space/ of natural agricultural land environment agricultural land environment (9.9%) (10.2%) (13.0%) (8.1%) 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. Drinking Overpopulation Traffic (13.5%) Overpopulation Development of Overpopulation Overpopulation Litter (8.6%) Water quality (11.6%) (9.3%) open space/ (11.6%) (10.0%) (7.9%) agricultural land (9.3%) 2011: 563 respondents offering 655 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This was an open-ended survey question which allows the respondent to provide any answer. Due to variance in coding, data should be compared by top responses rather than tracking individual responses over time.  What one thing concerns you the most about the natural environment in Santa Cruz County? (Top 4 Responses) By Region – 2011 NORTH COUNTY SOUTH COUNTY SAN LORENZO VALLEY 1. Water Pollution (17.8%) 1. Water Pollution (26.3%) 1. Water Pollution (27.8%) 2. Water Availability (11.7%) 2. Litter (14.0%) 2. Water Availability (9.8%) 3. Other (13.9%) 3. General Pollution (10.8%) 3. Other (10.9%) 4. Litter (8.6%) 4. No preservation of natural environment 4. Drinking Water Quality (8.3%) (10.7%) North County: N=222; South County: N=169; SLV: N=177. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 149 Natural Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 PROTECTED LAND Santa Cruz County contains a variety of open spaces, and nearly one‐third of county land is estimated to be protected (285,710 acres in 2011). The use of protected land can vary from habitat conservation efforts to spaces created for recreational activities, such as camping. Many CAP survey respondents continued to have a high level of satisfaction with the county’s open space preservation efforts (42%).  How satisfied are you with what is being done in Santa Cruz County to preserve open space such as wildlife habitat and farmland? (Respondents answering “Very Satisfied”) 100% 80% 60% 40.4% 40.3% 42.2% 40% 20% 0% 2007 2009 2011

N: 2007=664; 2009=826; 2011=682. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2000-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

 Should stronger regulations be imposed to provide greater protection for open space? - 2011 80% 65.4% 34.6% 40% 0% Yes No N=649 Source: Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey, 2011. Note: Survey question was not asked in 2009. Summary of Protected Santa Cruz County Land - Acreage STEWARD 2009 2010 2011 Bureau of Land Management 12.6 12.6 NA Department of Fish & Game 1,789.0 1,857.0 1,8757.0 Land Trust of Santa Cruz County 2,163.3 3,100.7 3,193.9 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1,502.2 1,511.2 1,511.2 Open Space Easement1 3,020.3 3,001.2 3,009.0 Sempervirens Fund 1,244.0 1,575.0 1,733 Santa Cruz City Parks 2,458.0 2,458.0 1711.6 Santa Cruz County Parks 1,808.5 1,808.5 1,805.5 California State Parks 47,848.0 47,848.0 48,292 Williamson Act 19,737.5 19,751.6 18,804.5 The Trust for Public Land 7,289 7,289 NA Total Protected Acres in Santa Cruz County 88,872.4 90,212.8 89,219.32 Total Acres in Santa Cruz County 285,710 285,710 285,710 Percent Protected Acres 33.1% 31.6% 33.7% Protected Acres per 1,000 Residents 330.6 331.4 312.3 Source: California Department of Fish and Game, Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, SC Tax Assessor's Office, Sempervirens Fund, City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation, County of Santa Cruz: Parks, Open Space, & Cultural Services, and California State Parks; Personal correspondence, 2011. California Department of Finance, E-1: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, 2011. 1Please see Appendix II for definition of “Open Space Easement.” 2Total is estimate based on the same acres of land protected in 2011 as previous years for the Bureau of Land Management and The Trust for Public Land.

150 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Natural Environment Land Trust1 of Santa Cruz County Acreage by Property, 2011 PROPERTY LOCATION YEAR ACQUIRED ACRES Adams Ranch (conservation easement) Summit 2003 76.7 Alfadel (conservation easement) Soquel Valley 1983 2.5 Antonelli Pond Santa Cruz 1982, 1989 13.7 Bear Creek (conservation easement) San Lorenzo Valley 1994 4.4 Butier (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2008 62.8 Byrne Forest Corralitos 1984 322.0 Circle P Ranch (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2000 684.0 Connell (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2009 71.6 Crown (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2009 205.0 Davenport Bluffs (conservation easement) North Coast 2001 1.0 El Dorado (conservation easement) Mid-County 2003 2.3 Fairway Soquel Valley 2000 9.0 Ferrari Santa Cruz 1994 3.9 Garooley (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2009 40.8 Geyer Scotts Valley 2008 189.0 Glenwood – Lot E Scotts Valley 2003 1.5 Glenwood (conservation easement) Scotts Valley 2003 163.1 Greenspace Soquel 1985 0.2 Habert-Bryant Watsonville 2010 45.0 Hanson Slough Farm Watsonville 2009 347.6 Harkins Slough Farm Watsonville 2009 94.5 Highfield Mid-County 1999 4.0 Home Borina (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2008 128.8 Home Cooley (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2009 41.3 Hoyt (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2008 53.1 Johns Canyon (conservation easement) Corralitos 1999 57.0 Kalich (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2008 113.9 Kane (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2008 72.0 Lake Tynan (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2009 91.6 Milliron Forest Corralitos 2008 80.0 Moore Creek Preserve Santa Cruz 1998 85.0 Murphy Crossing (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2008 53.8 Rowell/Clinton Street (conservation easement) Mid-County 2002 0.1 Shinglemill Creek Felton 2004 0.1 Spragens Santa Cruz 1981 0.6 Sumner/Hidden Beach (conservation easement) Aptos 2003 3.3 Swanton Road (conservation easement) North Coast 1986 1.7 Whitewater Cove (conservation easement) Mid-County 2003 0.4 Wiley (conservation easement) Pajaro Valley 2008 66.7 Total Land Trust Acres in Santa Cruz County - - 3,193.9 Total Acres in Santa Cruz County - - 285,710 Percent Land Trust Acres - - 1.1% Land Trust Acres per 1,000 residents - - 11.4 Source: Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, 2011. California Department of Finance, E-1: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, 2011. Note: County acreage used for calculations is that used by the Department of Conservation: 285,710 acres. Official 2011 Population Estimate: 286,739 residents. 1 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Land Trust.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 151 Natural Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Estimated1 Protected Land County Comparison COUNTY ACRES OF LAND` PROTECTED LAND % PROTECTED Alameda 472,000 105,000 22.0% Contra Costa 461,000 111,000 24.0% Marin 334,000 178,000 53.0% Napa 484,000 99,000 20.0% San Mateo 287,000 108,000 38.0% Santa Clara 827,000 202,000 24.0% Solano 532,000 66,000 12.0% Sonoma 1,009,000 134,000 13.0% Total Bay Area 4,406,000 1,003,000 23.0% Santa Cruz County 286,000 63,0002 22.0% Source: Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, Developed and Protected Land by County, October 2011. Note: Acres of land from State Department of Conversation, excludes water acreage. The total for the bay area excludes San Francisco. 1 Numbers rounded to the nearest thousand. 2 Santa Cruz County derived from community assessment project and all others from Greenbelt Alliance. California State Parks in Santa Cruz County- Acreage PARK 2009 2010 2011 Big Basin (Rancho del Oso) 18,045 18,045 18,580 Castle Rock 5,242 5,242 5,242 Castro Adobe 1 1 1 Coast Dairies 498 498 407 Henry Cowell (Fall Creek) 4,623 4,623 4,623 Lighthouse Field 38 38 38 Manresa 138 138 138 Natural Bridges 59 59 59 New Brighton 157 157 157 Nisene Marks 10,222 10,222 10,222 Santa Cruz Mission 2 2 2 Seacliff State Beach (Rio) 87 87 87 Sunset State Beach (Palm) 300 300 300 Twin Lakes 94 94 94 Wilder Ranch (Gray Whale) 8,342 8,342 8,342 Total State Park Acres in Santa Cruz County 47,848 47,848 48,292 Total Acres in Santa Cruz County 285,710 285,710 285,710 Percent State Park Acres 16.7% 16.7% 16.9% State Park Acres per 1,000 residents 178.1 175.8 168.4 Source: California State Parks Department, Personal Correspondence October 2011. California Department of Finance, E-1: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, 2011. Note: Park land acreage is based on estimates only. Precise acreage data are not available.

The number of miles of recreation trails34 has increased by 26% from 2003 to 2011 (230.9 and 290.8 miles, respectively). However, the population of Santa Cruz County continues to grow, thereby increasing the number of people per mile of recreation trail; 909 people per mile in 2011, lower than in previous years. Recreation Trails – Length in Miles PARK FY 2003 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 03-11 % CHANGE Big Basin 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 111.5 105.0 25.0% Castle Rock 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 37.5 37.5 38.9% Henry Cowell (Fall Creek) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 45.0 45.0 28.6% Lighthouse Field State Park 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 ^ Manresa 1.0 1.3 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Natural Bridges 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 NA New Brighton 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 ^ Nisene Marks 25.0 25.3 25.3 45 25.3 25.3 32.4 32.4 29.6% Portola Redwoods 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.0 16.0 ^ Seacliff State Beach (Rio) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Sunset State Beach (Palm) 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Twin Lakes 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 NA Wilder Ranch 36.0 36.0 36 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 49.8% Santa Cruz County Total 230.9 231.5 232.5 268.6 244.2 244.2 299.3 290.8 26.0% Number of People per Mile 1,120 1,123 1,123 980 1,089 1,101 909 909 - of Recreation Trail Source: California State Parks Department, Personal Correspondence October 2011. California Department of Finance, E-5: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State, 2001-2010 with 2000 Benchmark, 2011. California Department of Finance, E-5: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State, 2010-2011 with 2010 Benchmark, 2011. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. FARMERS MARKET AND LOCAL PRODUCE More than one quarter (27%) of CAP survey respondents reported shopping at least once a week at a farmer’s market or local produce stand. According to CAP respondents, the inconvenience of market times (28%) was the most common obstacle from shopping there more regularly.  How often do you shop at farmers’ markets or local produce stands? - 2011 RESPONSE 2011 Daily 1.8% Once a week 25.6% More than once a week, but not daily 10.1% More than once a month, but not every week 13.4% Once a month 17.3% Less than once a month 15.5% Never 16.4% N=717 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

34 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Recreation Trails.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 153 Natural Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  What prevents you from shopping at farmers’ market or local produce stands? – 2011 RESPONSE 2011 Times are not convenient 27.5% Nothing prevents me 27.1% Cost 14.2% Location 13.3% Don't want to shop at more than one store 7.3% Transportation 2.5% Grow my own vegetables 1.7% Variety 1.5% Lazy 1.4% Weather 0.7% Parking 0.6% Other 8.7% Multiple response question with 685 respondents offering 730 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. ORGANIC FARMING There were 112 organic certified businesses in Santa Cruz County in 2010, a 42% increase since 2002. Nearly one‐fifth (19%) of the total farmland in the county was organic farmland in 2008, accounting for nearly 10% of total farmland sales that year. Number of Certified Organic Businesses, County Comparison COUNTY 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 02-10 % CHANGE Monterey 64 83 99 108 138 131 134 139 117.2% San Benito 39 44 46 48 61 57 57 54 38.5% San Luis Obispo 58 57 67 73 91 87 85 88 51.7% Santa Clara 16 24 24 26 28 24 24 24 ^ Santa Cruz 79 95 113 108 112 104 113 112 41.8% Source: California Department of Food and Agriculture, State Organic Program, Inspection Compliance Branch (2011). 2002-2010 Certified Organic Businesses by County. Note: Every person engaged in the production or handling of raw agricultural products sold as organic, and retailers that are engaged in the production of products sold as organic, and retailers that are engaged in the processing (as defined by the NOP) of products sold as organic, shall register with the California State Organic Program. If the expected organic gross sales exceed $5,000, certification is required. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Organic Farmland in Acres, Santa Cruz County 5,000 4,409

4,000 3,374 2,828 3,000 2,526

2,000 1,493

1,000

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Statistical Review of California’s Organic Agriculture, 2005-2009. Agricultural Issues Center, University of California. Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

154 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Natural Environment Organic Farmland in Acres, Central Coast Region COUNTY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 05-09 % CHANGE Monterey 15,891 18,607 22,502 24,751 24,630 55.0% San Benito 6,614 6,618 13,139 13,896 12,563 89.9% San Luis Obispo 2,799 2,679 6,395 6,899 7,253 159.1% Santa Clara 344 867 527 644 729 111.9% Santa Cruz 2,828 2,526 1,493 4,409 3,374 19.3% Source: Statistical Review of California’s Organic Agriculture, 2005-2009. Agricultural Issues Center, University of California. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Percent of Organic Farmland in Acres COUNTY 2005 2006 2007 2008 05-08 NET CHANGE Organic Farms as Percent of Total Farmland Monterey 1.0% 1.2% 1.5% 1.7% 0.7 San Benito 1.2% 1.2% 2.3% 2.5% 1.3 Santa Cruz 10.5% 9.6% 6.3% 18.8% 8.3 Total Acreage for All Farms1 Monterey 1,549,572 1,593,760 1,457,025 1,462,880 - San Benito 568,118 563,821 560,732 562,323 - Santa Cruz 26,848 26,246 23,639 23,410 - Source: California Department of Food and Agriculture, State Organic Program, Inspection Compliance Branch (2011). 2005- 2008County Organic Crop and Acreage Report. Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties Agricultural Commissioners (2011). Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 “All farms” includes Organic and Conventional farms. Number of Organic Growers for Organic Farmland COUNTY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 05-09 % CHANGE Monterey 60 72 79 86 86 43.3% San Benito 45 40 50 52 50 11.1% San Luis Obispo 50 55 70 74 66 32.0% Santa Clara 16 19 17 19 16 ^ Santa Cruz 75 69 86 81 87 16.0% Source: Agricultural Issues Center, University of California (2011). 2005-2009 Statistical Review of California’s Organic Agriculture. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Organic Farm Level Sales Value

COUNTY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 05-09 % CHANGE Monterey $74,184,416 $80,364,222 $103,174,354 $126,350,868 $127,682,710 72.1% San Benito $40,603,341 $36,326,973 $37,031,411 $40,100,864 $26,579,369 -34.5% San Luis Obispo $6,046,145 $4,763,564 $10,105,856 $25,767,292 $20,916,829 246.0% Santa Clara $2,540,015 $3,512,861 $4,162,533 $3,676,016 $8,941,915 252.0% Santa Cruz $25,769,885 $25,243,422 $26,028,715 $42,862,045 $40,414,814 56.8% Source: Agricultural Issues Center, University of California (2011). 2005-2009 Statistical Review of California’s Organic Agriculture. Note: Caution should be used when interpreting data for organic sales amounts. Renewal dates for reporting sales vary and may include some months in the previous year or include parts of two crop years. Also, fluctuation may occur when selling products with a long storage life, resulting in low sales one year if crops aren’t sold and high sales in another year if both harvests are sold. Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 155 Natural Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Percent of Organic Farm Sales of Total Farmland Sales COUNTY 2005 2006 2007 2008 05-08 NET CHANGE Organic Farm Sales as Percent of Total Sales Monterey 2.3% 2.3% 2.7% 3.3% 1.0 San Benito 16.3% 14.9% 14.1% 17.0% 0.7 Santa Cruz 6.3% 6.3% 5.4% 8.9% 2.6 Total Sales for All Farms1 Monterey $3,226,739,000 $3,442,144,000 $3,773,567,000 $3,837,834,000 - San Benito $249,146,000 $243,928,000 $262,141,000 $236,469,000 - Santa Cruz $407,486,000 $402,883,000 $478,786,000 $482,506,000 - Source: California Department of Food and Agriculture, State Organic Program, Inspection Compliance Branch (2011). 2005-2009 County Organic Crop and Acreage Report. Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties Agricultural Commissioners (2011). 2005- 2009 Crop Reports. Note: Caution should be used when interpreting data for organic sales amounts. Renewal dates for reporting sales vary and may include some months in the previous year or include parts of two crop years. Also, fluctuation may occur when selling products with a long storage life, resulting in low sales one year if crops aren’t sold and high sales in another year if both harvests are sold. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 “All farms” includes Organic and Conventional farms. FARMLAND ACREAGE Farmland acreage in Santa Cruz County declined for many types of production from 2000 to 2010, while acreage for berry production increased 13% during the same years. Farmland Acreage by Type of Production, Santa Cruz County TYPE OF PRODUCTION 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 % CHANGE Berries 5,500 5,755 6,114 5,405 5,591 6,613 5,893 6,202 12.8% Apple, Wine & Misc. Fruit 3,541 3,539 3,388 3,596 3,194 3,238 3,181 3,116 -12.0% Vegetables 9,159 9,533 10,444 9,122 8,061 7,198 7,431 7,942 -13.3% Nursery & Ornamental Crops 1,395 1,274 1,213 1,265 1,147 1,116 1,246 1,123 -19.5% Field Crops & Pasture Land 8,400 2,153 5,689 6,858 5,646 5,245 5,245 5,245 -37.6% Santa Cruz County Total 27,995 22,254 26,848 26,246 23,639 23,410 22,996 23,628 -15.6% Farmland Acres Source: Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner (2011). 2000-2010 Santa Cruz County 2010 Crop Report. Agricultural Acreage Use, Santa Cruz County TYPE OF LAND1 2002 2004 2006 2008 02-06 % CHANGE Total Important Farmland 25,275 24,605 22,757 21,827 -13.6% Prime Farmland 15,540 15,212 14,712 14,356 -7.6% Statewide Importance 3,367 3,268 2,913 2,706 -19.6% Unique 5,557 5,367 4,610 4,249 -23.5% Local Importance 811 758 522 516 -36.3% Grazing Land 16,727 16,867 17,718 17,953 7.3% Total Acres of Agricultural Land 42,002 41,472 40,475 39,780 -5.3% Percent Agricultural Land1 14.7% 14.5% 14.2% 13.9% - Total Acres of Urban & Built up 31,092 31,421 31,705 32,011 3.0% Land Percent Urban & Built up Land1 10.9% 11.0% 11.1% 11.2% - Source: California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Conversion Reports, 2008. Note: Reports are published biennially (every two years) and are available two years after the data they address. Note: Due to the incorporation of digital soil survey data (SSURGO) in 2002, acreages for farmland, grazing and other land categories may differ from those published in the 2000- 2002 Farmland Conversion Report. Thus, previous CAPS will contain different estimates. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1County acreage used to calculate percents: 285,711 acres in 2002 and 285,710 in 2004-2008 (provided by the Department of Conservation). 2 Please see Appendix II for definitions of these types of farmland: “Farmland of Local Importance,” “Farmland of Statewide Importance,” “Grazing Land,” “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland.”

156 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Natural Environment PESTICIDE USE Overall, pesticide use in Santa Cruz County has increased 3% since 2001. However, Santa Cruz County has recently experienced a decrease for total pesticide use; both the pounds applied and number of applications have declined since 2007. The county ranked 21 in the state for pounds of pesticide applied.35

Pesticide use and applications may be attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in planted acreage, crop plantings, pest pressures, and weather conditions. In addition, recent attempts at replacing toxic pesticide, used at one pound per one acre, with less hazardous, reduced‐risk pest management methods require the use of several pounds per acre. This can change the number of applications or amount of pounds used without indicating an increased reliance on pesticides. Pesticide Use, Pounds Applied COUNTY 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 01-09 % CHANGE Monterey 7,974,257 9,329,417 8,628,082 8,209,012 8,680,918 7,893,327 7,788,043 -2.3% San Mateo 221,161 273,279 275,230 365,491 288,151 306,063 242,193 9.5% Santa Clara 713,318 978,027 951,531 1,388,327 931,916 1,173,078 679,712 -4.7% Santa Cruz 1,533,447 1,643,653 1,681,344 1,722,369 1,843,886 1,653,785 1,585,802 3.4% Pounds of 5.3 5.7 5.9 6.0 6.4 5.8 5.5 - Pesticide Applied per Resident California 152,718,393 175,127,171 194,310,983 189,576,939 172,163,465 161,531,155 155,869,703 2.1% Source: Department of Pesticide Regulation (2011). 2001-2009 Annual Pesticide Use Report. California Department of Finance, E-1: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, 2011. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Pesticide Use, Number of Applications COUNTY 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 01-08 % CHANGE Monterey 308,411 329,992 353,589 338,677 338,886 365,692 355,795 353,590 15.4% San Mateo 17,686 14,633 13,969 11,683 9,257 12,370 13,206 10,301 -25.3% Santa Clara 22,701 24,219 25,272 26,446 26,233 25,510 24,182 18,794 6.5% Santa Cruz 24,315 28,768 28,025 26,878 27,071 27,389 24,889 24,645 2.4% California 1,884,388 2,063,125 2,088,841 2,224,751 2,290,770 2,196,316 2,082,071 2,006,581 10.5% Department of Pesticide Regulation (2011). 2001-2008 Annual Pesticide Use Report. Note: The data do not include “over-the-counter” pesticide sales for home and business use. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. HEALTH OF COUNTY WATERWAYS

Almost all of the waterways in Santa Cruz County in 2010 had similiar levels of impairment36 compared to 2008. Of the 18 county waterways included in the California EPA report for 2010, 13 were impaired by 95% or more by contaminants of different pollutants. Almost all of Corralitos Creek (96%) was impaired in 2010, a dramatic increase from 38% impairment in 2008.

35 Department of Pesticide Regulation (2011). 2001‐2009 Annual Pesticide Use Report. 36 Please see Appendix II for definition of “Waterway Impairment.” © 2011 Applied Survey Research 157 Natural Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Percent Impairment1 of Santa Cruz County Waterways % IMPAIRMENT NAME TOTAL SIZE 2002 2006 2008 2010 Aptos Creek 8.4 miles 84.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% Carbonera Creek 10.1 miles 100.0% 98.0% 99.0% 99.0% Corralitos Creek 13.5 miles NA2 NA2 37.8% 96.3% Lompico Creek 4.5 miles 90.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mountain Charlie Gulch 3.9 miles 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Pajaro River 32.2 miles 65.3% 99.5% 99.5% 99.5% Pinto Lake 121.0 acres NA2 NA2 95.0% 95.0% Rodeo Creek Gulch 6.0 miles NA2 NA2 100.0% 100.0% Salsipuedes Creek 3.0 miles NA2 NA2 86.7% 86.7% San Lorenzo River 26.6 miles 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% San Lorenzo River Lagoon 709.2 acres 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% Schwan Lake 23.5 acres 71.9% 97.9% 97.9% 97.9% Soquel Creek 26.0 miles NA2 NA2 69.2% 69.2% Soquel Lagoon 1.2 acres 60.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Struve Slough 3.0 acres NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 Valencia Creek 6.2 miles 88.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Watsonville Slough 6.2 miles 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Zayante Creek 11.0 miles 83.6% 83.6% 83.6% 83.6% Source: U.C. Davis Information Center for the Environment, Geospatial Waterbody System, 2010. California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list/ 305 (b) Report), 2010. Note: The water bodies listed above are considered impaired based on the containment of different pollutants. 1 Listing a water body as impaired in California is governed by the State Water Board's 303(d) Listing Policy. Regional Water Boards assess water quality data for California's waters every two years to determine if they contain pollutants at levels that exceed protective water quality criteria and standards. This biennial assessment is required under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. Pollutant sources may include bacteria, pathogens, natural sources, septage disposal, or urban runoff/storm sewers. 2 Percent impairment is not available because total size and area impaired are measured in non-comparable units. BEACH WARNINGS AND CLOSURES Santa Cruz County experienced a decrease in total number of beach postings: 142 postings in 2010, down from 220 in 2009. Though the number decreased, postings in 2010 remained the second highest seen since 2002. Santa Cruz’s most popular beaches, Cowells and Main Beach, continue to receive the highest number of postings each year. Santa Cruz County did not have any beach closures in 2010, for the third year in a row. Beach Postings1 and Closures2, Number of Days, Santa Cruz County 240 220 Postings 200 131 Closures 160 114 120 80 64 64 76 142 80 45 40 13 5 0 0 3 0 000 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, Beach Watch (2011). 2002-2010 Beach Advisory Report. 1 Postings are advisories to not contact the water because monitoring shows elevated bacterial levels. 2 Closures are water contact prohibitions due to sewage spills.

158 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Natural Environment Beach Postings and Closures, Number of Days 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 BEACH NAME POSTINGS POSTINGS POSTINGS POSTINGS POSTINGS POSTINGS POSTINGS POSTINGS POSTINGS Capitola Beach 45 31 8 14 13 12 10 33 9 Corcoran Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cowell Beach 36 0 26 23 51 31 67 172 132 Davenport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mitchell's Cove 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moran Lake Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Bridges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Brighton Beach 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Pajaro Dunes Beach 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rio del Mar Beach 1 42 5 7 0 4 7 0 0 Santa Cruz Main 23 0 20 1 0 22 44 15 1 Seabright Beach 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 Seacliff Beach 1 5 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Twin Lakes Beach 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz 114 80 64 45 64 76 131 220 142 County Total Postings Santa Cruz 13 27 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 County Total Closures Source: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services, Water Resources Division. Note: Four waterflow deltas (San Lorenzo Rivermouth, Schwan Lagoon, Soquel Creek, and Aptos Creek) have permanent postings, and Neary Lagoon has a seasonal posting during winter. WATER POLLUTION REDUCTION Overall, 72% of CAP respondents said that they are taking steps to reduce water pollution at home or work, including keeping paints and chemicals out of storm drains (89%) and washing their cars at car washes rather than on the street (70%).  Are you taking steps to reduce water pollution at home or at work? - 2011 100% Overall Caucasian 80% 72.1% 72.8%* 67.1%* Latino 60%

32.9%* 40% 27.9% 27.2%* 20%

0% Yes No

N: Overall=657; Caucasian=451; Latino=154. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Significantly more Caucasian respondents than Latino respondents reported taking steps to reduce water pollution at home or at work.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 159 Natural Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011  If you are taking steps to reduce water pollution, have you done any of the following? (Selected Responses) RESPONSE 2011 Kept paints & chemicals out of storm drains 89.1% Washed cars at car washes rather than on the street 69.7% Used less toxic fertilizers & pesticides 69.2% Reduced runoff from irrigation of landscaping 65.5% Used appropriate amounts of fertilizers & outdoor pesticides 64.9% Collected pet waste 59.9% Use grey water 1.5% Other 6.6% Year 2011: 462 respondents offering 1,969 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. WATER USE REDUCTION Overall, a lower percentage of CAP survey respondents reported taking steps to reduce household water consumption in 2011 (89%) than in 2009 (93%). Some of the most common ways respondents reduced their water consumption in 2011 included: using a hose end nozzle or using timers to water (74%) and installing low‐flow showerheads (80%) and toilets (71%).  Are you taking steps to reduce your household water consumption? (Respondents answering “Yes”)

RESPONSE 2007 2009 2011 Overall 85.7% 93.3% 88.7% Respondents 708 844 712 North County 80.0% 93.9% 89.4% Respondents 239 338 270 South County 93.7% 94.2% 87.4% Respondents 240 283 229 San Lorenzo Valley 84.2% 88.8% 89.9% Respondents 228 223 212 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.  If you are taking steps to reduce your household water consumption, have you done any of the following? (Selected Responses)

RESPONSE 2007 2009 2011 Use a hose end nozzle or use timers to water 73.1% 81.9% 74.3% Installed a low-flow showerhead 65.3% 77.5% 79.9% Installed a low-flow toilet 72.5% 73.0% 71.0% Installed a front loading washing machine1 NA NA 43.8% Installed a low flow dishwasher1 NA NA 34.5% Modify your landscape to reduce irrigation water 53.3% 62.7% 67.0% Year 2011: 616 respondents offering 2,354 responses. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2007-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. 1Response options were modified in 2011 and are therefore not comparable to previous years.

160 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Natural Environment NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER USE Since 2000, annual production and usage of water decreased (17% and 20%, respectively), despite an increase in service connections. There was a 328 million gallon decrease in annual water usage between 2009 (7,660 million gallons) and 2010 (7,332 million gallons). Annual Water Production and Usage, in Millions of Gallons, Santa Cruz County 9,682 9,770 9,758 10,000 9,024 9,153 9,156 9,086 Production Usage 9,000 8,325 8,031 8,000 9,171 9,096 8,984 7,000 8,415 8,204 8,374 8,325 7,660 6,000 7,332 5,000 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: Santa Cruz County Planning Department (2011). 2000-2010 Central, San Lorenzo Valley, Soquel Creek, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville Water Districts. Note: Data for unincorporated areas are not available since usage is influenced by wells for which data are not available. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Annual Water Production, in Millions of Gallons 00-10 WATER DISTRICT 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Central (Rural Aptos) 183 191 208 162 170 173 178 174 175 -4.4% San Lorenzo Valley1 661 690 702 691 721 705 673 736 708 7.1% Santa Cruz 3,964 3,885 3,874 3,550 3,550 3,540 3,537 3,147 3,112 -21.5% Scotts Valley 631 672 624 542 590 562 550 480 438 -30.6% Soquel Creek 1,756 1,829 1,807 1,611 1,543 1,595 1,555 1,407 1,332 -24.1% Watsonville 2,487 2,503 2,543 2,468 2,579 2,581 2,593 2,381 2,266 -8.9% Santa Cruz County Total2 9,682 9,770 9,758 9,024 9,153 9,156 9,086 8,325 8,031 -17.1% Source: Santa Cruz County Planning Department (2011). 2000-2010 Central, San Lorenzo Valley, Soquel Creek, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville Water Districts. Note: Production data are not available for unincorporated areas since usage is influenced by wells for which data are not available. 1 In 2008, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District began serving Felton. Their numbers for this year included only the usage in Felton and not the production. This resulted in usage and production values that were the same. SLVWD asked us to reduce the usage value by 20% in order to exclude Felton’s water usage for this year. In 2010, their numbers include Felton in both production and usage. 2 Total does not include unincorporated areas or Lompico Water District. Annual Water Usage, in Millions of Gallons 00-10 WATER DISTRICT 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Central (Rural Aptos) 169 171 194 153 160 162 166 167 163 -3.6% San Lorenzo Valley1 581 591 597 560 560 559 538 619 580 -0.2% Santa Cruz 3,727 3,575 3,576 3,386 3,236 3,261 3,285 2,875 2,875 -22.9% Scotts Valley 628 667 574 469 479 482 465 420 390 -37.9% Soquel Creek 1,695 1,719 1,666 1,559 1,482 1,523 1,484 1,316 1,226 -27.7% Watsonville 2,371 2,373 2,377 2,288 2,287 2,387 2,387 2,263 2,098 -11.5% Santa Cruz County 9,171 9,096 8,984 8,415 8,204 8,374 8,325 7,660 7,332 -20.1% Total2 Source: Santa Cruz County Planning Department (2011). 2000-2010 Central, San Lorenzo Valley, Soquel Creek, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville Water Districts. Note: Usage data are not available for unincorporated areas since usage is influenced by wells for which data are not available. 1 In 2008, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District began serving Felton. Their numbers for this year included only the usage in Felton and not the production. This resulted in usage and production values that were the same. SLVWD asked us to reduce the usage value by 20% in order to exclude Felton’s water usage for this year. In 2010, their numbers include Felton in both production and usage. 2 Total does not include unincorporated areas or Lompico Water District.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 161 Natural Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Number of Service Connections WATER DISTRICT 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 % CHANGE Central (Rural Aptos)1 813 821 791 788 788 726 785 784 787 -3.2% San Lorenzo Valley 5,774 5,793 5,822 5,824 5,949 5,998 7,3222 7,305 7,308 26.6% Santa Cruz 23,170 23,590 23,799 23,924 24,096 24,305 24,2283 24,310 24,351 5.1% Scotts Valley 3,382 3,439 3,485 3,537 3,568 3,580 3,582 3,582 3,592 6.2% Soquel Creek 14,264 14,529 14,780 14,914 15,013 15,115 15,302 15,363 15,417 8.1% Watsonville 13,108 13,177 13,995 15,406 15,568 15,488 15,795 15,979 15,595 19.0% Santa Cruz County 60,511 61,349 62,672 64,393 64,982 65,212 67,014 67,323 67,050 10.8% Total4 Source: Santa Cruz County Planning Department (2011). 2000-2010 Central, San Lorenzo Valley, Soquel Creek, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville Water Districts. Note: Data for unincorporated areas are not available. 1 Starting in 2004, the number of connections only includes domestic service connections. 2 The large increase in service connections is due to the addition of Felton to the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. 3 The slight decrease is due to a new billing system as of 2008 that counts temporary accounts in a different way. 4 Total does not include unincorporated areas or Lompico Water District. Daily Water Usage per Connection, in Gallons WATER DISTRICT 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 00-10 % CHANGE Central (rural Aptos)1 569 503 470 413 418 466 500 441 450 -20.9% San Lorenzo Valley 291 280 280 263 258 225 252 233 218 -25.1% Santa Cruz2 441 415 412 388 368 368 371 324 323 -26.8% Scotts Valley 509 531 451 363 368 369 355 321 297 -41.7% Soquel Creek 326 324 309 286 270 276 266 235 218 -33.1% Watsonville 496 493 465 407 402 422 414 388 368 -25.8% Santa Cruz County 2,632 2,546 2,387 2,120 2,084 2,126 2,158 1,942 1,874 -28.8% Average3 Source: Santa Cruz County Planning Department (2011). 2000-2010 Central, San Lorenzo Valley, Soquel Creek, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville Water Districts. Note: Data for unincorporated areas are not available. 1 Starting in 2004, the number of connections only includes domestic service connections. 2 The daily use figure for Santa Cruz includes all commercial, industrial, governmental and residential water usage. It includes the entire University of California, which is one metered account. 3 Total does not include unincorporated areas or Lompico Water District. AIR QUALITY Air quality in Santa Cruz County has remained relatively consistent throughout the past decade. In 2010 there were no recorded days where air pollution exceeded state air quality standards. Odor and smoke were the most prevalent airborne irritants identified by residents’ complaints to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District in 2010. In both 2009 and 2010 the county experienced zero days where ozone or particulate matter exceeded safe levels. Summary: Total Days Exceeding California Air Quality Standards, Santa Cruz County POLLUTANT 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ozone1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Particulate Matter (PM10) 0 4 5 8 2 3 1 5 0 0 Total Days 1 4 6 8 2 4 1 5 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, 2011. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Personal Correspondence August 2011. Note: The figures represent monitored exceedances of the State 24-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10. However, since PM10 monitoring is only conducted once every six days, the actual number of exceedances can be much higher. PM10 monitoring is conducted according to a national monitoring schedule established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1 The figures for ozone represent exceedances of the State Ambient Air Quality Standards (one hour average only) and do not include exceedances of the State 8-Hour Standard or the National Standard (eight hour average).

162 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Natural Environment Number of Days Exceeding Safe Levels of Ozone LOCATION 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Davenport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scotts Valley (Scotts Valley Dr.) 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA1 Watsonville (Airport Blvd.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA1 Santa Cruz (Soquel Ave.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz County Total 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, 2011. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Personal Correspondence August 2011. Note: The figures for ozone represent exceedances of the State Ambient Air Quality Standards (one hour average) and do not include exceedances of the State 8- hour Standard or the National Standard (eight hour average). 1 Monitor deactivated. Number of Monitored Days Exceeding Safe Levels of Particulate Matter LOCATION 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Davenport1 0 4 5 7 2 3 1 5 0 NA2 Watsonville (Airport Blvd) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA2 Santa Cruz (Soquel Ave.) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz County Total 0 4 5 8 2 3 1 5 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, 2011. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Personal Correspondence August 2011. Note: The figures represent monitored exceedances of the State 24-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10. However, since PM10 monitoring is only conducted once every six days, the actual number of exceedances can be much higher. PM10 monitoring is conducted according to a national monitoring schedule established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1 In Davenport, high PM10 readings are due to the concentration of sea salt in the air and fugitive dust from various sources, including the cement plant. 2 Monitor deactivated. Air Quality-Related Neighborhood Complaints by Area LOCATION 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Aptos 0 7 5 8 5 4 6 11 7 Ben Lomond/Felton/Boulder Creek 13 10 22 10 2 13 3 9 14 Bonny Doon 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Capitola 4 2 0 3 2 4 4 4 5 Davenport 11 23 8 7 3 9 7 0 0 Freedom/Corralitos 3 1 1 5 0 3 1 2 2 Santa Cruz 37 64 77 124 122 66 54 63 61 Scotts Valley 9 3 6 5 4 2 2 6 2 Soquel 8 11 7 7 8 5 8 5 3 Watsonville 25 19 15 24 31 9 12 8 11 Santa Cruz County Total 112 140 141 193 177 116 97 109 105 Source: Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Personal Correspondence August 2011. Air Quality-Related Neighborhood Complaints by Irritant IRRITANT 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Smoke/Open Burning/Fireplaces 31 41 28 56 29 18 39 35 24 Odor 42 63 65 103 93 70 31 52 55 Dust 20 17 22 12 23 11 10 9 10 Paint 3 3 7 10 3 7 10 7 5 Phase II/Faulty Gas Nozzles 7 4 8 2 7 4 2 2 2 Other (Asbestos, etc) 9 12 11 10 22 6 5 4 9 Santa Cruz County Total 112 140 141 193 177 116 97 109 105 Source: Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Personal Correspondence August 2011.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 163 Natural Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS Since 2000, registered motor vehicles per capita has continued to fluctuate in Santa Cruz County and California. However, in 2010 both the county and the state experienced a slight overall increase. There were 1.14 vehicles per person over the age of 16 in Santa Cruz County, slightly higher than California at 1.10 vehicles per person in 2010. Vehicles per Capita, Santa Cruz County 00-10% RESPONSE 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CHANGE Registered Vehicles 227,345 236,390 244,654 243,301 241,768 241,929 241,722 242,938 6.9% Vehicles per Capita1 1.13 1.13 1.18 1.14 1.12 1.13 1.10 1.14 - Source: Department of Motor Vehicles, Forecasting Division, 2010. US Census Bureau. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Population 16 and Older, 2010. 1 Includes only residents aged 16 and older. Vehicles per Capita, California 00-10 RESPONSE 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 %CHANGE Registered Vehicles1 26,727,544 28,686,309 30,696,537 31,269,071 31,205,999 31,051,817 30,938,517 31,987,821 19.7% Vehicles per Capita 1.03 1.07 1.10 1.08 1.07 1.05 1.03 1.10 - Source: Department of Motor Vehicles, Forecasting Division, 2009. US Census Bureau. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Population 16 and Older, 2010. 1 State Registered Vehicles totals include total fee paid vehicle registrations minus out of state and miscellaneous vehicles. ROADWAY CONGESTION Most workers who commuted traveled less than 15 minutes to get to work in 2011. The average rate for daily vehicle miles traveled has been on a downward trend since it hit its peak in 2004, experiencing a 2% decrease between 2000 and 2009. Commute Time to Work RESPONSE 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 05-10% NET CHANGE 0 - 14 minutes 34.8% 28.8% 29.2% 27.7% 32.6% 30.3% -4.5 15 – 24 minutes 27.9% 30.2% 29.0% 29.7% 27.0% 29.8% 1.9 25- 34 minutes 13.7% 14.3% 15.5% 17.4% 17.4% 14.8% 1.1 35 - 59 minutes 15.7% 17.3% 16.1% 14.8% 15.4% 16.5% 0.8 60 & Over 7.8% 9.5% 10.3% 10.5% 7.4% 8.6% 0.8 Total Respondents 112,291 112,470 115,890 119,309 109,097 107,590 - Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 2005-2011 American Community Survey, Sex of Workers by Travel Time to Work, Table S0801. Note: Of workers 16 and older who do not work at home. Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled,1 Santa Cruz County 6,000,000 5,715,850 5,643,670 5,647,510 5,543,420 5,600,000 5,408,900 5,428,740 5,354,080 5,302,780

5,200,000 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: California Department of Transportation (2011). 2000- 2009 California Public Road Data. 1 Of workers 16 and older who do not work at home. CalTrans calculates Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by multiplying the length of each given road segment by its traffic volume in a day. Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

164 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Natural Environment Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 00-09% JURISDICTION 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 CHANGE Capitola 147,300 141,810 148,630 146,170 146,170 146,170 146,170 -0.8% Santa Cruz 596,500 633,180 596,090 588,450 566,070 566,070 566,070 -5.1% Scotts Valley 126,600 131,130 127,470 124,610 124,610 124,610 136,140 7.5% Watsonville 335,700 346,180 373,830 361,010 360,500 360,500 368,170 9.7% County— Unincorporated 1,362,700 1,411,340 1,406,740 1,396,210 1,396,220 1,393,830 1,394,100 2.3% State Highways 2,794,000 2,931,850 3,017,090 2,882,050 2,790,240 2,719,320 2,648,750 -5.2% State Parks & Recreation 14,300 15,340 12,440 10,930 10,930 10,930 10,930 -23.6% University of California 31,800 32,830 33,550 33,860 33,880 32,640 32,450 2.0% Santa Cruz County Total1 5,408,900 5,643,660 5,715,840 5,543,290 5,428,620 5,354,070 5,302,780 -2.0% Source: California Department of Transportation (2011). 2000- 2009 California Public Road Data. Note: Of workers 16 and older who do not work at home. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1Total includes US Fish and Wildlife Service as well. Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled, Local County Comparison 00-09% COUNTY 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 CHANGE Monterey 9,930,100 10,450,690 9,941,300 9,913,340 10,008,840 9,778,090 9,984,640 0.5% San Benito 1,462,400 1,476,550 1,455,710 1,483,230 1,394,030 1,387,040 1,375,760 -5.9% San Mateo 19,383,400 19,974,270 18,748,890 18,269,140 18,343,970 17,820,530 17,632,700 -9.0% Santa Clara 41,135,900 42,674,740 40,619,360 42,180,970 41,859,820 41,160,710 40,695,560 -1.1% Santa Cruz 5,408,900 5,643,670 5,715,850 5,543,420 5,428,740 5,354,080 5,302,780 -2.0% Source: California Department of Transportation (2011). 2000- 2009 California Public Road Data. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION While countywide bikeway miles have increased 156% between 2002 and 2010, annual transit ridership saw a 8% decline between 2004 and 2010. There was an 82% increase in county commuters taking the Highway 17 Express Bus to work from 2001/02 to 2009/10; however, there was a 31% decrease over the last year (2008/09 to 2009/10). Over a quarter (27%) of CAP respondents reported that a more frequent bus schedule/convenience would encourage their use of public transportation. Annual Transit Ridership 01-10 TYPE OF TRANSPORT FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 % CHANGE Santa Cruz Metropolitan 6,105,478 5,680,884 4,563,8801 5,360,699 5,522,943 5,708,338 5,449,056 -10.8% Transit District (SCMTD) Hwy 17 Express Bus 165,062 142,723 191,7501 249,844 270,044 318,582 301,104 82.4% Paracruz (Paratransit) 108,089 91,704 84,837 84,610 87,713 93,279 94,074 -13.0% Total Ridership2 6,378,629 5,915,311 4,840,467 5,695,153 5,880,700 6,120,199 5,844,234 -8.4% Source: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, 2011. Note: Ridership refers to the number of trips taken in a specified time frame. There are currently no data available on the number of people who commute to work using carpool services or bicycles. 1 Reflects a 37-day strike. 2 Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District reports total ridership for their fixed route service and paratransit separately.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 165 Natural Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Bikeway Miles 06-10 JURISDICTION 2006 2007 20081 2009 2010 % CHANGE Capitola 10.8 10.8 14.6 14.6 14.6 ^ Santa Cruz 54.6 54.6 56.8 57.3 57.7 5.7% Scotts Valley 11.5 11.8 14.7 16.3 16.5 ^ Watsonville 22.7 24.0 27.2 27.2 27.2 ^ Unincorporated 93.0 95.3 95.9 95.9 95.9 3.1% UCSC1 2.3 2.3 2.8 3.4 3.4 ^ Santa Cruz County Total 194.9 198.8 212.0 214.6 215.2 10.4% Source: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, 2011. Note: Totals are for bike paths (Class I bikeway) and bike lanes (Class II bikeway). Bike paths are counted as centerline miles and include one way paths. Bike lanes are counted as direction miles. 1 Bikeway Miles for UCSC are unavailable for years prior to 2006. ^ Percent change is not calculated for numbers less than 20, as small numbers are unstable and can be misinterpreted. Commuting to Work, Santa Cruz County 03-10 COMMUTE MODE 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % CHANGE Car, Truck, or Van – Drive Alone 92,523 87,715 88,260 86,870 85,336 90,870 84,900 80,999 -12.5% Car, Truck, or Van – Carpooled 7,536 12,990 12,094 12,285 16,120 13,368 11,670 11,659 54.7% Public Transportation (Including 3,112 4,002 2,573 4,158 5,272 3,174 3,532 3,245 4.3% Taxicab) Walked 2,633 3,984 4,289 4,136 5,025 5,956 4,993 5,658 114.9% Worked at Home 9,174 6,366 10,335 9,011 8,045 7,501 6,964 6,783 -26.1% Other Means 3,826 5,206 5,075 5,021 4,137 5,941 4,002 6,029 57.6% Workers 16 Years & Over 118,804 120,263 122,626 121,481 123,935 126,810 116,061 114,373 -3.7% Mean Travel Time to Work (in 29.3 23.3 23.7 25.9 26.9 26.6 25.2 25.3 -13.7% Minutes) Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 2003-2010 American Community Survey, Selected Economic Characteristics, Table DP03.  How often do you use alternative forms of transportation – carpooling, bus, bicycle, etc. – rather than driving alone? - 2011 100% Overall Caucasian 80% Latino

60% 41.5%* 37.1% 40% 33.0%* 25.7%* 23.0% 17.4% 20.4%* 20.3% 13.3% 16.3% 15.0% 20% 11.6% 9.1% 10.7%* 3.6%* 0% Never Every day At least once a week, A couple times a month A couple times a year but not every day N: Overall=716; Caucasian=501; Latino=161. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely than Latino respondents to never use alternative forms of transportation or to use it a couple times a year. Latino respondents were significantly more likely to use alternative forms of transportation at least once a week, but not every day.

166 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Natural Environment  What would encourage you to use alternative forms of transportation? (Top 5 Responses in 2011) 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 1. Nothing/ 1. Nothing/ 1. Nothing/ 1. More frequent 1. Nothing/wouldn't 1. More frequent 1. More frequent wouldn't use it/ wouldn't use it/ wouldn't use it/ bus schedule/ use it (14.0%) bus schedule/ bus schedule/ not now/ have not now/ have not now/ have convenience convenience convenience children (16.5%) children (19.9%) children (16.3%) (19.2%) (23.3%) (26.7%) 2. More frequent 2. More frequent 2. More frequent 2. Nothing/ 2. More frequent 2. Nothing/ 2. Nothing/ bus schedule/ bus schedule/ bus schedule/ wouldn't use it bus schedule/ wouldn't use it wouldn't use it convenience convenience convenience (14.8%) convenience (22.5%) (20.8%) (15.1%) (15.6%) (15.9%) (13.7%) 3. If car broke 3. Already use it 3. Already use it 3. Easier access 3. Different work 3. Easier access 3. Easier access down (8.9%) (10.8%) (13.5%) (7.5%) schedule/ (9.5%) (9.4%) commuting over the hill (9.6%) 4. Easier access 4. If car broke 4. Easier access 4. Public 4. Easier access 4. Expense of 4. Expense of (6.3%) down (9.7%) (5.9%) transportation in (9.2%) gasoline (6.1%) gasoline (5.3%) certain areas (5.8%) 5. Already use it 5. Unable to drive/ 5. Unable to drive/ 5. Already use it 5. Public 5. Light rail/ train 5. (5.2%) lost drivers lost drivers (5.7%) transportation in (5.5%) More/safer/bette license (5.6%) license (5.9%) certain areas r bike paths (7.3%) (4.8%) N: 2001=681; 2002=661; 2003=691; 2005=646; 2007=583; 2009=599, 2011=526 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2001-2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: This was an open-ended survey question which allows the respondent to provide any answer. Due to variance in coding, data should be compared by top responses rather than tracking individual responses over time.  What would encourage you to use alternative forms of transportation? By Ethnicity – 2011 RESPONSE CAUCASIAN LATINO More frequent bus schedule/ convenience 27.5% 25.3% Nothing/wouldn't use it 23.3%* 11.2%* Expense of Gasoline 3.9%* 10.6%* Reduce Carbon Footprint 0.4%* 11.7%* Easier Access 10.4% 6.3% Other 10.8% 7.1% Total Responses 383 105 Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey. Note: Not all responses listed here. Responses will not add up to 100% as question was multiple-response. *Significance testing: Caucasian respondents were significantly more likely to not use alternative forms of transportation, and Latino respondents were significantly more likely to use alternative forms of transportation to reduce their carbon footprint and due to the expense of gasoline.  What would encourage you to use alternative forms of transportation? (Top 3 Responses) – 2011 18-24 YEARS 25-44 YEARS 45-64 YEARS 65 OR OLDER 1. More frequent bus schedule/ 1. Nothing/wouldn't use it (24.1%) 1. More frequent bus schedule/ 1. Nothing/wouldn't use it (28.1%) convenience (26.1%) convenience (30.7%) 2. Expense of gasoline (15.4%) 2. More frequent bus schedule/ 2. Nothing/wouldn't use it (15.2%) 2. More frequent bus schedule/ convenience (23.3%) convenience (24.4%) 3. More/safer/better bike paths 3. Easier access (8.6%) 3. More/safer/better bike paths 3. Easier access (10.2%) (12.9%) (7.9%) N: 18-24 years=31; 25-44 years=124; 45-64 years=213; 65 or older=155. Source: Applied Survey Research (2011). 2011 Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Telephone Survey.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 167 Natural Environment Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 WASTE REDUCTION Over the past 8 years, Santa Cruz County has seen a 31% decrease in tons of waste disposed of annually (246,955 in 2001 to 160,341 in 2009). Total Annual Tons of Waste Disposal JURISDICTION 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 01-09 % CHANGE Capitola 11,031 11,229 11,769 9,878 8,397 7,900 7,701 -30.2% Santa Cruz 70,791 64,618 58,229 54,140 55,926 53,538 54,325 -23.3% Scotts Valley 11,536 12,923 11,004 10,470 8,003 5,138 6,980 -39.5% Watsonville 36,761 37,504 41,611 41,134 40,114 32,754 33,566 -8.7% Unincorporated Areas 116,836 115,899 119,544 105,389 94,531 86,974 65,769 -43.7% Santa Cruz County Total 246,955 242,173 242,157 221,011 206,971 186,304 168,341 -31.8% Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2011. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. Estimated Pounds of Waste Generated per Person, per Day (Residential Disposal Rate)1 JURISDICTION 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 Capitola 2.5 2.5 2.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 Santa Cruz 3.7 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 Scotts Valley 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 Watsonville 2.3 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.4 Unincorporated Areas 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.3 Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2010. California Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2005, with 2000 DRU Benchmark, Sacramento, California, 2011. Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 1 The residential disposal rate is calculated by taking the total annual waste disposal (in tons) multiplied by the annual residential generation rate and then divided by the population. That number is then converted from tons to pounds. “Pounds per Person” figures reflect disposal trends that are adjusted for population growth and are for illustrative purposes only. Statewide Waste Disposal INDICATOR 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Per Employee Disposal 14.2 14.1 15.2 15.3 14.7 13.8 12.7 11.8 11.7 (pounds/ employee/ day) Per Resident Disposal 6.3 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.1 5.7 5.1 4.5 4.5 (pounds/ resident/ day) Total Disposal 38.6 38.2 41.3 42.5 41.1 39.3 35.5 31.1 30.4 (millions of tons/ year) Source: CalRecycle Disposal Reporting System, 2010. California Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2005, with 2000 DRU Benchmark, Sacramento, California, 2011.

Appendix I: Methodology ...... 170 Appendix II: Definitions ...... 172 Appendix III: Santa Cruz County Telephone Survey Results, 2011 ...... 180 Appendix IV: Past Community Heroes 1996‐2010 ...... 194

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 169 Appendices Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 APPENDIX I: METHODOLOGY Quality of Life Indicators The CAP community assessment model relies on clearly defined indicators in order to understand concepts or systems within the community which may be too large or complex to understand and discuss. As an example, we might ask ourselves, “Do people have adequate access to health care?” Increasing use of the emergency room for non‐emergency purposes could be an indicator that they do not.

For the purposes of this project, special groups known as Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) developed over one hundred quality‐of‐life indicators. These committees were represented by a rich mixture of professionals, advocates, and community volunteers, all of whom were experts in the respective areas under review.

The TACs used special criteria to develop the quality of life indicators used for this project. These criteria stipulated that indicators need to be understandable to the general user and the public, responsive to change, relevant for policy decisions, and updated regularly. Primary Data INDICATOR SELECTION Measures of community progress depend upon consistent, reliable, and scientifically accurate sources of data. One of the types of data gathered for this project is primary data. The only primary data are from a telephone survey of a sample of Santa Cruz County residents. There is much to be learned from people’s perceptions of their community, especially when those perceptions contradict the empirical evidence about its conditions.

In order to capture and understand the diverse perspectives of community members Applied Survey Research conducts a telephone survey, in both English and Spanish, with over 700 randomly selected county residents. The intent of the survey is to measure the opinions, attitudes, desires, and needs of a demographically representative sample of the County’s residents. Respondents are primary asked questions with confined options in addition to open‐ended questions. The survey was conducted annually between 1995 and 2005, and biennially since 2005.

SAMPLE SELECTION AND DATA WEIGHTING In 2011, 722 surveys were completed with county residents. Telephone contacts were attempted with a random sample of residents 18 years or older in Santa Cruz County. Potential respondents were selected based on phone number prefixes, and quota sampling was employed to obtain the desired geographic distribution of respondents across North County, South County, and the San Lorenzo Valley. In order to address the increasing number of households without landline telephone service, the sample included wireless‐only and wireless/land‐line random digit dial prefixes in Santa Cruz County. All cell phone numbers were dialed manually (by hand) to comply with Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rules. Respondents were screened for geography, as cell phones are not necessarily located where the number came from originally.

As previously mentioned, quotas were used with respect to respondents’ location of residence. The quotas were designed to obtain sufficient samples to allow generalization to the overall population within each of the three designated geographic areas (North County, South County, and the San Lorenzo Valley). This method of sampling necessitated an over‐sample of the San Lorenzo Valley due to its small size in relation to the rest of the county. The over‐sampling of San Lorenzo Valley allowed for reliable comparisons with the other two regions (North County and South County).

170 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Appendices Data from the CAP 17 survey were “weighted” along several demographic dimensions prior to data analysis. Data weighting is a procedure that adjusts for discrepancies between demographic proportions within a sample and the population from which the sample was drawn. For example, within the CAP year 17 survey, the sample was 55% female and 45% male, whereas the population in Santa Cruz County is very near to evenly split between the two genders. When the data are weighted to adjust for the over‐sampling of females, answers given by each female respondent are weighted slightly downward, and answers given by each male respondent are weighted slightly upward, thus compensating for the disproportionate sampling.

The survey data for CAP 17 were simultaneously weighted along the following demographic characteristics: gender, ethnicity, and geographic location. Weighting for both ethnicity and gender was performed to be region‐specific (based on 2000 Census data) to account for differences across the three regions of Santa Cruz County. The weighted data were used in the generation of the overall frequency tables, and all of the cross‐ tabulations, with the exception of the regional cross‐tabulations. For the regional cross‐tabulations, the regional weights were dropped so that the San Lorenzo Valley oversample could be utilized.

Two important characteristics of weighted data need to be mentioned. First, within a weighted data set, the weights of each person’s responses are determined by that individual’s characteristics along the weighted dimensions (gender, ethnicity, geographic location). Thus, different respondents will have different weights attributed to their responses, based on each person’s intersection along the three weighted demographic dimensions.

SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVENESS A sample size of 722 residents provides 95% confidence that the opinions of survey respondents do not differ from those of the general population of Santa Cruz County by more than +/‐ 3.4%. This “margin of error” is useful in assessing how likely it is that the responses observed in the sample would be found in the population of all residents in Santa Cruz County if every resident were to be polled. For example, within the CAP 17 sample, 80.3% of survey respondents indicated that they have health insurance. Therefore, we are 95% confident that across all residents of Santa Cruz County the percentage of people who have health insurance is between 76.9% and 83.7% (80.3% +/‐ 3.4%).

It is important to note that the margin of error is increased as the sample size is reduced. This becomes relevant when focusing on particular breakdowns or subpopulations in which the overall sample is broken down into smaller groups. In these instances, the margin of error will be larger than the initially stated interval of 3.4%.

The geographic quota sampling produced a confidence interval of +/‐ 6.5% at the level of each of the three geographic regions (North County, South County, and the San Lorenzo Valley). This confidence interval can be applied when examining the results of the regional comparisons.

It should be understood that all surveys have subtle and inherent biases. ASR has worked diligently with the CAP Steering Committee to reduce risks of bias and to eliminate identifiable biases. One remaining bias in this study appears in the area of respondent self‐selection; the capturing of opinions only of those willing to contribute approximately 20 minutes of their time to participate in this community survey.

DATA ANALYSIS Significance testing on the overall CAP 17 data was performed using proportion Z testing, to determine whether differences observed within the CAP 17 data would be likely to be expected across the population of the entire County of Santa Cruz. In charts illustrating survey results, an asterisk indicates when statistically significant differences were found between survey subpopulations.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 171 Appendices Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 DATA PRESENTATION Demographic breakdowns of survey results are presented on the web, as downloadable PDFs, rather than in the report. The overall results remain in the report, and demographic comparisons on key indicators appear throughout the document. Question‐by‐question cross‐tabulations for ethnicity, region, age, gender and income are available on the Applied Survey Research Website at: www.appliedsurveyresearch.org or www.santacruzcountycap.org. Secondary Data Secondary data are collected from a variety of sources, including but not limited to: the U.S. Census; federal, state, and local government agencies; academic institutions; economic development groups; health care institutions; libraries; schools; local police, sheriff and fire departments; and computerized sources through online databases and the Internet.

CALIFORNIA HEALTH INTERVIEW SURVEY (CHIS) Some responses from the CHIS are included in the health section in this report. The CHIS is the largest health survey of its kind in the nation as well as the largest telephone survey in California. The major areas covered in the survey include health‐related behaviors, health insurance coverage, health status and conditions, and access to health care services. To ensure diverse populations were included in the survey, telephone interviews were conducted in six languages: English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese dialects), Vietnamese, Korean, and Khmer (Cambodian).

CALIFORNIA HEALTHY KIDS SURVEY (CHKS) The CHKS is a comprehensive youth self‐reported data collection system that provides essential and reliable health risk assessment and resilience information to schools, school districts, and communities. It is developed and conducted by a multidisciplinary team of expert researchers, evaluators, and health and prevention practitioners. The Santa Cruz County CHKS is conducted bi‐annually at all public schools throughout the county.

AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY (ACS) The ACS replaced the decennial census long‐form sample questionnaire. The ACS offers broad, comprehensive information on social, economic, and housing data and is designed to provide this information at many levels of geography. ACS data is updated each year and is now available in 1 year, 3 year, and 5 year estimates depending on the size of geographic region. APPENDIX II: DEFINITIONS Demographics

FAMILY: refers to a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family. Beginning with the 1980 Current Population Survey, unrelated subfamilies (referred to in the past as secondary families) are no longer included in the count of families, nor are the members of unrelated subfamilies included in the count of family members. The number of families is equal to the number of family households; however, the count of family members differs from the count of family household members because family household members include any non‐relatives living in the household.

HOUSEHOLDER: refers to the person (or one of the people) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented (maintained) or, if there is no such person, any adult member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees. If the house is owned or rented jointly by a married couple, the householder may be either spouse. The person designated as the householder is the “reference person” to whom the relationship of all other household members, if any, is recorded. The number of householders is equal to the number of households and includes those households with one single individual. The number of family householders is equal to the number of families. Economy

CALIFORNIA WORK OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO KIDS (CALWORKS): a program that provides temporary financial assistance and employment focused services to families with minor children who have income and property below state maximum limits for their family size.

FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES/THRESHOLDS: poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure. They are updated each year by the U.S. Census Bureau. The thresholds are used for preparing estimates of the number of Americans in poverty each year. The poverty guidelines are the other version of the federal poverty measure. They are issued each year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The guidelines are a simplification of the poverty thresholds for use in determining financial eligibility for certain federal programs.

MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME: divides the income distribution into two equal groups, with half of local families having incomes greater than the median and half having incomes less than the median. The median family income is the sum of monetary income received in the previous calendar year by all household members 15 years old and over, including household members not related to the householder. HUD estimates of median family income are based on 2009 ACS data. ACS data estimates are updated with national consumer price index data and trended at 3% per year from December of the base year (2009). Separate median family income estimates (MFIs) are calculated for all Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs) and nonmetropolitan counties (including Santa Cruz County).

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: similar to the median family income, the median household income divides the population into two equal groups with half of household incomes above and half below. However, the median household income includes all households, including family households, non‐family households and households of single individuals.

SELF‐SUFFICIENCY STANDARD: is based on the costs families face on a daily basis – housing, food, child care, out‐ of‐pocket medical expenses, transportation, and other necessary spending – and provides a complete picture of what it takes for families to make ends meet. It measures how much income is needed for a family of a certain composition living in a particular county to adequately meet its minimal basic needs.

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF): a federal assistance program that provides cash aid to families with children. It replaced what was commonly known as welfare or Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) July 1, 1997.

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: measures the taxes levied on out‐of‐town visitors for lodging.

WELFARE‐TO‐WORK: designed to help welfare recipients obtain and prepare for employment. The Welfare‐to‐ Work Act, AB 1542, was created in 1997 and established welfare reform in California.

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 173 Appendices Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Education ADJUSTED FOUR‐YEAR DERIVED DROPOUT RATES: an estimate of the percent of students who would drop out during a four‐year period based on data collected for a single year.38

CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOL EXIT EXAM (CAHSEE): an exam that helps identify students who are not developing skills that are essential for life after high school and encourages districts to give these students the attention and resources needed to help them achieve these skills during their high schools years. Beginning with the Class of 2006, all public high school students are required to pass the exam to earn a high school diploma.

CALIFORNIA STANDARDS TESTS (STAR): an exam used to assess students’ knowledge of the California academic content standards in English‐language arts, mathematics, science, and history‐social science are administered. The exams are only administered to students in California public schools.

COLLEGE PREPARATION COURSES: high school courses in which the student has received a minimum grade of “C” or better that are accepted by the University of California and the California State University system as meeting their minimum admission standards. This includes 2 years of History/Social Science, 4 years of English, 3 years of mathematics, 2 years of laboratory science, 2 years of foreign language, and 2 years of college preparatory elective courses.

ENGLISH LEARNER (EL): students, formerly known as Limited‐English‐Proficient (LEP) students, are those students for whom there is a report of a primary language other than English on the state‐approved Home Language Survey and who, on the basis of the state approved oral language (grades K‐12) assessment procedures and including literacy (grades 3‐12 only), have been determined to lack the clearly defined English language skills of listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing necessary to succeed in the school’s regular instructional programs.

SAT: a national college admissions test. It tests students’ knowledge of subjects that are necessary for college success: reading, writing, and mathematics. It is typically taken by high school juniors and seniors. In 2005 a writing section was added to the existing verbal and mathematics section, raising the total possible score to 2400. Each section of the SAT is scored on a scale of 200‐800, with two writing subscores for multiple‐choice questions and the essay.

YOUTH ASSETS: also known as developmental supports and opportunities or protective factors, are measured by students’ perceptions of each of the three key protective factors—Caring Relationships, High Expectations, and Opportunities for Meaningful Participation—in their school and community environments. Health

5210 CAMPAIGN: is a Santa Cruz County campaign to bring awareness to the daily guidelines for nutrition and physical activity and prevent childhood obesity. 5‐ Fruits and vegetables…more matters! Eat fruits and vegetables at least 5 times a day. Limit 100% fruit juice. 2‐ Cut screen time to 2 hours or less a day. 1‐ Participate in at least one hour of moderate to vigorous physical activity every day. 0‐ Restrict soda and sugar‐ sweetened sports and fruit drinks. Instead, drink water and 3‐4 servings/day of fat‐free/skim or 1% milk.

38 For more information about the Four‐Year Derived Dropout Rate and its calculation, visit the California Department of Education’s DataQuest website at http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/. 174 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Appendices

HEALTHY PEOPLE 2020 OBJECTIVES: a set of health objectives for the nation to achieve over the second decade of the new century. They can be used by many different people, states, communities, professional organizations and others to help develop programs to improve health. Healthy People 2020 identifies nearly 600 objectives with 1,200 measures to improve the health of all Americans. To determine the success of Healthy People, it is important to track and measure progress over time. Healthy People relies on data sources derived from: a national census of events (like the National Vital Statistics System) and nationally representative sample surveys (like the National Health Interview Survey)

HEALTHY WEIGHT: percentage of public school students in grades 5, 7, and 9 with body composition falling within or below the Healthy Fitness Zone of the Fitnessgram assessment (e.g., 68.5% of 5th graders in California were at a healthy weight in 2010). In order to meet fitness standards for body fat, children must score in the "Healthy Fitness Zone" based on skinfold measurements, body mass index, or bioelectric impedance analysis. Lean scores for body composition are included in the Healthy Fitness Zone.

KOTELCHUCK INDEX: an index of adequacy of prenatal care based on the month prenatal care began and the number of visits attended as recommended by the American College of OB‐GYN Standards of Care. Adequate and adequate plus categories represent care begun by the 4th month of pregnancy, with a total of 12 to 17 visits received.

REQUIRED IMMUNIZATIONS: the immunizations required for entry into California child care centers are: at least four doses of the Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DTP) vaccine; at least three doses of the Polio vaccine; at least one dose of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine; at least one dose of the Haemophilus Influenza Type B (Hib) vaccine; at least three doses of the Hepatitis B vaccine; and at least one dose of the Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine or physician documentation of having had chickenpox. Entry into California kindergartens requires these immunizations: at least four doses of the Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DTP) vaccine; at least three doses of the Polio vaccine; at least one dose of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine; at least three doses of the Hepatitis B vaccine; and at least one dose of the Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine or physician documentation of having had the chickenpox. Exceptions to these requirements include permanent medical exemptions and personal belief exemptions.

RETAIL ALCOHOL OUTLETS: includes on‐safe and off‐sale establishments (not wholesale), where alcohol is sold for consumption off premises (supermarkets, liquor stores, etc.) as well as places where alcohol is consumed on the premises (bars, restaurants, etc.). Public Safety

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT: an unlawful attack or attempted attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

ARSON: any willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc.

BURGLARY: the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft.

CARETAKER ABSENCE OR INCAPACITY39: [With regard to child abuse] the absence of a child’s caretaker due to hospitalization, incarceration or death; incapacity of the caretaker to provide adequate care for the child due to physical or emotional illness, disabling condition, or compulsive use of alcohol or narcotics.

CHILD39: an individual aged 17 years or less.

EMOTIONAL ABUSE39: [With regard to child abuse] non‐physical mistreatment, the results of which may be characterized by disturbed behavior on the part of the child such as severe withdrawal, regression, bizarre behavior, hyperactivity, or dangerous behavior. Such behavior, in and of itself, is not deemed to be evidence of emotional abuse. Emotional abuse includes, but is not limited to: willfully causing or permitting any child to suffer, inflicting mental suffering, or endangering a child’s emotional well‐being.

EXPLOITATION39: [With regard to child abuse] the act of forcing or coercing a child into performing activities for the benefit of the caretaker which are beyond the child’s capabilities or which are illegal or degrading. This term also includes sexual exploitation.

GENERAL NEGLECT39: [With regard to child abuse] the negligent failure of a child’s caretaker to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or supervision where no physical injury to the child has occurred.

HOMICIDE: the willful (non‐negligent) killing of one human being by another. Murder and non‐negligent manslaughter are included in this definition.

LARCENY: the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession of another (except embezzlement, fraud, forgery, and worthless checks).

MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT: the theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle.

PHYSICAL ABUSE39: [With regard to child abuse] a bodily injury which has been or is being inflicted by other than accidental means on a child by the child’s caretaker. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to: willful cruelty, unjustifiable punishment, or corporal punishment/injury to a child.

RAPE: the carnal knowledge of a male or female forcibly and against his/her will.

ROBBERY: the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the custody, care, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by creating fear in the victim.

SEVERE NEGLECT39: [With regard to child abuse] the negligent failure of a caretaker to protect a child from severe malnutrition, or medically diagnosed non‐organic failure to thrive. Severe neglect also includes situations where a caretaker willingly causes or allows the child to be placed in a situation where his/her health is endangered. This includes, but is not limited to: intentional failure to provide necessary medical care, adequate food, clothing, or shelter.

SEXUAL ABUSE39: [With regard to child abuse] The victimization of a child through sexual activities. These activities include, but are not limited to: molestation, indecent exposure, fondling, rape, and incest. Social Environment

AUTISM: [With regard to students with disabilities] a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and non‐verbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects educational performance.

CHRONICALLY HOMELESS: defined by HUD as an unaccompanied homeless person with a disabling condition who has been homeless for at least one year or 4 times within the past 3 years.

DEAF‐BLINDNESS: [With regard to students with disabilities] concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes such severe communication and other developmental and educational problems that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for deaf or blind children.

EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE: [With regard to students with disabilities] a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree, which adversely affects educational performance: a) an inability to learn which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors; b) an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; c) inappropriate types of behavior or feeling under normal circumstances; d) a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; or e) a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. The term includes children who are schizophrenic. The term does not include children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they exhibit one or more of the characteristics listed above.

FREE OR REDUCED COST MEAL: a federal program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Program participation is by application and is based on the income of the child’s parent or guardian.

HARD OF HEARING: [With regard to students with disabilities] a hearing impairment, whether permanent or fluctuating, which adversely affects a child’s educational performance but which is not included under the definition of “deafness” in this section.

HATE CRIME: any crime motivated by the victim’s race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability.

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE: assistance available to CalWORKs eligible families to meet the reasonable costs of securing permanent housing, and for temporary shelter while seeking permanent housing. Families must meet the definition of homelessness, and assistance is restricted to once in a lifetime with few exceptions.

THE MCKINNEY‐VENTO ACT: was the first significant federal response to homelessness and provides federal monies for homeless programming and shelter services. The McKinney‐Vento act defines homelessness as:

1) An individual who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, and 2) An individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is: a) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); b) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or c) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

MENTAL DISABILITY: a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more that made it difficult to learn, remember, or concentrate.

MENTAL RETARDATION: [With regard to students with disabilities] significantly sub‐average general intellectual function existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifested during the developmental period, which adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

MULTIPLE DISABILITY: [With regard to students with disabilities] concomitant impairments (such as mental retardation, blindness, orthopedic impairment, etc.) the combination of which causes such severe educational problems that children cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for one of the impairments. The term does not include deaf‐blind children.

ORTHOPEDIC IMPAIRMENT: [With regard to students with disabilities] a severe orthopedic impairment, which adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes impairments caused by congenital anomaly (e.g., clubfoot, absence of some member, etc.), impairments caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis, bone tuberculosis, etc.), and impairments from other causes (e.g., cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns which cause contractures).

OTHER HEATH IMPAIRMENT: [With regard to students with disabilities] having limited strength, vitality or alertness, due to chronic or acute health problems such as a heart condition, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia, or diabetes, which adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

PHYSICAL DISABILITY: a long‐lasting condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activity such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying.

SAN ANDREAS REGIONAL CENTER (SARC): community‐based, private nonprofit corporation that is funded by the State of California to serve people with developmental disabilities. San Andreas is one of 21 Regional Centers throughout California serving individuals and their families who reside within Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties.

SENSORY DISABILITY: a long‐lasting condition of blindness, deafness, or severe vision or hearing impairment.

SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY: [With regard to students with disabilities] a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have leaning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

SPEECH OR LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT: [With regard to students with disabilities] a communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, language impairment, or a voice impairment, which adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY: [With regard to students with disabilities] an injury to the brain caused by an external physical force or by an internal occurrence such as stroke or aneurysm, resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial maladjustment that adversely affects educational performance. The term includes open or closed head injuries resulting in mild, moderate, or severe impairments in one or more areas, including cognition; language memory; attention; reasoning; abstract thinking; judgment; problem‐solving; sensory, perceptual and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information processing; and speech. The term does not include brain injuries that are congenital or degenerative, or brain injuries induced by birth trauma.

VISUAL IMPAIRMENT: [With regard to students with disabilities] a visual impairment that, even with correction, adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes both partially seeing and blind children. Natural Environment

FARMLAND OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE: either currently producing crops or has the capability of production. This is land other than Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland.

FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE: land other than Prime Farmland that has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops.

GRAZING LAND: land on which vegetation, whether naturally occurring or grown through human management, is suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock. The minimum mapping unit of grazing land is 40 acres.

LAND TRUST: local organization working with private parties and public agencies to permanently protect land through purchase and/or donation.

OPEN SPACE EASEMENT: restrict the use of privately owned property to a particular use (generally, undeveloped) under the Open Space Easement Act of 1974. Property owners receive a property tax reduction as an incentive to preserve their property in an undeveloped condition. The Williamson Act of 1965 offered property tax reductions to private landowners contracting to preserve farmland. Each year, the county is reimbursed by the state for a portion of the tax revenue lost through Williamson Act and Open Space Easement contracts.

OZONE: a colorless, odorless reactive gas comprised of three oxygen atoms. It is naturally found in the upper level stratosphere, but low level tropospheric ozone is a component of air pollution. Exposure to unhealthful levels of ozone can result in chest pain, coughing, nausea, shortness of breath, headaches, congestion, and throat irritation.

PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10): the mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air that are less than 10 microns in size. Studies have linked high levels of particulate matter to aggravated asthma and acute respiratory symptoms, chronic bronchitis, decreased lung function, and premature death. The largest sources of PM10 are dust from vehicles driving on paved roads, grinding operations, fuel combustion, agricultural burning, and wood stoves.

PRIME FARMLAND: land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming methods.

RECREATION TRAILS: trails set aside for non‐motorized recreation activities such as hiking, biking, and horseback riding.

UNIQUE FARMLAND: land which does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and that has been used for the production of specific high economic value crops.

WATERWAY IMPAIRMENT: contamination based on the containment of different pollutants. Pathogenic pollutants can come from urban runoff, storm sewers, agriculture, septic tanks, wildlife, homeless camps, and private laterals. Sedimentation is caused by unsurfaced roads, bare soil, and as the result of hydromodification. Nutrients come from septic systems, sewer systems, laterals, pesticides/agricultural runoff, wildlife, and natural sources. The state uses three categories to assess the health of waterways: “Good” waterways support and enhance designated use with minor or no known impairment of water quality; “Intermediate” waterways support designated use with minor or moderate impairment; “Impaired” waterways do not support designated uses and have moderate to severe impairment of water quality.

1. Which of the following areas do you live in or live 4a. How many children do you have in the following age closest to? groups: birth to 5 years old RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT City of Santa Cruz 232 32.1% 1 79 70.7% City of Watsonville 142 19.6% 2 25 22.7% San Lorenzo Valley 91 12.6% 3 7 6.6% Aptos 56 7.7% Total 111 100.0% Capitola 40 5.5% Scotts Valley 36 5.0% 4b. How many children do you have in the following age Live Oak 35 4.8% groups: 6-17 years old Soquel 30 4.1% Corralitos 23 3.2% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Freedom 20 2.8% 1 89 51.0% La Selva 11 1.5% 2 61 34.9% Pajaro 5 0.7% 3 20 11.5% Davenport/Bonny Doon 2 0.2% 4 3 1.5% Total 722 100.0% 5 2 0.9% 6 0 0.2% 2. What is your zip code? Total 173 100.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 95003 55 7.6% 5. Are your children in: 95005 19 2.6% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 95006 34 4.7% Public school 157 72.4% 95007 2 0.2% Private school 24 11.3% 95010 25 3.5% Not of school age 47 21.8% 95018 41 5.6% Multiple response question with 217 respondents offering 229 responses. 95019 12 1.7% 6a. Are they in elementary School? 95060 158 21.9% 95062 93 12.9% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 95064 3 0.4% Yes 121 67.8% 95065 26 3.6% No 57 32.2% 95066 36 5.0% Total 178 100.0% 95073 30 4.1% 95076 188 26.1% 6b. Are they in middle School? 95077 1 0.1% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Total 722 100.0% Yes 64 36.0% 3. Are you a parent or guardian of a child (or children) No 113 64.0% Total 177 100.0% under the age of 18?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 6c. Are they in high school? Yes 220 30.5% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT No 502 69.5% Yes 57 32.1% Total 722 100.0% No 120 67.9% Total 177 100.0%

8c. How satisfied are you with your child (children)'s 7a. Does your child (children)'s elementary school high school education? provide a safe environment for learning? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Very satisfied 27 49.3% Yes 115 96.8% Somewhat satisfied 25 44.8% No 4 3.2% Not at all satisfied 3 5.9% Total 119 100.0% Total 55 100.0% 7b. Does your child (children)'s middle school provide a 9. Does your child have enough activities after school safe environment for learning? and on weekends?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Yes 57 92.8% Yes 134 75.3% No 4 7.2% No 44 24.7% Total 62 100.0% Total 178 100.0% 7c. Does your child (children)'s high school provide a safe 10. How important do you think attending a quality environment for learning? preschool is to a child’s success in school?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Yes 51 92.3% Very important 508 72.2% No 4 7.7% Somewhat important 171 24.3% Total 55 100.0% Not at all important 25 3.5% 8a. How satisfied are you with your child (children)'s Total 704 100.0% elementary school education? 11. Overall, how satisfied are you with our local system RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT of education? Very satisfied 91 75.1% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Somewhat satisfied 28 23.3% Very satisfied 177 28.2% Not at all satisfied 2 1.6% Somewhat satisfied 361 57.4% Total 121 100.0% Not at all satisfied 91 14.4% 8b. How satisfied are you with your child (children)'s Total 629 100.0% middle school education? 12. Do you feel you are better off financially this year RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT than last year? Very satisfied 35 55.4% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Somewhat satisfied 26 40.9% Yes 215 30.6% Not at all satisfied 2 3.7% No 487 69.4% Total 63 100.0% Total 702 100.0%

12a. If you do not feel you are better off financially this 15. In any given month in the last 12 months, did you year than last year, or you don’t know why, why do you find yourself having to go without basic needs such as feel this way? child care, health care, food, or housing?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Cost of living increased 118 23.7% Yes 101 14.0% Less income 99 19.8% No 620 86.0% Unemployed 83 16.7% Total 722 100.0% On a fixed income/retired 63 12.6% The same, doing OK 61 12.3% 15a. If you had to go without basic needs, what did you Overall economy has go without? 61 12.3% dropped/Recession RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Gas prices 38 7.5% Health care 57 57.2% Wages stagnant 27 5.3% Food/Limited food choices 31 30.5% Additional expenses/Debt 23 4.6% Child care 16 16.2% Less employment opportunities 16 3.3% Rent/housing 14 14.0% Stock market/Investments 12 2.5% Dental Care 5 5.1% Businesses are closing/Lay offs 11 2.1% Other 1 0.5% Working less than last year/ 11 2.1% underemployed Multiple response question with 100 respondents offering 124 responses. Increased taxes 10 2.0% 15b. If you had to go without basic needs, did you get Decreased real estate value 9 1.8% help from any social service program? Utility costs/Energy crisis 8 1.6% Governmental control 8 1.6% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Personal tragedy/health problems 4 0.8% Yes 37 38.2% Foreclosure 3 0.6% No 61 61.8% Other 26 5.3% Total 98 100.0% Multiple response question with 499 respondents offering 690 responses. 15c. If you did not get help from a social service 13. Are you saving money for the future through any of program, why didn’t you get help?, the following savings options? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT I applied for public assistance 24 40.8% Savings account 355 50.5% I didn't want to 14 22.9% Retirement 318 45.2% I didn't know where to get help 9 15.1% Stocks 26 3.7% Didn't think I qualified 7 12.2% Other 48 6.9% Other 6 10.5% Not saving 229 32.6% Multiple response question with 59 respondents offering 60 responses. Multiple response question with 704 respondents offering 977 responses. 16. How much of your total household take-home pay 14. Do you feel you have opportunities to work in the (income after taxes) goes to rent or housing costs? Santa Cruz area? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 30% or less 282 44.1% Yes 379 57.2% Between 31% & 49% 147 23.0% No 284 42.8% Between 50% & 74% 146 22.8% Total 662 100.0% 75% or more 65 10.1% Total 641 100.0%

182 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Appendices 17. Due to the cost of housing, have you or anyone living 19a. Are you in danger of losing your housing in the next with you needed to do any of the following? 14 days?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT None of the above 429 62.1% Yes 7 34.8% Live temporarily with family/friends 169 24.4% No 14 65.2% Share housing with other families 151 21.9% Total 21 100.0% Rent out rooms in your house 86 12.4% Move when you didn't want to 70 10.1% 20. Have you been without housing in Santa Cruz County Live in an overcrowded unit 44 6.3% during the past year? (Homeless, in a shelter, on the Experience foreclosure 40 5.8% street, or living in your vehicle)? Live in a housing unit without 18 2.6% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT adequate plumbing, heat, or electricity Yes 5 0.7% Other 8 1.2% No 717 99.3% Multiple response question with 691 respondents offering 1,015 responses. Total 722 100.0% 17a. Has any of the previous had to do with the 21. Is anyone staying at your address on a temporary economic downturn? basis who otherwise might be considered homeless?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Yes 186 72.3% Yes 30 4.2% No 71 27.7% No 689 95.8% Total 257 100.0% Total 719 100.0% 18. How many times have you moved in the past 12 21a. How many people staying at this address might be months? considered homeless?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 0 618 85.9% 1 24 78.9% 1 59 8.2% 2 5 17.1% 2 33 4.6% 3 0 1.5% 3 5 0.6% 4 1 2.5% 4 3 0.4% Total 30 100.0% 5 1 0.2% 6 1 0.1% 21b. What is the relationship of this person or persons to Total 720 100.0% the owner, leaseholder, or primary renter of this property? 18a. Have you moved 3 or more times in the past two months? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Immediate family - mother, father, 14 47.3% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT son, daughter, sister, brother Yes 0 4.0% Friend 10 32.6% No 9 96.0% Extended family - grandparent, 5 16.1% Total 9 100.0% aunt, uncle, cousin or other relative Non-family member - including in- 4 14.7% 19. Are you in danger of losing your housing in the next laws 90 days? Multiple response question with 30 respondents offering 33 responses.

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Yes 21 3.0% No 693 97.0% Total 714 100.0%

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 183 Appendices Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 22. How would you describe, in general, your overall 24a. If you needed health care and were unable to health? receive it, why couldn’t you receive it? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT No insurance 16 29.8% Excellent 165 22.9% Insurance wouldn't cover it 4 7.1% Very good 246 34.1% Couldn't afford Co-pay 2 3.6% Good 185 25.7% Couldn't afford the premium 1 1.5% Fair 94 13.1% Too expensive 19 35.2% Poor 30 4.1% Medi-Cal/MediCruz problems 3 5.4% Total 719 100.0% Other 10 17.3% 23. Do you have a regular source of health care? Total 55 100.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 25. Do you currently have health insurance? Yes 612 85.2% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT No 106 14.8% Yes 577 80.3% Total 719 100.0% No 142 19.7% 23a. If you have a regular source of health care, where Total 719 100.0% do you go? 26a. Does your health insurance cover prescriptions? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Private practice - includes Santa 493 81.2% Cruz Medical Clinic & private Yes 493 88.6% doctors No 63 11.4% Urgent care clinics - Doctors on 176 29.0% Total 556 100.0% Duty, 24 hour urgent care Emergency room 145 23.9% 26b. Does your health insurance cover mental health? Community clinics 103 17.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Alternative care practices 86 14.1% Yes 312 82.3% Out of county 80 13.2% No 67 17.7% Other 2 0.4% Total 380 100.0% Multiple response question with 606 respondents offering 1,084 responses. 23b. If no, where do you go? 26c. Does your health insurance cover your dependents?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Community clinics 44 47.0% Yes 261 66.0% Private practice - includes Santa 33 35.2% No 135 34.0% Cruz Medical Clinic & private Total 396 100.0% doctors Urgent care clinics - Doctors on 32 33.6% 26d. Does your health insurance cover dental care? Duty, 24 hour urgent care Emergency room 25 27.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Alternative care practices 7 7.1% Yes 326 57.1% Out of county 4 4.5% No 245 42.9% Multiple response question with 94 respondents offering 145 responses. Total 571 100.0% 24. Have you needed health care in the past year and been unable to receive it?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Yes 55 7.7% No 661 92.3% Total 716 100.0%

27.01 How many of your children aged birth to 5 years 29a. If you needed dental care and were unable to old have health insurance? receive it, why couldn’t you receive it? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Too expensive 38 41.1% 0 6 5.8% No insurance 25 26.4% 1 67 60.4% Insurance wouldn't cover it 12 12.5% 2 31 27.9% Couldn't afford co-pay 9 10.0% 3 6 5.9% Couldn't afford premiums 7 7.9% Total 110 100.0% Other 2 2.2% 27.02 How many of your children aged 6 to 17 years old Total 93 100.0% have health insurance? 30. Other than during pregnancy, has a doctor ever told RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT you that you have diabetes or pre- diabetes? 0 10 6.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 1 80 46.2% Yes 84 11.8% 2 62 36.1% No 632 88.2% 3 17 9.6% Total 716 100.0% 4 3 1.5% 5 1 0.6% 30a. If a doctor has told you that you have diabetes or Total 173 100.0% pre-diabetes, were you told it was:

28.01 How many of your children aged birth to 5 years RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT old have dental insurance? Diabetes 51 62.4% Pre-diabetes 31 37.6% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Total 82 100.0% 0 17 15.9% 1 56 52.2% 31. During the past 12 months, did you ever feel so sad 2 31 29.0% or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a 3 3 2.9% row that you stopped doing some usual activities? Total 107 100.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 28.02 How many of your children aged 6 to 17 years old Yes 97 13.5% have dental insurance? No 623 86.5% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Total 720 100.0% 0 23 13.8% 32. Thinking about physical activity and nutrition, do 1 71 42.0% you know what the 5210 campaign stands for? 2 56 33.1% 3 16 9.2% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 4 2 1.3% Yes 15 2.1% 5 1 0.6% No 707 97.9% Total 169 100.0% Total 722 100.0% 29. Have you needed dental care in the past year and been unable to receive it?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Yes 95 13.2% No 623 86.8% Total 717 100.0%

32a. If yes, please briefly describe what the 52-10 36-37. Body Mass Index in adults campaign stands for. RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Low BMI (Less than 18.5) 11 1.7% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Normal BMI (18.5 -24.9) 268 41.2% Knows all four of the 5210 1 8.8% definitions Overweight (BMI 25.0 -29.9) 233 35.8% Knows three of the four definitions 1 7.0% Obese (BMI 30.0 or more) 138 21.3% Knows two of the four definitions 3 16.7% Total 650 100.0% Knows one of the four definitions 2 12.8% 38. Considering all types of alcoholic beverages, during Has general knowledge of 5210 8 54.7% but not specific definitions the past 30 days about how many times did you have 5 Total 15 100.0% or more drinks on an occasion? 33. How many days per week do you engage in physical RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT activity (such as brisk walking, bicycling, dancing, None 626 87.1% 1 swimming, or gardening) for a combined total of 30 39 5.4% 2 11 1.5% minutes or more? 3 10 1.4% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 4 6 0.8% None 63 8.7% 5 11 1.5% 1 - 2 days 131 18.3% 6 2 0.2% 3 - 4 days 227 31.6% 10 6 0.9% 5 or more days 298 41.4% 20 4 0.6% Total 720 100.0% 25 1 0.1% 30 3 0.4% Total 719 100.0% 34. How many times in the past 7 days did you eat fast food? Include fast food meals eaten at work, at home, or 39. During the past 30 days, on how many days have at fast-food restaurants, carryout or drive thru. you taken a prescription drug without a doctor's prescription? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 0 439 61.2% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 1 157 21.9% None 705 97.8% 2 58 8.1% 1 8 1.1% 3 20 2.8% 2 3 0.4% 4 10 1.4% 3 1 0.2% 5 14 2.0% 4 1 0.1% 6 2 0.3% 6 1 0.2% 7 10 1.5% 30 1 0.1% 8 0 0.1% Total 720 100.0% 10 3 0.4% 40. How acceptable do you think it is for adults to 21 2 0.3% provide alcohol to underage youth in their home? Total 717 100.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 35. Do you eat 5 or more servings of fruits and Very acceptable 23 3.2% vegetables a day? Somewhat acceptable 126 18.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Not at all acceptable 551 78.7% Yes 396 55.7% Total 700 100.0% No 315 44.3% Total 711 100.0%

41. How acceptable do you find the use of marijuana for 47. Does your family or household have an emergency recreational or non-medicinal use? supply kit set aside for immediate use that could sustain

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT all members of the family or household for 72 hours? Very acceptable 92 13.3% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Somewhat acceptable 252 36.6% Yes 410 57.0% Not at all acceptable 346 50.1% No 309 43.0% Total 690 100.0% Total 719 100.0% 42. Do you have your end-of-life wishes for medical 48. How concerned are you about family violence in our treatment in a written document? community? (including domestic violence, child abuse, RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT and senior abuse) Yes 288 40.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT No 422 58.5% Very concerned 265 37.4% Don't Know 11 1.6% Somewhat concerned 316 44.7% Total 722 100.0% Not at all concerned 127 17.9% 43. How effective do you think law enforcement is in our Total 707 100.0% community? 49. Have any family members or friends in Santa Cruz RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT County experienced any of the following types of abuse Very effective 253 36.0% in the last year? Somewhat effective 419 59.6% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Not at all effective 31 4.4% a. Domestic Violence or intimate partner violence Total 704 100.0% Yes 74 10.4% 44. How concerned are you about crime in Santa Cruz No 631 89.6% County? Total Respondents 705 100.0% b. Child abuse or neglect RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Yes 17 2.4% Very concerned 259 36.1% No 690 97.6% Somewhat concerned 357 49.7% Total Respondents 707 100.0% Not at all concerned 102 14.2% c. Elder abuse or neglect Total 718 100.0% Yes 22 3.2% 45. How safe would you say you feel in your No 686 96.8% Total Respondents 708 100.0% neighborhood?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 50a. Please tell me how much of an impact has had drug Very safe 470 65.2% and alcohol abuse in your neighborhood? Somewhat safe 237 32.8% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Not at all safe 14 2.0% A big impact 98 14.4% Total 721 100.0% Somewhat 212 31.2% 46. Do you feel children have a safe place to play in your Very little 132 19.4% Not at all 238 35.0% neighborhood? Total 680 100.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Yes 524 73.8% No 154 21.7% Don't Know 32 4.5% Total 710 100.0%

50b. Please tell me, how much of an impact has had 52. How often do you shop at farmers markets or local methamphetamine use in your neighborhood? produce stands?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT A big impact 91 14.2% Daily 13 1.8% Somewhat 130 20.3% Once a week 183 25.6% Very little 100 15.7% More than once a week but not 72 10.1% Not at all 318 49.8% daily More than once a month but not 96 13.4% Total 639 100.0% every week 50c. Please tell me, how much of an impact has had Once a month 124 17.3% gangs in your neighborhood? Less than once a month 111 15.5% Never 117 16.4% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Total 717 100.0% A big impact 98 13.8% Somewhat 182 25.6% 53. What prevents you from shopping at farmers Very little 117 16.6% markets or local produce stands? Not at all 311 44.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Total 708 100.0% Times are not convenient 189 27.5% 51. What one thing concerns you the most about the Nothing prevents me 186 27.1% natural environment in Santa Cruz County? Cost 97 14.2% Location 91 13.3% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Don't want to shop at more than 50 7.3% Water pollution - ocean/river/bay 126 22.3% one store Litter 58 10.4% Transportation 17 2.5% Water availability/Salt water 56 10.0% Grow my own vegetables 11 1.7% intrusion Variety 10 1.5% No preservation of natural 46 8.1% Lazy 10 1.4% environment/wildlife Weather 5 0.7% Drinking Water quality 45 7.9% Parking 4 0.6% General pollution 38 6.8% Other 60 8.7% Development of open 34 6.0% Multiple response question with 685 respondents offering 730 responses. space/Agricultural land Traffic/Too many cars 31 5.5% 54. How satisfied are you with what is being done in Air pollution - car emissions 26 4.5% Santa Cruz County to preserve open space such as Overpopulation 23 4.0% wildlife habitat and farmland? Fire protection/ prevention 18 3.2% Global warming/ climate change 18 3.2% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Closures of state parks 16 2.8% Very satisfied 288 42.2% Lack of recycling 13 2.3% Somewhat satisfied 353 51.8% Homeless encampments/ 12 2.2% Not at all satisfied 41 6.0% panhandling Total 682 100.0% Cutting down trees/Commercial 10 1.9% logging 55. Should stronger regulations be imposed to provide Pesticides/Herbicides 9 1.6% greater protection for open space? Lack of water/ water conservation 9 1.6% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Over regulation, protection/ rules 4 0.7% Yes 425 65.4% Other 64 11.4% No 224 34.6% Multiple response question with 563 respondents offering 655 responses. Total 649 100.0%

56. Are you taking steps to reduce your household water 58. How often do you use alternative forms of consumption? transportation - carpooling, bus, bicycle, etc. - rather

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT than driving alone? Yes 631 88.7% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT No 81 11.3% Never 266 37.1% Total 712 100.0% Every day 95 13.3% At least once a week, but not every 165 23.0% 56a. If you are taking steps to reduce your household day water consumption, have you done any of the following? A couple times a month 117 16.3% A couple times a year 65 9.1% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Other 9 1.3% Installed a low-flow showerhead 493 79.9% Total 716 100.0% Used a hose end nozzle or used 458 74.3% timers to water 59. What would encourage you to use alternative forms Installed a low-flow toilet 438 71.0% Modify your landscape to reduce 413 67.0% of transportation? irrigation water RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Installed a front loading washing 270 43.8% More frequent bus 140 26.7% machine schedule/Convenience Installed a low flow dishwasher 213 34.5% Nothing/wouldn't use it 109 20.8% Reuse rain water, shower water, 25 4.0% Easier access 49 9.4% etc. Expense of gasoline 28 5.3% Other 45 7.3% More/safer/better bike paths 25 4.8% Multiple response question with 616 respondents offering 2,354 responses. Already use it 24 4.6% 57. Are you taking steps to reduce water pollution at Reduce carbon footprint 14 2.6% home or work? Free transit 13 2.6% Access/ knowledge of carpooling 13 2.6% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT If car broke down 11 2.1% Yes 474 72.1% Light rail/Train 10 2.0% No 183 27.9% Job closer to home 10 1.9% Total 657 100.0% More rural bus routes 9 1.7% 57a. If you are taking steps to reduce water pollution, Rapid transit 8 1.4% have you done any of the following? Unable to drive 6 1.1% More accessibility for seniors & 2 0.3% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT people with disabilities Kept paints & chemicals out of 412 89.1% Other 54 10.2% storm drains Total 526 100.0% Washed cars at car washes rather 322 69.7% than on the street 60. How satisfied are you with your overall quality of Used less toxic fertilizers & 320 69.2% pesticides life? Reduced runoff from irrigation of 302 65.5% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT landscaping Very Satisfied 481 66.6% Used appropriate amounts of 300 64.9% Somewhat Satisfied fertilizers & outdoor pesticides 227 31.4% Collected pet waste 276 59.9% Not at all Satisfied 14 2.0% Use grey water 7 1.5% Total 722 100.0% Other 30 6.6% Multiple response question with 462 respondents offering 1,969 responses.

61. How much do you enjoy your life? 63a. If you contribute money, will you give:

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Not At All 8 1.1% Less than last year 103 22.4% Very Little 33 4.7% More than last year 60 13.2% Somewhat 159 22.2% About the same as last year 295 64.4% To a Great Extent 516 72.0% Total 457 100.0% Total 716 100.0% 64. Have you felt discriminated against or treated 62. Do you regularly do volunteer work in the unfairly in Santa Cruz County in the last 12 months? community? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Yes 85 11.8% Yes 295 41.1% No 634 88.2% No 423 58.9% Total 720 100.0% Total 719 100.0% 64a. If you felt discriminated against or treated unfairly, 62a. If you volunteer, where do you volunteer? for what reason?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Church 63 21.9% Ethnicity/race 42 51.1% School 58 20.2% Age 12 14.7% Community Centers/Recreation 29 10.1% Socioeconomic status 11 13.4% Centers/Sports Language 9 10.7% Environmental 28 9.6% Gender organization/Activities 8 9.5% Appearance Youth organizations 28 9.8% 5 5.8% A disability Health organizations 27 9.4% 5 6.0% Sexual orientation Service organizations 26 9.1% 4 4.9% Religion 1 1.6% Poverty/Homeless assistance 25 8.8% Other 9 11.4% Senior organizations 23 8.1% Political organizations 16 5.4% Multiple response question with 82 respondents offering 106 responses. Arts/Culture organizations 8 2.8% 65. How much of a problem is racism in Santa Cruz Emergency services (fire, police, 8 2.7% County? etc.) Library 7 2.4% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Alcohol/drug/counseling groups 4 1.3% A big problem 71 10.6% Other 28 9.8% Somewhat of a problem 400 59.8% Multiple response question with 288 respondents offering 379 responses. Not at all a problem 198 29.6% 63. Do you regularly contribute money to charitable Total 669 100.0% organizations? 66. How often do you feel that people in your RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT neighborhood help each other? Yes 466 64.8% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT No 253 35.2% Often 323 45.4% Total 719 100.0% Sometimes 330 46.4% Never 58 8.2% Total 711 100.0%

190 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Appendices 67. Have you or a member of your household, been 67b1. If the person(s) with a disability is not diagnosed by a physician with a disability that participating in community life at the levels he or she significantly limits one or more major life activities? desires, in what areas would you /they like to increase

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT their involvement? Yes 135 18.9% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT No 579 81.1% Social events/activities 15 26.4% Total 714 100.0% Would like to get out more but 13 23.0% have limited mobility 67a1. How many people in your household have been Work/donating time 6 10.0% diagnosed as having a disability? All aspects of life 6 9.7% Continued Education 2 3.3% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Other 13 23.0% One 113 84.0% Don't Know 12 21.5% Two 22 16.0% Multiple response question with 57 respondents offering 66 responses. Total 135 100.0% 67b2. What types of additional services are needed to 67a2. What is/are the age/ages of the person(s) allow you/them to increase involvement? diagnosed as having a disability? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Specialized transportation or 15 38.3% 5 years or less 4 2.8% mobility device 6 - 18 years 6 4.5% Social or recreational services or 13 34.1% 19 - 24 years 5 3.8% supports 25 - 34 years 11 7.9% Job development, employment 13 33.6% training, or coaching 35 - 44 years 9 6.4% Financial planning or management 12 30.3% 45 - 54 years 15 10.9% Personal Attendants 10 26.6% 55 - 64 years 44 32.6% Academic Counseling or Tutoring 9 22.2% 65 - 74 years 23 16.9% Remove barriers to access safe 7 19.1% 75 - 84 years 20 14.7% travel on sidewalks & in 85 years & over 14 10.5% crosswalks Multiple response question with 135 respondents offering 150 responses. Don't Know 2 6.4% 67b. Is the person(s) with a disability participating in Multiple response question with 39 respondents offering 82 responses. community life at the levels he or she desires? 68. In general, how knowledgeable are you about local government issues and decisions? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Yes 90 58.3% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT No 59 38.2% Very knowledgeable 112 15.8% Don't Know 5 3.5% Somewhat knowledgeable 455 63.7% Total 154 100.0% Not at all knowledgeable 146 20.5% Total 713 100.0%

69. In the last 12 months, have you done any of the 71. What do you think takes away from your quality of following? life?

RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Signed a petition 309 71.2% Nothing takes away from quality of 129 19.3% Met with, e-mailed, called or sent a 236 54.4% life letter to any local politician Traffic 105 15.7% Attended a town meeting, public 199 46.0% Gangs/Crime 102 15.2% hearing or public affair Cost of living/Housing 96 14.4% Joined an on-line political 128 29.4% Overcrowding/unplanned growth 60 9.0% advocacy group Lack of jobs/ employment 33 5.0% Joined a protest or demonstration 78 18.1% opportunities Other Political Action 19 4.4% Homelessness 32 4.7% Joined a political advocacy group 18 4.2% Local politics 28 4.2% Vote 11 2.6% Road conditions 18 2.7% Multiple response question with 434 respondents offering 998 responses. Weather 12 1.9% 70. Generally speaking, what contributes most to your Government rules/ regulations 12 1.8% quality of life in Santa Cruz County? Too liberal 10 1.5% Poor transportation options 9 1.4% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Lack of restaurants, shopping, 9 1.4% Scenery/Geography/Climate 523 75.2% social activities, etc. Family/Friends/Friendly people 145 20.9% Police 8 1.2% Community/Low population/Slow Drugs 8 1.1% 126 18.0% pace Immigrant/ illegal immigrants 7 1.0% Social climate 101 14.4% Racism/ discrimination 5 0.7% Quiet/Peaceful 47 6.8% Don't feel safe 5 0.8% Variety of physical activity options 12 1.7% Not racially diverse enough 3 0.5% Local restaurants, entertainment, 9 1.3% Tourists 2 0.3% activities, cultural events, shopping UCSC/ college students 1 0.2% Cultural diversity 8 1.2% High taxes 0 0.1% Good food/ organic food 7 1.0% Other 78 11.7% Work opportunities 4 0.6% Multiple response question with 666 respondents offering 771 responses. Local university 2 0.2% Location 1 0.1% 72. Which of the following age groups are you in? Schools 0 0.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Other 26 3.8% 18 years or less 8 1.2% Multiple response question with 696 respondents offering 1,011 responses. 19 to 24 years 47 6.6% 25 to 34 years 92 12.9% 35 to 44 years 91 12.7% 45 to 54 years 116 16.1% 55 to 64 years 167 23.3% 65 to 74 years 97 13.5% 75 to 84 years 76 10.6% 85 years & over 23 3.2% Total 719 100.0%

73. Which of the following best describes your racial or 76. What is your employment status? ethnic group? RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Employed full-time 230 32.3% Caucasian 511 71.8% Employed part-time 74 10.4% Latino/Hispanic 164 23.0% Self-employed 85 11.9% Multi-racial/multi-ethnic 20 2.7% Unemployed 75 10.5% Asian 9 1.3% Retired 207 29.0% Native American 3 0.4% Student 17 2.4% Filipino 2 0.3% Homemaker, parent or caregiver 25 3.6% African American 1 0.2% Total 713 100.0% Pacific Islander 1 0.2% 76a. If unemployed, what prevents you from finding Total 712 100.0% employment? 74. Which income range best describes your family RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT income for the year? Lack of available jobs 38 52.0% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Health problems/disability 20 27.2% Less than $10,000 per year 53 8.0% Lack of required education 10 14.4% $10,000 - $14,999 per year 50 7.6% Not looking 9 13.0% $15,000 - $24,999 per year 95 14.3% Lack of specific job skills 8 11.1% $25,000 - $34,999 per year 79 12.0% Childcare/being mother 6 7.9% $35,000 - $49,999 per year 71 10.8% Transportation issues 5 6.9% $50,000 - $65,499 per year 65 9.9% Age 4 5.4% $65,500 - $74,999 per year 52 7.8% Other 3 3.5% $75,000 - $99,999 69 10.4% Multiple response question with 73 respondents offering 103 responses. $100,000 - $149,999 74 11.2% 76b. If employed, where are you currently employed? $150,000 - $199,999 30 4.6% $200,000 or more 22 3.3% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT Total 659 100.0% In Santa Cruz County 266 69.3% Outside of Santa Cruz County 75 19.5% 75. How long have you lived in Santa Cruz County? Both in & out of Santa Cruz County 43 11.1% Total RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 383 100.0% Under 1 year 12 1.7% 77. What is your gender? 1 - 2 years 19 2.7% 3 - 5 years 45 6.2% RESPONSE FREQUENCY PERCENT 6 - 10 years 81 11.3% Male 357 49.4% 11 - 15 years 90 12.5% Female 365 50.6% 16 - 20 years 66 9.2% Total 722 100.0% Over 20 years 406 56.4% Total 720 100.0%

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 193 Appendices Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 APPENDIX IV: PAST COMMUNITY HEROES 1996-2010 Year 16, 2010 Michael Paul, Santa Cruz Goodwill Patty McFarland, Central California Leticia Mendoza, YWCA Watsonville Industries Alliance for Health Dr. Satish Chandra, Dominican Cynthia Wells, Santa Cruz Community Dave McNutt Medical Foundation Counseling Center Paul Bellerjeau, Second Harvest Food Richard Crowe, St. Francis Soup Cork Cherk, WPENS Teacher Bank Kitchen Jeanne Carrier, WPENS Teacher Willy Elliot‐McCrea, Second Harvest Maria Rodriguez Castillo Kim Woodland, Soquel PENS Teacher Food Bank Carol McMillen Nancy Samsel, Soquel PENS Teacher Deborah Elston, Santa Cruz Neighbors Kris Beall, Watsonville Wetlands Dara Thronton, Santa Cruz PENS Nancy Sherrod, Court Appointed Watch Teacher Special Advocates (CASA) Julie Barrett Heffington, Seymour Wendy Wyckoff, Santa Cruz PENS Javier G. Diaz, Community Restoration Center at Long Marine Lab Teacher Project Berri Michel, Bicycle Trip Maggie Klepp, Santa Cruz PENS Bob Katz, Katz & Lapides Law Office Dick Wilson, Lifetime Achievement Teacher Leola Lapides, Katz & Lapides Law Award Winner Office Year 15, 2009 Bay Federal Credit Union Dr. Larry deGhetaldi, Palo Alto Maggie Muir, Sutter Maternity & Preston “Boom” Boomer, Chemistry & Medical Foundation, Santa Cruz Surgery Center Physics Teacher, San Lorenzo Valley Division Michelle LaBerge, Volunteer Attorney High School Pola Espinoza, Children’s Education Coach, Mock Trial School Sherry Lee Bryan, Ecology Action Community Leader Competition Terry Corwin, Santa Cruz County Kathy Fahl, Make Your Wishes Known Steve LaBerge, Volunteer Attorney Land Trust Community Education Initiative Coach, Mock Trial School Carolyn Coleman, Santa Cruz Families Together Staff Competition Community Counseling Center Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, Author & Linda Proudfoot, Make Your Wishes Jody Cramer, Assisted Living Project Public Speaker (Lifetime Known Community Education Initiative Caroline Currie, Court Appointed Achievement Award Winner) Special Advocate (CASA) Volunteer Roberta McPherson, San Lorenzo Raquel Ramirez Ruiz, Diabetes Health Center Crystal Dunniway, Assisted Living Valley Equity Committee Project Dr. Nanette Mickiewicz, Dominican Surfrider, Santa Cruz Chapter Hospital

Year 14, 2008 Veronica Camberos Bernie Klum, MD, Watsonville Micah Posner, People Power Henry Carter Community Hospital Emergency Pablo Reguerin, Educational Dana Cox, RN Department Partnership Center Peggy Downes Baskin Kristi Locatelli, Animal Evacuation Ginny Solari Mazry, Hospice of Santa Team, SCC Horsemen’s First 5 SEEDS Quality Coaches Cruz County Volunteer Association Curt Gabrielson, Watsonville Rachel Spencer Sandy Lydon Community Science Workshop Todd Stosuy, Animal Evacuation Salem Magariam, MD, Dominican Dr. Gary Griggs, Ph.D. Team, SCC Animal Services Pediatric Clinic Authority Lyn Hood, Animal Evacuation Larry Markey Team, SCC Equine Evacuation Mary Sullivan‐White, Animal Unit Anthony Musielewicz, MD, Evacuation Team, SCC Horsemen’s Dominican Emergency Association Hospice of Santa Cruz County Department Michele Violich, MD, Watsonville Carmen Perez Health Center

194 © 2011 Applied Survey Research Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Appendices Year 13, 2007 Mary Boyd Doriz Downs, Healthy Start Program Manuel Osorio, Cabrillo College David Brown, Coastal Community of PVUSD Rock Pfotenhauer, Dean of Career Preschool Georgette Dufresne, Women’s Crisis Education and Economic Meg Campbell, COPA Leader Support‐ Defensa de Mujeres Development at Cabrillo College Michael Chavez Jennifer Hastings, Medical Director, Cece Pinheiro, Special Parents Ginny Clark, Hospice Caring Project/ Planned Parenthood Mar Monte/ Information Network Friends of Hospice Westside Health Stuart Rosenstein, Queer Youth Task Kim Clary, The Core Maria Carmen Hernandez, Healthy Force of Santa Cruz County Start Program of PVUSD Cleaner Beaches Coalition Santa Cruz Neighbors Rama Khalsa, Ph.D., Director of the Yvette Cook, Amesti Elementary Jorge Savala, Healthy Start Program of Santa Cruz County Health Services School PVUSD Agency Christina Cuevas, Program Officer, David True, Community Action Board Katie LeBaron, Santa Cruz County Community Foundation of Santa UC Santa Cruz Transportation and Health Services Agency Cruz County Parking Services Department Ruth Leon, Healthy Start Program of Bob Culbertson, Watsonville Wetlands (TAPS) PVUSD Watch Robert Montague, Loaves and Fishes

Year 12, 2006 Sybil Anderson‐Adams, Santa Cruz Nancy Gimmons, Watsonville Elise Perlin, Santa Cruz Family & Family & Children’s Services Farmer’s Market Children’s Services Carmelita Austin‐Schreher, ABC Jim Howes, Santa Cruz Police Bob Rittenhouse, Community Health Group Department Public Services Volunteer Deborah Blumberg, Community Department Eddie Rittenhouse, Community Volunteer Suzanne Koebler Volunteer Roberta Bristol, Community Volunteer Jennifer Laskin, Teacher at Linda Robinson, Ombudsman Maria Callejas, Coastal Community Renaissance High School Program Preschool Judy Leguillon, Coastal Community Francisco Rodriguez, Pajaro Valley Karina Cervantez, Community Action Preschool Unified School District Board Paul McGrath Robert Rodriquez Linda Clevenger Lee Mercer, Second Harvest Food Marcia Soler, Coastal Community Jimmy Cook, Santa Cruz Family & Bank Preschool Children’s Services Rob Mullens, Coastal Community Chris Tracy, Santa Cruz Family & Gail Cosby, Coastal Community Preschool Children’s Services Preschool Jim Naragon, Families in Transition Victoria Williams, Santa Cruz Family Roberta DePiana, Coastal Community Nell Newman, Newman’s Organics & Children’s Services Preschool Terri Noto, Santa Cruz Family & Mardi Wormhoudt Patrick J. Fitz, Community Volunteer Children’s Services Veronica Foos, Santa Cruz Family & Charles Paulden, Community Children’s Services Volunteer

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 195 Appendices Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Year 11, 2005 Foster Anderson, Shared Adventures Elizabeth Dominguez, Cabrillo College Maria Cristina Negrete, Community Austin Armstrong, Community Juan Gomez, Reclaiming Futures and Volunteer Volunteer Friday Night Live Matt O’Brien, Team Member with Brenda Armstrong, Santa Cruz County Clay Kempf, Regional Diabetes Quest4aCure Health Services Agency Collaborative Wells Shoemaker, M.D., Physicians’ Dave Bartlett, Court Appointed Special Lynda Lewit, Santa Cruz County Medical Group Advocates (CASA) Health Services Agency Judy Webster, Community Volunteer Kay Bartlett, Court Appointed Special Scott MacDonald, Santa Cruz County Tom Webster, Community Volunteer Advocates (CASA) Probation Department Carol Whitehill, Watsonville Wetlands Catherine Cooper, UCSC Department Leslyn McCallum, Train of Watch of Psychology Consciousness Danielle Winkler, Team Member with Tamara Doan, Coastal Watershed Ryan McNamara, Team Member with Quest4aCure Council Quest4aCure Joya Winwood, Mothersong Lisa Dobbins, Action Pajaro Valley Year 10, 2004 Luis Alejo, CRLA/Watsonville Schools Selby Drake, Suicide Prevention Jaime Molina, County Mental Health Piet Canin, Bike to Work Program Center Volunteers Services Cathy Cavanaugh, Community Bridges Ecology Action Phil Reader, Community Volunteer WIC Program Marcia “Duffy” Grant, Community Ride a Wave and Balance 4 Kids Karen Christensen, Santa Cruz County Volunteer Jerri Ross, Santa Cruz County Health Resource Conservation District Anita Ibarra, Community Action Board Care Outreach Coalition Jinny Corneliussen, Jack Farr, and Gail Levine, Branciforte Elementary Patricia Schroeder, Student Health Theresa Kramer, Alzheimer’s Elnora Lewis, Community Volunteer Services Association of Santa Cruz Volunteers Judy Williams, Community Volunteer Melissa Cowles, Community Volunteer Year 9, 2003 Dan Cope, Special Education Local Dean Lundholm, Pleasant Acres Joseph Rivers, Dragonslayers Planning Area Tenant Association Ann Ruper, Volunteer Book Buddy Don Eggleston, New School Marcia Meyer, Childcare Ventures Theresa Thomae, Small Business Jill Gallo, Community Volunteer Omega Nu Development Center Mary Hammer, Community Volunteer Yolanda Perez‐Logan, Probation Phyllis and Dick Wasserstrom, Mas Hashimoto, Japanese American Department Community Volunteers Citizens League Amy Pine, Survivors Healing Center George Wolfe, Community Volunteer Roland and Violetta Law, Community R.E.A.L. Volunteers Randy Repass, West Marine Year 8, 2002 Mary Balzer, SPIN Jena Collier, Health Families Paul Tutwiler, Volunteer Ruth Barker, We Care Program Daniel Dodge, Community Activist Jim Van Houten, Community Volunteer David Beaudry, Community Builder Heather Hite Linda Wilshusen, Live Oak Michael Bethke, Community Volunteer Deutron Kebebew, UCSC Neighborhood Organization Toni Campbell Marq Lipton, Seaside Company Martina Zamilpa, Catholic Charities Angie Christmann, Land Trust of Ellen Moir, New Teacher Center Santa Cruz County Jorge Sanchez, Si Se Puede

Year 7, 2001 Jane Barr, Mid Peninsula Housing Diane Cooley, Community Volunteer Theresa Ontiveros, Planned Jess Brown, Santa Cruz County Farm Jonathan Cornejo, Head Start Parenthood Bureau Blanca Corrales Sally Smith, Surfrider Foundation Virginia Butz LaRue Foster, Ombudsman Barbara Sprenger, San Lorenzo Valley Teen Board Alie Carey, Y.E.S. School Scott Kennedy, Santa Cruz City Destiny Castillo, Y.E.S. School Council Jonas Stanley, San Lorenzo Valley Healthy Start Amy Christey, Santa Cruz County Ken Meshke Lillian Westerman, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department Carrol Moran, UCSC Education Office of Education Aurelie Clivas, San Lorenzo Valley Partner CTR Mike Wilker, CCIC Lutheran Church Healthy Start Chrissie Morrison, Y.E.S. School Year 6, 2000 Jay Balzar, Dientes Pam Elders, Head Start Bob Munsey, Crow’s Nest Steve Beedle, Santa Cruz Tech Aranda Guillermo, c/o Don Eggleston Dee O’Brian, Walnut Avenue Women’s Alliance Francisco Jimenez, Student/Magic Center Kathy Bernard, Pajaro Valley Housing Apple Dennis Osmer, Energy Services Corporation Janice Jimenez, Student/Magic Apple Laura Segura‐Gallardo, Watsonville Janet Boss, Boys and Girls Club of Rama Khalsa, Health Services Agency Parks and Recreation Santa Cruz County Bryan Loehr, Redwood Elementary Larry Tierney, Park Maintenance Noah Brown, Youth Services Vickie Morales, Santa Cruz County Siri Vaeth, Big Brothers/Big Sisters Judy Cox, Santa Cruz County Probation Department Probation Department Year 5,1999 Steve Belcher, Santa Cruz Chief of Girl Scouts of the Monterey Bay Jane Scherich Police Volunteers Michael Schmidt, Santa Cruz Chamber Pat Clark, NAACP John Janzen, Silicon Systems Tim Siemsen Karen Delaney, Volunteer Center Majel Jordan, Elderday Erica Terence Pam Falke Irvin Lindsey, Outdoor Science Arcadio Viveros, Salud Para La Gente Experience Lisa Fraser, Principal Aptos Junior Elisabeth Vogel, Mercy Charities High Mary Jo May Housing Jack O’Neill, O’Neill Sea Odyssey Year 4,1998 Patricia Arana, ALTO Maria Roman, Community for Violence Sue Wilson, Grandma Sue’s Edison Jensen, Attorney Reduction Bruce Woolpert, Granite Rock Susan Olsen, El Pajaro Community Manny Solano, Watsonville Police Development Department Linda Perez, Pajaro Valley Prevention Triangle Speakers and Student Assistance Bill Watt, Families in Transition

© 2011 Applied Survey Research 197 Appendices Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 17, 2011 Year 3, 1997 Ciel Benedetto, Santa Cruz Women’s Erik Larsen, Resource Center for Bob McKinley, Every Fifteen Minutes Health Center Nonviolence Michael Pruger, Every Fifteen Minutes Dana Blumrosen, Street Youth Norm Lezin, Delta School Maggie Reynolds, Children’s Alliance Program Mark Ligon, Every Fifteen Minutes Patty Sapone, Every Fifteen Minutes Kimberly Carter, Above the Line Paula Mahoney, Every Fifteen Minutes Ray Shurson, Every Fifteen Minutes Sharon Kinsey, Volunteer Maria Martinez, Head Start Volunteer

Year 2, 1996 Paul Brindel, Community Action Board Alan McCay, SCCHO Juana Ortiz‐Gomez, El Judy Darnell, Volunteer Terry Medina, Watsonville Police Chief Comite/Esperanza Linda Fawcett, League of Women Michael Molesky, El Leonard Smith, Pros for Youth Voters Comite/Esperanza Marion Taylor, League of Women Andrea Garcia, El Comite/Esperanza Mónica Morales, Brown Berets Voters Fred Keeley, SCCHO Harvey Nickelson, Coast Commercial Marisa Villalon‐Chapman, El Comite/Esperanz Nancy Macy, Volunteer Bank

198 © 2011 Applied Survey Research santa cruz county community assessment project community products comprehensive report assessment Additional copies of this report are available for $30 each from: project United Way of Santa Cruz County 4450 Capitola Road, Ste. 106, Capitola, CA 95010 comprehensive 831.479.5466 This entire report, the summary report and past reports are also available report on the CAP website: www.santacruzcountycap.org. 2011 customized reports Data in this report can be mixed and matched to help agencies determine their clients' needs. Special reports can be created to reflect target populations, and cross-comparisons can be established with data from other projects. Customized reports, tailored to geographic and demographic specifications, are available by calling Applied Survey Research at 831.728.1356. Current and past reports are also available from their website at www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/projects/cap.html.

speakers bureau Expert speakers are available to speak to clubs and community groups about any aspect of the Community Assessment Project.

To schedule a speaker call the United Way of Santa Cruz County at 831.479.5466. 7