UNDER THE LINE:AN ASSESSMENT OF LOS ANGELES’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING NEEDS

BASED ON A SURVEY OF OVER 1,000 RESIDENTS

Under the Line:An Assessment of Los Angeles’ Employment and Training NeedsBased on a Survey of Over 1,000 Residents

Jennifer ItoYardenna Aaron

April 2005

Strategic Concepts in Organizing & Policy Education (SCOPE)CIPHER · AGENDA · Los Angeles Metropolitan Alliance · EEJP

1715 West Florence Avenue · Los Angeles, CA 90047(323) 789-7920 · (323) 789-7939: fax

www.scopela.org

COLLABORATING RESEARCHERSAngela BowdenDaniel BraunMelany Dela CruzPronita Gupta

EDITORKevin Hurley

COVER DESIGNRaquel Gutierrez

REPORT LAYOUT Risa Brown Bernie Rollins

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The assistance and support of many individuals over the past three years have made thisreport possible. The authors would especially like to thank the community residents andstaff with AGENDA, Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park Metropolitan Alliance who spentcountless hours knocking on doors, conducting surveys, entering data, and reviewing draftsof surveys, reports, and other materials. They also wish to acknowledge the academics,community activists, and advocates who contributed their insights and expertise.They thank the foundations for their generous support of this project.

AGENDA

Silvia Acuña Carlos Aguilar Gloria Bradshaw

Oreatha Ensley Diane Evans Maria Gutierrez

Concepción Hernandez Gloria Hernandez Manuel Hernandez

Rafaela Jarquin Giev Kashkooli Clementina Lopez

Leticia Manzo Emmett Millsap Joe Ortiz

Maria Plascencia Willis Pursley Jose Quiñones

Annie Tuggle Lynda Tutt Earline Young

Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park Metropolitan Alliance

Maria Alfaro Jessie Alatorre Jacinta Bahena

Candida Barillas Karen Barton Kelly Besser

Julio Caniz Zonia Cavazos Ludin Chavez

Bonnie Coleman Ivan Corpeño Raquel Diaz

Bertha Galindo Theresa Gomez Jose Gonzalez

Tomas Gonzalez Marian Gordon Isabel Hernandez

Reyna Lavariega Lethvia Lopez Edid Martinez

Nelson Martinez Miriam Moreno Barbara Noble

Candace Reid Joe Romain Alicia Sabido

Carmen Salinas Justin Steil Myra Taira

West Los Angeles Metropolitan Alliance

Patrick Burns Pam Garcia Josefina Guerrero

Justina Jimenez Jenell Jones Earnestine Miller

Virginia Parks Patricia Sanchez Imelda Zamora

Esperanza Zeledon Jaime Zeledon

SCOPE Staff

Elsa Barboza Patricia Castellanos Xiomara Corpeño

Justine Joyner Ng'ethe Maina Jon Martinez

Lanita Morris Deepak Pateriya Dennis Quirin

Mariko Ryono Sabrina Smith Jennifer Thomas

LaShawn White Karla Zombro

Toyin Adebanjo, MAAPIntern

Doralina Luna, MAAP Intern

The authors thank Mari Ryono, Luz Elena Henao, and Esperanza Martinez for reviewing earlier versionsof this report. We would also like to thank Anthony Thigpenn for his guidance and feedback throughoutthis project.

The authors take full responsibility for the content and any errors or omissions contained within thisreport.

The Community Needs Survey project is funded in part by a grant from The California WellnessFoundation (TCWF). Created in 1992 as an independent, private foundation, TCWF’s mission is toimprove the health of the people of California by making grants for health promotion, wellness educationand disease prevention programs.

This project received additional funding by a grant from The California Endowment and by a grant fromThe Needmor Fund.

Technical Assistance Providers

Patrick Burns,Economic Roundtable

Dan Flaming,Economic Roundtable

Alicia Lepe,East LA CommunityCorporation

Robin Liggett,UCLA Department of UrbanPlanning

Eileen Ma,Health Access

Enrico Marcelli,UCLA The Lewis Centerfor Regional Policy Studies

Martha Matsuoka,Doctoral candidate in the UCLADepartment of Urban Planning

LaToya Morgan,California Black Women's Health Project

Inbo Sim,Korean Resource Center

I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTIONDespite Los Angeles’ ranking as the sixteenth-largesteconomy in the world, millions of low-income, low-skilledworkers and job seekers in Los Angeles are strugglingunder the poverty line. Changes in the regional economyand in the structure and organization of work are creatingnew demands on workers and further entrenching impov-erished communities that do not benefit from the region’seconomic prosperity. Due to these changes, job trainingand education have become vital to the economic mobil-ity of distressed workers and job seekers as well as to em-ployers.

While the need for public sector investment in trainingand education has increased, public policy has not beeneffective in providing training and employment programsthat benefit low-income communities of color. Job train-ing provision is not only the responsibility of public insti-tutions. Both public institutions and private sector em-ployers must work together to contribute resources for jobtraining. Additionally, the emphasis of workforce devel-opment is too often on immediate employment rather thanon moving people out of poverty.

In order to inform the development of proactive, success-ful workforce development and economicdevelopment programs and policies, it is important to un-derstand if and how low-income communities are access-ing job training, whether training is helping to securegood jobs with living wages, and what the key barriers areto quality employment.

PROJECT OVERVIEWThe Community Institute for Policy Heuristics Education& Research (CIPHER) undertook this project to explorethe needs and experiences of Los Angeles’ low-incomecommunities of color in order to inform workforce and eco-nomic development programs and strategies. Because resi-dents and grassroots organizations understand best theproblems and needs of their own community, CIPHERworked closely with community organizers and residentsfrom the target study area to design and implement theresearch project as well as to analyze the research find-

ings. The project recommendations are intended to guidethe decisions of policymakers, workforce and economicdevelopment practitioners, foundations, and other com-munity-based organizations as they develop and fund pro-grams that help lift the city’s underserved communitiesout of poverty.

There are four goals of the Community Needs Surveyproject:

1. To collect quantitative and qualita-tive data on the experiences of low-income communities of color in LosAngeles County.

2. To assess barriers, primarily to qual-ity employment and secondarily toquality health care.

3. To make concrete policy recommen-dations based on community-baseddata.

4. To forge a collaborative research andanalysis model between researchers,community-based organizations,community leaders, and residents.

Over one thousand residents in South Los Angeles, WestLos Angeles, and Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park par-ticipated in the Community Needs Survey. The majorityof participants were Latino and African-American menand women with annual incomes of $30,000 or less. Theseindividuals are among the millions of Los Angeles resi-dents living in poverty.

II

SECTION I: IDENTIFYING BARRIERS TO QUALITY

EMPLOYMENTA critical step in developing effective workforce and eco-nomic development strategies for low-incomecommunities of color is to identify the obstacles that pre-vent residents from gaining quality employment and es-caping poverty. While unemployment is a major prob-lem in low-income communities of color,underemployment, or working in poverty-wage jobs, alsocontributes to the poor economic health of families andcommunities.

The survey finds that even though people may be working,they are struggling in lower-skill, low-paying service-sec-tor jobs that offer limited opportunities for getting out ofpoverty. People are trying to support a family while theywork as childcare providers, housekeepers, secretaries, andsales clerks. These jobs do not pay enough for someone toraise a family in Los Angeles and offer neither stable,consistent work nor benefits for workers and their families.

In identifying reasons that keep people from work, thesurvey finds that that the primary causes are1) childcare needs and family obligations, 2) layoffs andinability to find work, 3) training or school, and4) health limitations.

Low levels of education and limited English proficiencyalso pose barriers for low-income communities of color inqualifying for quality jobs. Over 40% of the adults sur-veyed do not have a high school diploma, thus limitingthe job opportunities available to them. For foreign-bornindividuals, limited English writing skills are a barrier forhigher-skill jobs.

SECTION II: ASSESSMENT OF JOB TRAINING EXPERIENCESThe results of the Community Needs Survey show that jobtraining is not effectively reaching all populations. Over-all, four out of ten survey respondents report participatingin a job training program; however, participation in pro-grams is lower among Latinos (30%) than among any otherracial group.

Healthcare and administrative support are the top occu-pations for which people received training. Although

there is no significant gender disparity in training par-ticipation rates, the survey does find gender differencesin the type of occupational training that men and womenreceive. Over 50% of men had received training in con-struction or computers, while over 50% of women weretrained in healthcare or office/administrative support jobs.

The survey findings suggest that while job training has apositive effect on income and employmentoutcomes, it is still failing to lift people above the povertyline. Overall, survey respondents who have attended jobtraining programs or trade school have higher incomesand better jobs with benefits like health insurance andopportunities to advance in their careers.

SECTION III: IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL

POLICIESBased on the findings of the survey, there are three keypolicy recommendations intended to serve as a startingpoint for discussion about how to improve the economicconditions for Los Angeles’ poor and working-class com-munities:

1. Conduct a comprehensive assessmentof labor market trends and of the di-verse needs of Los Angeles’ poor andworking class communities.

2. Develop a long-term plan for equi-table economic development that cre-ates quality job opportunities for LosAngeles’ poor and working class com-munities, supports key regional in-dustries, and involves an open andaccountable process.

3. Develop a regional workforce devel-opment plan that ensures access tohard-skills training for Los Angeles’diverse poor and working class com-munities, addresses the skills gap andsupport service needs of those com-munities, and supports the overall re-gional economic development strat-egy.

TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Los Angeles’ Changing Economy................................................................................................................... 1The Importance of Job Training for Los Angeles’ Low-Income Population...................................... 2

Project Overview........................................................................................................................................................... 5Project Background.............................................................................................................................................. 5Project Goals.......................................................................................................................................................... 5Target Study Areas and Populations.............................................................................................................. 6Survey Results....................................................................................................................................................... 7

Section I: identifying Barriers to Quality Employment......................................................................................... 9Uncovering Underemployment in Low-Income Communities.......................................................... 10Identifying Reasons for Unemployment...................................................................................................... 11Examining the Skills of Low-Income Adults............................................................................................. 12Summary of Findings......................................................................................................................................... 13

Section II: Assessing Job Training Experiences................................................................................................ 15Job Training Participation in Low-Income Communities..................................................................... 16A Look at Hard-Skills Training........................................................................................................................ 17Comparison of Trained and Non-Trained Working-Age Adults........................................................ 19Summary of Findings......................................................................................................................................... 21

Section III: Implications for State and Local Policy.............................................................................................. 23Recommendation 1: Conduct a Comprehensive Regional Assessment.............................................. 2 4Recommendation 2: Develop a Long-Term Plan for Equitable Economic Development............. 25Recommendation 3: Develop a Regional Workforce Development Strategy..................................... 26

Appendix I: Community Needs Survey Methodology......................................................................................... 29Survey Design........................................................................................................................................................ 29Sampling Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 30Survey Participation............................................................................................................................................ 33

Appendix II: Community Needs Survey Questions............................................................................................. 35

1

INTRODUCTION

LOS ANGELES’ CHANGING ECONOMYDespite Los Angeles’ ranking as the sixteenth-largest economy in the world, millions of low-income, low-skilled workers and job seekers in Los Angeles are struggling under the poverty line. The percent ofindividuals in Los Angeles County living below the poverty line rose from 15% in 1989 to 18% in 1999.1 Poorand working class individuals too often find themselves jumping from job to job or working severalminimum-wage jobs to patch together enough income to support a family. Work opportunities that payfamily-supporting wages, offer benefits, and have career advancement opportunities are becoming harder andharder to secure. Those whose living conditions have worsened over the past decade include adisproportionate share of people of color, job seekers with low educational levels, welfare recipients,immigrants, and people with limited English proficiency.

Changes in the regional economy and in the structure and organization of work are creating new demands onworkers and further entrenching impoverished communities who do not benefit from the region’s economicprosperity. Economic restructuring and globalization have contributed towards a bifurcated labor marketthat offers either high-skill, high-paying jobs or low-skill, poverty-wage jobs.

During the 1990s, Los Angeles lost stable, good-paying manufacturing jobs and gained more low-paying,service sector jobs. According to the Economic Roundtable, between 1992 and 1998 an increase in overallemployment by 400,000 jobs was mainly due to a gain of 410,000 service jobs and a loss of 20,000 jobs in themanufacturing industry. By 1998, the service sector employed 80% of Los Angeles County’s workforce whilemanufacturing employed only 16%.2

These trends are evident in communities like South Los Angeles. Manufacturing plants that once providedstable employment and enabled workers to support their families have long since left the community. Bigbox retail developments have replaced the factories, bringing in retail trade jobs that are low-skill and low-wage and often do not provide full-time employment, health and other benefits, or offer opportunities foradvancement.

At the other end of the growing service sector are high-wage, high-skill industries that include motionpictures, communications, computer software, and professional services such as accounting, legal services,advertising, and engineering.3 These jobs are out of reach for many low-skilled, low-income workers due tothe educational requirements, transportation issues, and discrimination.

1 US Census Bureau “State and County QuickFacts” Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of Population andHousing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing.

2 Daniel Flaming, Mark Drayse, Peter Force, And Fredric Deng, 2001, “Labor Market Action Plan,” Economic Roundtable.3 Ibid.4 Temp agencies and other contractors are being used as a mechanism for screening potential regular employees, with candidates

serving their probation time before moving permanently onto the company payroll.

2

In addition to changes in the regional economy, a restructuring of work itself has also placed hurdles beforelower-skilled, entry-level workers trying to move up the career ladder. Companies have increasingly beenshifting work that used to be done in-house (from janitors and clerical personnel to specialized computerprogrammers) to contractors, temporary workers, and outside suppliers.4 They have also been shifting full-time work to part-time in part to avoid federal labor laws that apply to full-time employees. As a result, mostworkers do not feel that they have long-term job security since seniority or experience does not guarantee arising income. The increasingly common practices of contracting out, hiring temporary help, and using part-time employees partially explain the rise of low-wage, routine service jobs.

THE IMPORTANCE OF JOB TRAINING FOR LOS ANGELES’ LOW-INCOME POPULATIONDue to these changes in the regional economy and in the organization and structure of work, hard-skills jobtraining and education is vital to the economic mobility of distressed workers and job seekers. In a 2002report Skills Training Works: Examining the Evidence, the Workforce Alliance researched existing studies to revealthe benefits of job training. They found that hard-skills training results in 1) higher earnings, 2) improvedaccess to employer-paid benefits, and 3) steady work.5

A skilled workforce also benefits employers. The California Economic Strategy Panel’s April 1996 report,Collaborating to Compete in the New Economy: an Economic Strategy for California, found that “employers’ most impor-tant expectation of government was not regulatory change, tax reform, or infrastructure development – it wasa better-qualified workforce.”6

While the need and interest for public sector investment in training and education has increased, publicpolicy has not been effective in providing training and employment programs that benefit low-income com-munities of color. Despite research studies showing the benefits of public investment in job training, thetrend in federally funded training programs has been shifting towards a focus on immediate job placement.Introduced with federal welfare reform in 1996, the work-first approach to reducing dependence on publicassistance now dominates the publicly funded workforce development system created under the WorkforceInvestment Act of 1998. This approach rushes public assistance recipients into low-wage, entry-level posi-tions rather than allowing them to access occupational training and education, which lead to higher-paid,higher-skill employment.

An Economic Roundtable study of Los Angeles’ welfare-to-work program has shown that the emphasis onimmediate job placement has had the net effect of increasing sub-poverty employment by about 30,000workers on any given day.7 In Los Angeles County, 85% of working recipients remain eligible for cash aid.8

Thus, economic self-sufficiency is still unattainable for those families struggling in low-wage jobs that do notallow them to survive without public assistance.

5 Smith, Whitney, Jenny Wittner, Robin Spence, and Andy Van Kleunen, 2002, “Skills Training Works: Examining the Evidence,”The Workforce Alliance, Washington, D.C.

6 Eastin, Delaine, Lon Hatamiya, Grantland Johnson, and Thomas J. Nussbaum, 1996, “California Workforce Development: APolicy Framework for Economic Growth” California Economic Strategy Panel.

7 Drayse, Mark, Daniel Flaming, and Peter Force, 2000, “The Cage of Poverty,” Economic Roundtable.8 Equal Rights Advocates, 2000, “The Broken Promise: Welfare Reform Two Years Later.”

3

According to public opinion polls, Los Angeles residents agree that job training is a critical public service forthose in need. In December 2002, an opinion survey conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associatesfor the City of Los Angeles corroborates the high priority of job training. Based on the survey of 850 LosAngeles residents, they found that “job training for low-income/needy” ranks as the most important servicethe City can provide to improve the quality of life for people in need and that residents are willing to supportthe use of public dollars to provide training.9

A combination of economic, geographic, political, and educational barriers consistently lock certain commu-nities out of economic opportunities. These barriers are compounded by a lack of investment in creating jobswith living wages. Viable job training is critical to helping people from poor communities to break out of thecycle of poverty.

9 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, 2002, “City of Los Angeles Consolidated Plan Citizens’ Needs/ Opinion Survey-PublicSummary.”

4

5

PROJECT OVERVIEW

PROJECT BACKGROUNDThe Community Institute for Policy Heuristics Education & Research (CIPHER) undertook this project toexplore the needs and experiences Los Angeles’ low-income communities of color in order to inform workforceand economic development programs and strategies. The project findings are intended to guide the decisionsof policymakers, workforce and economic development practitioners, foundations, and other community-based organizations as they develop and fund programs that help lift the city’s underserved communities outof poverty.

Because residents and grassroots organizations understand best the problems and needs of their own com-munities, CIPHER seeks to involve them in research about their communities. By being involved in theresearch and analysis process and becoming equipped with data, residents become more informed leaderswithin their communities and can use the data to develop and fight for solutions that will improve their lives.Therefore, CIPHER researchers worked closely with community organizers and residents from the targetstudy area to design and implement the research project as well as to analyze the research findings.

This project followed on the heels of numerous informal door-to-door surveys and community meetingsconducted in 2000 by organizers and members of three grassroots organizing projects: Action for GrassrootsEmpowerment and Neighborhood Development Alternatives (AGENDA) in South Los Angeles, the Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park Metropolitan Alliance (SHEPMA), and the West Los Angeles Metropolitan Alliance(WLAMA.) The preliminary round of surveys and discussions identified the need for good jobs and the needfor quality health care as the most prominent concerns of poor and working class communities. Based onthese findings, CIPHER conducted a Community Needs Survey in 2001 to further explore the barriers toquality jobs and quality health care in these three communities: South Los Angeles, Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park, and West Los Angeles.

PROJECT GOALSThere are four goals of the Community Needs Survey project:

1. To collect quantitative and qualitative data on the experiences of low-incomecommunities of color in Los Angeles County.

2. To assess barriers, primarily to quality employment and secondarily to quality healthcare.

3. To make concrete policy recommendations based on community-based data.

4. To forge a collaborative research and analysis model between researchers, community-based organizations, community leaders, and residents.

This project is part of a larger study to explore whether a sectoral strategy of targeting the healthcare industryfor job training and job creation will improve the economic security and health access of Los Angeles’ low-income communities and communities of color. For a detailed description of the research methodology forthe Community Needs Survey project, see Appendix I.

6

TARGET STUDY AREAS AND POPULATIONSThe target population for this project wasnon-white individuals living in households withbelow-poverty income. The following threeneighborhoods were targeted: South LosAngeles, Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park, andWest Los Angeles (See Figure 1).

Because this project was developed before therelease of the Census 2000 data, the target areaswere defined using demographic informationbased on the 1990 Census data.

South Los AngelesSouth Los Angeles is the largest and poorest ofthe three target areas with over half a million(526,584) residents and a median householdincome of $21,079. Almost all (97%) theresidents are non-white, predominantly African-American and Latino.

Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo ParkThe Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park target areahas over a quarter of a million (251,047) residentsand a median household income of $22,233. Overthree-quarters (77%) of the residents are non-white, predominantly Latino with agrowing Asian population.

West Los AngelesWest Los Angeles is the smallest andleast poor of the target areas with104,793 residents and amedian household income of$37,823. However, within West LosAngeles there are neighborhoodswith concentrated poverty that areprimarily Latino and African-Ameri-can. Overall, less than half (45%) ofthe residents are non-white.

10 The Community Needs Survey project was designed before the US Census 2000 data was available. Census tract and demographicinformation used to develop the target survey area were based on 1990 US Census Bureau data.

Figure 1. Map of Three Target Areas

Table 1. Summary Statistics of the Study Areas

Demographics(1990)10

South Los AngelesSilverlake-Hollyw ood--

Echo ParkWest Los Angeles

Total Numberof Households(HH)

158,086 86,515 43,383

Total Numberof Persons

526,584 251,047 104,793

% of Non-White Persons

97% 77% 45%

Median HHIncome

$21,079 $22,233 $37,823

7

23%

32%

18%

12%

5%4%

2% 2%3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Under$10,000

$10,000-$20,000

$20,000-$30,000

$30,000-$40,000

$40,000-$50,000

$50,000-$60,000

$60,000-$70,000

$70,000-$80,000

Above$80,000

Figure 2. Distribution of Household Income

SURVEY RESULTSBetween June and October 2001, a total of 1,031surveys were collected. A slight majority (59%) ofthe surveys were conducted in English while 41%were conducted in Spanish.

Overall, 59% of respondents are female and 41%male. A total of 918 participants (88%) areworking-age adults between 16 and 64 years of age.

The two largest racial/ethnic groups captured in thesurvey are Latinos and African Americans. Almost60% of the survey participants are Latino.African-Americans comprise over a quarter of allparticipants.

Overall, 54% of people surveyed were born outsideof the U.S. Just over one-quarter (26%) were bornin Mexico, 21% in Central America, and 3% in Eastor Southeast Asia. The remaining foreign-bornrespondents are from the Caribbean, Europe, SouthAmerica, Africa, and Oceania.

Almost three-quarters (72%) of householdscaptured in the survey earn $30,000 or less annually.Over half (54%) reported a household income lessthan $20,000.

Table 2. Survey Collection Goals and Results

Targeted Community Survey Goal # Collected

South Los Angeles 550 563

Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park

300 302

West Los Angeles 150 166

TOTAL 1,000 1,031

Table 3. Race/Ethnicity of Survey Participants

Race/Ethnicity PercentLatino 59.2

African American 28.2

White 7.4

Asian/Pacific Islander 3.8

Native American 0.5

Other 0.9

8

9

SECTION I: IDENTIFYING BARRIERS TO QUALITY EMPLOYMENT

The Community Needs Survey was designed to gather information directly from Los Angeles’ low-incomecommunities of color. The majority of individuals represented in this survey are Latino and African-Americanmen and women with annual incomes of $30,000 or less living in South Los Angeles, West Los Angeles, andSilverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park. These individuals are among the millions of Los Angeles residents facingdifficult economic living conditions.

A critical step in developing effective workforce and economic development strategies is to identify theobstacles that prevent residents from gaining quality employment and escaping poverty. Whileunemployment is a major problem in low-income communities of color, underemployment, or working inpoverty-wage jobs, also contributes to the poor economic health of families and communities.

The Community Needs Survey was designed to collect quantitative data on current job experiences and oncommonly-cited barriers that keep people from attaining or maintaining jobs. The survey tests theassumption that many barriers to quality employment exist in these communities. The barriers examined inthe survey are 1) low education levels, 2) English proficiency, 3) childcare needs, and 4) health limitations. 11

This section is divided into the following three parts:

1. Uncovering Underemployment in Low-Income Communities looks at the currentoccupations of working adults (between 16 and 64 years of age) to understand whypeople are working yet remain in poverty.

2. Identifying Reasons for Unemployment highlights main reasons why adults are notworking.

3. Examining the Skills of Low-Income Adults highlights the findings on educationlevels and English proficiency.

11 It is important to note that the survey did not include other critical barriers that exist in low-income communities of color such astransportation needs, legal work requirements, criminal records, and discrimination.

10

UNCOVERING UNDEREMPLOYMENT IN LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES

People are working in poverty-wage, service sector jobsThe survey found that while 57% of people surveyed are working, they are working in the lower-paid, lower-skill service sectors of retail, personal care, and office and administrative support. Individuals were asked toreport the occupation in which they are employed; their answers were categorized into the occupationalcategories as shown in Figure 3.

The following are the most commonly-reported occupations for the top threeoccupational categories:

1. Personal care and services:childcare provider,housekeeper

2. Office and administrativesupport: secretary,receptionist

3. Sales: sales clerk; cashier

These jobs often pay below a living wage.For example, the entry-level wage for asales clerk is $6.75 per hour.12 At thishourly wage, a sales clerk working 52weeks for 40 hours a week would earn$14,040 a year. According to a study byWider Opportunities for Women, an adult with two children in Los Angeles needs $45,024 a year to pay forbasic necessities like housing, food, transportation, and childcare.13

Other workers, such as childcare providers and housekeepers, are often employed in the informal sector,which means that they do not receive benefits such as medical insurance, retirement, or even sick and vacationpay. Furthermore, they are less likely to work full-time or have steady employment. Thus, working mothers,such as Latinas who account for 64% of the childcare providers and housekeepers in the survey, are strugglingdue to the low pay, the unstable nature of work, and the need to support and raise a family.

Figure 3. Occupations of Working Survey Respondents

12 California Employment Development Department, 2001, “Occupational Employment Statistics Survey.”13 Diana Pearce and Jennifer Brooks, 2000, “The Self-Sufficiency Standard for California.”

11

IDENTIFYING REASONS FOR UNEMPLOYMENTUnemployment is higher in low-income communities of color than the county as a whole. In order to addresshigh unemployment, the survey examines barriers to employment. Forty percent (40%) of working-ageadults surveyed were not working at the time. They were asked to choose one from a list of seven reasons toexplain why they were not working. Table 4 lists the percentage of non-working adults for each reason listed,except for “retired.” Because those surveyed were limited to only one choice and because people often facemultiple barriers to employment, these percentagesare probably low.

Family obligations keep people out of workMore than one in six (18%) of the non-workingadults surveyed identified the primary reason fornot working as childcare, the top of all reasons cited.As Table 4 illustrates, almost one-third (32%) saidthat they were not working because of childcareneeds or for family/personal obligations.Work/family conflicts are predominant in thesecommunities, as workers, especially women, needto balance work schedules with caregiver demands,whether for a child or, increasingly, for an elderfamily member.

Knowing that childcare is a commonly cited barrier that keeps people from getting and maintainingemployment, the survey asked about the presence and number of children under the age of five years. One-quarter of households surveyed have children under five. Over half (53%) have children between five andseventeen.

People cannot find or maintain workDifficulties finding and keeping a job are also keeping people from working. After childcare, losing a job orbeing laid off ranked second (16%) in the top reasons why people are not working. Losing a job and not beingable to find work are the reasons that account for almost 28% of the non-working adults. Low-income, low-skilled workers suffer the brunt of an economic recession, as they are often the last to be hired and the first tobe fired. When unemployment rates are high, employers can be selective in their hires. They are less likely tohire low-skilled workers in favor of those with more skills and experience. Another factor underlying the highnumber of people out of work is a shortage of work opportunities.

People are in school or trainingAlmost 14% of non-working adults are out of work because they are in school or training. Training andeducation are critical stepping stones for many job seekers to qualify for better pay and higher quality jobsthat allow them to get out of poverty. However, many people cannot afford to leave the workforce in order toattend school because they have to support their families.

Table 4. Top Reasons for Not Working

Main Reason for Not W orking Percentage ofNon-W orking Adults

Childcare needs 17.6

Lost job or laid off 16.4

Family or personalobligations

14.2

In school or training 13.9

Health limitations 13.3

Cannot find work 11.3

12

High blood pressure andback problems keeppeople from workingHealth limitations arealso keeping significantnumbers of people outof work. A closer lookat the healthlimitations reveals thathigh blood pressure,back problems, andarthritis are mostcommon. Figure 4shows the illnesses andconditions with thehighest percentage ofoccurrence among the jobless adults who reported health limitations as the primary reason for not working.The prevalence of back problems is most likely related to the physical demands that people suffer inoccupations such as healthcare support, personal care, retail, and construction.

EXAMINING THE SKILLS OF LOW-INCOME ADULTSIn order to assess the skills gap that may keep people from getting quality jobs, the Community NeedsSurvey collected information on education levels and English proficiency.

One in four adult respondents do not have a high school diplomaDue to changes in the regional economy, many residents in Los Angeles are locked out of promising economicopportunities due to the lack of a high school degree. In Los Angeles County, the percentage of adults 25 yearsof age and older without a high school degree is 30%.14 The Community Needs Survey found that 41% ofrespondents between 25 and 64 have less than a high school degree.

Sixteen percent (16%) of all respondents reached their highest level of education outside of the U.S. Immi-grants educated abroad face the challenge of transferring qualifications and having U.S. employers and edu-cators recognize their studies abroad.

Over a quarter of foreign-born respondents have no English writing skillsIn addition to the barriers facing low-income communities as a whole, immigrant communities face particu-lar challenges, including language, cultural, and legal issues. This survey was designed to focus on theEnglish proficiency skills. All respondents were asked to rank their English proficiency in speaking, reading,and writing. A slightly higher number of respondents have more trouble with writing in English thanspeaking or reading. Of the working-age, foreign-born respondents, about one in five (19.5%) do not speakEnglish, 22% do not read, and 26% do not write English at all. About one quarter of respondents rankedthemselves as fluent in speaking (27%), reading (27%), and writing English (25%).

Figure 4. Top Health Problems of Non-Working Adults Who Cited Health Limitations

14 US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, P37.

13

SUMMARY OF FINDINGSOver one thousand residents in South Los Angeles, West Los Angeles, and Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Parkparticipated in the Community Needs Survey. The majority of participants were Latino and African-American men and women with annual incomes of $30,000 or less. These individuals are among the millionsof Los Angeles residents living in poverty.

The findings from the Community Needs Survey confirm the need for economic and workforce developmentstrategies in order to decrease poverty in low-income communities of color in Los Angeles. Targetedstrategies are needed to address the needs of those who are working but are stuck in poverty-wage jobs andthose who are not working.

Even though people may be working, they are struggling in low-skill, low-paying service sector jobs that offerlimited opportunities for getting out of poverty. People are trying to support a family as they work as childcareproviders, housekeepers, secretaries, and sales clerks. These jobs do not pay enough for someone to raise afamily in Los Angeles and they offer neither stable, consistent work nor benefits for workers and their families.

In identifying reasons that keep people from work, the survey finds that that the primary reasons are1) childcare needs and family obligations, 2) layoffs and inability to find work, 3) participation in training orschool, and 4) health limitations.

Low levels of education and limited English proficiency also pose barriers for low-income communities ofcolor in qualifying for quality jobs. Over 40% of adults do not have a high school diploma, thus limiting thejob opportunities available to them. For foreign-born individuals, limited English writing skills are a barrierto higher-skilled jobs.

14

15

SECTION II: ASSESSING JOB TRAINING EXPERIENCES

A goal of the Community Needs Survey is to develop concrete recommendations based on the assessment ofbarriers to quality employment for low-income people of color across the three target communities. Theunderlying assumptions of the project are that 1) hard-skills job training can be an effective poverty allevia-tion strategy and 2) job training currently accessible to these communities is predominantly ineffective inlifting people out of poverty.

In order to examine the job training outcomes and experiences of low-income people in the three target areas,the survey asked respondents if they had attended a trade or vocational school and if they had attended a jobtraining program. If individuals answered “yes” to one or both questions, they are included in this section asjob training participants.

Section II highlights the findings on how many people attend job training and for which occupations theyreceive training. In order to gain an understanding of the effectiveness of job training in these communities,the job quality of participants is compared with that of individuals who have not attended a training program.

This section is divided into the following three parts:

1. Job Training Participation in Low-Income Communities reports the number of thosewho received job training and highlights the racial disparities.

2. A Look at Hard-Skills Training reveals the type of jobs for which people receive trainingto see if people are getting trained for quality occupations that pay living wages.

3. Comparison of Trained and Non-Trained Working-Age Adults reports on the differ-ences in employment, income, and employer-provided benefits between those who havereceived training and those who have not.

16

JOB TRAINING PARTICIPATION IN LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES

Four out of ten working-age adults havereceived trainingOut of the 944 working-age adults whoanswered the question on having everattended a job training program, 378(40%) reported “yes.” There are nosignificant disparities in the percentageof women and men who receivetraining. Thirty-nine percent (39%) ofwomen and 41% of men have attended atraining program.

Racial disparities exist in job trainingparticipationLatinos have the lowest job training participation rate of all racial groups. Only 30% of the Latino working-age respondents have received job training. Job training is most prevalent in the African-Americancommunity, with almost 60% of working-age African Americans having attended a training program or tradeschool. Figure 5 shows the percentage of people who have participated in a program by race.

Potential factors contributing to the low participation by Latinos are 1) language barriers,2) lack of documentation for immigrants to qualify for publicly funded programs, 3) lack of outreach, and4) less familiarity with available resources. A more detailed analysis is needed to identify the barriers totraining that exist for the Latino community.

Figure 5. Job Training Participation Rates by Race

30.4%

58.9%

42.9%

56.3%

46.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Latino AfricanAmerican

White API Other

17

A LOOK AT HARD-SKILLS TRAININGBecause job training is most effective when it prepares participants with the hard skills needed to obtain andsucceed in a job, the survey asked job training participants about the occupation for which they receivedtraining. Their responses were categorized into one of twenty-three major occupational groups.15

Only 45% (170) of those who had received training responded to the question, which suggests that manypeople may not be receiving occupation-specific training. While further research is needed to look at thosewho have not received occupation-specific training, this section focuses on the trained, working-age adultswho provided occupational information.

Healthcare and administrative support are the top occupations for which people are trainedWhile survey respondents’ training experiences represent twenty different occupational categories, over half(58.7%) of job training participants who answered this question received training in one of the following fiveoccupations:

1. Healthcare support or healthcare practitioners (17.6%)2. Office and administrative support (13.5%)3. Computers (11.9%)4. Construction (9.3%)5. Personal care and service (6.4%)

The following are the most frequently-mentioned occupations within these top five major categories:

1. Healthcare support: Homecare workers and nursing assistants; Healthcare practitioners:Certified nurse assistants (CNAs), licensed vocational nurses (LVNs), and registerednurses (RNs).

2. Office and administrative support: Clerks, secretaries, and receptionists.

3. Computers: Programmers and graphic designers (Note: the majority of respondentssaid they were trained in “computers” and did not list a specific occupation).

4. Construction: Electricians, masons, carpenters, and plumbers.

5. Personal care and service: Hairstylists and cosmetologists.

15 Occupational categories are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. There aretwenty-three major occupational groups (2-digit level).

18

Men and women are being trained for different occupationsWhile there are no significant gender disparities in training participation rates, the survey does find genderdifferences in the type of occupational training that men and women receive. Over 50% of men had receivedtraining in construction or computers. Over 50% of women were trained in healthcare or office/administra-tive-support jobs.

The top occupations for which men are trained:1. Construction (20%)2. Maintenance and repair (14%)3. Computers (13%)4. Production (6%) and Healthcare support and practitioners (6%)

The top occupations for which women are trained:1. Healthcare support and practitioners (29%)2. Office and administrative support (19%)3. Computers (10%)4. Personal care and service (8%)

This suggests possible gender biases in the type of training into which providers funnel men and women orsuggests that there are perceptions held by job seekers themselves about what opportunities are available tothem.

19

COMPARISON OF TRAINED AND NON-TRAINED WORKING-AGE ADULTSAlthough the survey was not specifically designed to evaluate training outcomes, a look at the differences inemployment experiences between those who have and have not attended a training program suggests thattraining has limited benefits for low-income communities of color but ultimately fails to eliminate poverty.

Trained adults have slightly higher incomes than non-trained adultsA comparison of household incomes between the trained and non-trained population shows slightly higherincomes for the trained population, yet the majority are living in households with annual incomes below$30,000.

Figure 6 shows that trained working-age adults have slightly improved annual household incomes comparedto non-trained adults. Although a majority (61%) of trained adults live in households with annual incomesof $30,000 or less, a greater percentage of the non-trained population (77%) are represented in this lower endof the income spectrum. The greatest difference between the two populations is in $30,000 to $50,000annual household income categories. While 24% of trained adults fall within this range, only 13% of non-trained adults have household incomes between $30,000 and $50,000.

A higher percentage of trained adults are workingOverall, 60% of working-age survey respondents are actually working. Of those who have received training,66.2% are working while only 55.9% of non-trained working-age adults are working. While employmentoutcomes are slightly higher for trained adults, a third (33.8%) of trained adults are without work.

Trained adults are more likely to have career advancement opportunitiesPeople were asked whether or not their current, or most recent, job represents an improvement in pay or statusfrom a previous job. A slightly larger percentage (56.2%) of people with training had experienced advance-ment compared to those without training (45.3%).

Figure 6. Income Distribution of Trained vs. Non-Trained Adults

16%

9%

3% 3% 4%

24%

34%

19%

26%

17%

4.2%

19%

10%

3% 4%2% 1%

3% 0%

5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Under $10,000

$10,000- $20,000

$20,000- $30,000

$30,000- $40,000

$40,000-$50,000

$50,000- $60,000

$60,000- $70,000

$70,000-$80,000

Above$80,000

Attended Job Training or Trade School Has Not Attended Job Training or Trade School

20

There is a greater difference when people answered whether or not their current job offers a chance to advancein a career. People with training (43.7%) are over twice as likely as people without training (18.7%) to beemployed in a job that offers an opportunity for career advancement.

Trained adults are more than twice as likely to be in a unionOne in four (24.7%) trained adults is a member of a union while only one in ten (10.4%) non-trained adultsreports being a union member. According to the Center for Regional Employment Strategies, the averageunionization rates in Los Angeles County are 10.2% for private sector workers and 50% for public sectorworkers.16 While the causal relationship between unionization and job training is unclear, the survey findsthat trained adults are more than twice as likely to be union members as non-trained adults than are LosAngeles County private sector workers.

Trained adults are more likely to haveemployer-provided benefitsPeople who have attended job training are better offwhen it comes to working in a job with employer-provided benefits. As Table 5 shows, they are morelikely to have employer-paid health insurance, aretirement or pension plan, paid days off, andtraining opportunities. For low-wage workers,especially, employer-provided benefits arenecessary.

While a majority of adults are not covered by anemployer-paid health insurance plan, a lower per-cent of non-trained adults (22.8%) are covered ver-sus trained adults (40.7%). Given the high presence of chronic illnesses in low-income communities ofcolor, insurance is more likely to provide individuals with a regular source of care, which is critical for theoverall health of the community.

Almost half of trained adults have paid days off versus a third of non-trained adults. While paid vacation orsick days are important for all low-wage workers, it is especially crucial for caregivers who may have to taketime away from work to care for a child or an elder.

16 Center for Regional Employment Strategies, “CRES Issue Brief,” accessed on January 18, 2004 available at http://www.cresla.org/Unionization.pdf.

Table 5. Comparison of Percent of Trained vs. Non-Trained Adults Covered by Benefit Type

21

SUMMARY OF FINDINGSThe results of the Community Needs Survey show that job training is not effectively reaching all populations.Overall, four out of ten survey respondents report participating in a job training program; however, fewerLatinos (30%) are participating in programs than any other racial group.

Healthcare and administrative support are the top occupations for which people received training, though thetype of occupation varies by gender. Although there is no significant gender disparity in trainingparticipation rates, the survey does finds gender differences in the type of occupational training that men andwomen receive. Over 50% of men had received training in construction or computers, while over 50% ofwomen were trained in healthcare or office/administrative-support jobs.

The survey findings suggest that while job training has a positive effect on income and employmentoutcomes, it is still failing to lift people above the poverty line. Overall, survey respondents who have attendedjob training programs or trade school have higher incomes and better jobs with benefits like health insuranceand opportunities to advance in their careers.

22

23

SECTION III: IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL POLICY

This report is designed to inform state and local policymakers, workforce development practitioners,educators, community-based organizations, and foundations in order to develop targeted programs andstrategies to improve the economic conditions in underserved communities. Over one thousand residents inLos Angeles’ low-income Latino and African-American communities were surveyed to assess their needs andexperiences. These individuals are among the millions of Los Angeles residents living under the poverty line.

Based on the findings of the survey, there are three key policy recommendations intended to serve as a startingpoint for discussion among all stakeholders about how to improve the economic conditions for Los Angeles’poor and working class communities:

1. Conduct a comprehensive assessment of labor market trends and of the diverse needs ofLos Angeles’ poor and working class communities.

2. Develop a long-term plan for equitable economic development that creates quality jobopportunities for Los Angeles’ poor and working class communities, supports keyregional industries, and involves an open and accountable process.

3. Develop a regional workforce development plan that ensures access to hard-skillstraining by Los Angeles’ diverse poor and working class communities, addresses theskills gap and support service needs of those communities, and supports the overallregional economic development strategy.

24

RECOMMENDATION 1: CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL ASSESSMENTUnderstanding regional economic trends is critical for the development of successful workforce and eco-nomic development programs and policies. In particular, it is important to analyze changes that are occurringin the regional labor market and how these changes are impacting Los Angeles’ low-income and low-skilledpopulations. The following are recommended studies needed to inform economic and workforce develop-ment policies:

1. Annual analysis of Los Angeles labor market trends2. Needs assessment of unemployed job seekers and low-wage workers3. Evaluation of current workforce development system

A comprehensive assessment of labor market trends and the particular needs of Los Angeles’ poor and work-ing class communities should frame the priorities for strategic economic and workforce development invest-ment and public policies. Based on this assessment, public funding should be targeted to address the region’seconomy, subsidize a quality job environment, and train unemployed and underemployed job seekers forgood-paying, promising jobs.

Los Angeles Labor Market TrendsLabor market information is the foundation upon which to develop an economic and workforce developmentstrategy for entry-level workers to obtain quality employment. A labor market study should include analysisat the county, city, and neighborhood levels on overall trends in the economy, employment opportunities andconditions in major entry-level occupations, and economic prospects for existing and emerging industries.This labor market analysis should be updated on an annual basis to reflect changes in the local and neighbor-hood economies.

Needs Assessment of Los Angeles’ Unemployed Job Seekers and Low-Wage WorkersLos Angeles populations that are locked out of promising economic opportunities represent diverse back-grounds, languages, culture, and experiences. A combination of economic, geographic, political, and educa-tional barriers consistently locks certain populations out of economic opportunities. An assessment of theeconomic and social barriers to quality employment should include education and skills levels, family andpersonal obligations, transportation needs, health conditions, and current employment conditions and ex-periences. This data should be used to inform policies and programs that connect Los Angeles’ poor andworking class populations to quality, sustaining employment.

Evaluation of Workforce Development SystemIn Los Angeles County, the training and education is a complex, non-integrated system that includes com-munity colleges, public and private adult education institutions, public and private universities, WorkSourceCenters (formerly known as One-Stop Centers), and eight Workforce Investment Boards. A comprehensiveevaluation should include an overview of available job training programs, vocational and occupational educa-tion opportunities, and support services; a demographic analysis of job training participants; and informationon the income and employment outcomes of participants. This evaluation should be used to identify gaps intraining and support services and to evaluate access to and outcomes of existing programs in order to informthe investment needed to ensure a training infrastructure that supports a quality trained workforce.

25

RECOMMENDATION 2: DEVELOP A LONG-TERM PLAN FOR EQUITABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTLos Angeles’ low-income communities, which are predominantly communities of color, suffer from highunemployment and underemployment. The findings from the Community Needs Survey confirm the needfor an economic development strategy to decrease poverty in low-income communities of color in Los Ange-les. Targeted strategies are needed to respond to the needs of both those who are working but stuck inpoverty-wage jobs and those who are not working.

Los Angeles must seek systemic change in its approach to economic development, job creation, and workforcedevelopment. A short- and long-term plan must be developed to improve conditions of low-wage work,create new jobs for Los Angeles’ low-income communities, and support long-term sustainable and equitableeconomic development.

In order to ensure an open and accountable process, local policymakers should convene a task force of commu-nity, advocacy, research, business, and government leaders to oversee the development of a plan that includesthe following:

1. Outline short- and long-term development strategies.

2. Be guided by the regional labor market analysis.

3. Take into account the diverse characteristics of Los Angeles’ chronically unemployedand underemployed.

4. Focus on key industries for the region.

5. Develop strategies to improve conditions of low-wage work.

6. Connect education and training approaches to the workforce skills required by the keyindustries.

7. Address social and health services to develop and maintain a healthy and effectiveworkforce.

8. Plan for livability improvements, such as air quality and neighborhood services.

9. Include protection and enforcement of workplace health and safety and workers’ rights.

10. Leverage public and private capital.

26

RECOMMENDATION 3: DEVELOP A REGIONAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGYState and local governments must prioritize job training and education as a key strategy to reduce poverty inLos Angeles. Training and education are critical to ensuring that Los Angeles’ unemployed andunderemployed are connected to existing and emerging economic opportunities. Therefore, workforce development is a critical element of an overall long-term economic development plan.

Given the complexity of workforce development in Los Angeles, a regional training and education plan wouldfacilitate the coordination of the various public and private entities involved in training and education. Sucha plan would guide the overall direction and strategy of public and private institutions for the development ofa quality workforce.

Critical elements of a regional workforce development plan include the following:

1. Long-term vision for a regional job training and education infrastructure that supportsthe long-term economic development plan.

2. Policies and funding that ensure access to effective training programs that lead to qualityemployment for those in need.

3. Customized programs and services for Los Angeles’ most difficult to serve, such as low-skilled job seekers, public assistance recipients, limited English proficient populations,immigrants, and ex-offenders.

4. Strategies to encourage private investment in a regional infrastructure.

5. Criteria for public investment in workforce development.

27

Based on the findings of this report, the following is a preliminary set of criteria for public investment intraining that lifts individuals out of poverty and poor-quality jobs:

1. Provide low-skilled job seekers with the hard skills necessary to obtain qualityemployment.

2. Ensure employment opportunities that provide the following for those that successfullycomplete training:a) Pay wages that lead to economic self-sufficiency.b) Provide employee benefits, such as health insurance, paid vacation, and sick days.c) Provide a safe and healthy working environment that meets workers’ needs and

rights.

3. Leverage programs and funding to provide case management to address the particularindividual’s barriers to obtaining and maintaining employment.

4. Target industries of regional importance that support higher-skill, higher-wage jobsand that benefit the community.

28

29

APPENDIX I: COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY METHODOLOGY

SURVEY DESIGNThe Community Needs Survey project was begun as a collaborative effort between CIPHER researchers;organizers; community leaders from the West Los Angeles Metropolitan Alliance (WLAMA), Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park Metropolitan Alliance (SHEPMA), and AGENDA in South Los Angeles; and a UCLAgraduate student intern. From the inception of the project, community leaders have been involved. Duringthe planning phase, leaders helped refine and shape the goals of the project.

Community leaders’ input was critical in the early stages of drafting the survey tool. Advice and assistancewas also sought from UCLA Department of Urban Planning professors, Health Access, and California BlackWomen’s Health Project.

Before finalizing the survey tool, there was a three-week pre-testing phase that was designed to:

1. Identify any problems with the survey before full-scale implementation.

2. Allow leaders and members to become familiar with the survey and to practiceinterviewing techniques.

3. Outreach to inactive members and base groups.

Training sessions were conducted with leaders at which participants practiced using a script to introduce thesurvey and practiced administering the survey. In the sessions, leaders learned about scientific methodologyand were trained to collect surveys in an unbiased manner. From the last week of May through the secondweek of June 2001, leaders and members conducted the survey with inactive members, family members,friends, and neighbors and collected a total of 69 surveys. Leaders gave feedback on confusing instructionsand misunderstood questions and timed the length of each interview. Based on this feedback, final edits weremade to the survey.

The survey was translated into both Spanish and Korean.

30

SAMPLING METHODOLOGYThe initial target areas were Silverlake, Hollywood, and Echo Park (SHEP); South Los Angeles (SLA); WestLos Angeles (WLA); Pico Union/Koreatown (PU/KT); and East Los Angeles (ELA).

31

This map shows the target areas as defined by zip codes and by 1990 census tracts. As the inset mapillustrates, the target areas include some of the highest concentrations of households with below federalpoverty income in Los Angeles County. The following chart summarizes the basic demographic informationfor each target area:

17 Census tract and demographic information is based on 1990 US Census Bureau data, available at www.census.gov.

BACKGROUND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SLA SHEP PU/KT WLA ELA

Total Number of Households (HH)158,086 86,515 82,775 43,383 13,138

Total Number of Persons526,584 251,047 244,618 104,793 56,087

% of Non-White Persons97% 77% 89% 45% 98%

Minimum Median HH Income 17 $4,999 $14,286 $12,230 $21,358 $11,347

Maximum Median HH Income$49,929 $35,726 $97,485 $59,554 $23,819

Average Median HH Income$21,079 $22,233 $23,407 $37,823 $19,300

32

The survey sample was created in four steps. The following methodology was followed in South Los Angeles,West Los Angeles, Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park, and East Los Angeles:

1. The first step was to identify clusters of census tracts located in each of the target areas.According to the 1990 U.S. Census, census tracts were selected such that their geo-graphic center was located within the zip code boundaries.

2. Target census tracts were then selected if they satisfied the following two criteria basedon 1990 US Census data:18

a) 10% of more of all households have below-poverty household incomes.b) 50% of more of all persons are non-white.19

3. These target census tracts were then divided into census block groups. Approximately50% of the census blocks groups were selected randomly using SPSS software.

4. The last step was to determine what proportion of the households should be interviewedin order to reach the desired number of surveys and maintain geographical diversityamong the respondents. The final steps included the following:a) Determine the number of households to survey in each community based on the

percentage of total households each community represents.b) Determine the number of randomized block groups to target.c) Determine the number of surveys to collect based on the total number of surveys

needed in each community.

To collect data from the Korean community, CIPHER partnered with the Korean Resource Center (KRC) toreach the goal of 150 surveys from Korean individuals. KRC mailed the survey to the clients in their databasethat fell within the target zip codes. KRC staff also surveyed clients as they walked into the office. Due to thediffering methods in data collection, the results are not included in this report.

To collect data from East Los Angeles, CIPHER partnered with East LA Community Corporation (ELACC)to reach the goal of collecting 150 surveys. Due to the hours during which ELACC organizers conducted thesurveys, they surveyed primarily seniors. Since their results are not representative of the larger community,these results are not included in this report.

18 For West LA, the targeting criteria were changed such that census tracts were targeted if they satisfied one of the two criteriarather than having to satisfy both criteria because of the limited number of tracts comprising WLA.

19 Non-white includes all races of Hispanic origin, and Blacks, American Indians/Eskimos, Asian Pacific Islanders, and other races notof Hispanic origin, as defined by the 1990 US Census.

33

SURVEY PARTICIPATION

Goals Results

South Los Angeles 550 56390003 56 55

90007 58 53

90008 51 62

90011 55 47

90018 50 50

90037 59 63

90043 54 54

90044 54 56

90047 67 67

90062 55 56

Silverlake-Hollyw ood-Echo Park 300 30290004 50 52

90026 100 145

90028 50 23

90029 50 60

90038 50 22

West Los Angeles 150 16690066 50 49

90230 50 49

Over sixty community residents from South Los Angeles, West Los Angeles and Silverlake- Hollywood-Echo Park were trained in survey collection techniques. The survey was conducted face-to-face.The interviewee received a copy of the survey while the surveyor read the questions and possible answersaloud and recorded the answers. CIPHER also trained the staff of ELACC and KRC in survey methods toensure that collection methods were standardized and unbiased to the extent possible.

Over a five-month period, door-to-door mobilizations were organized to collect over 1,031 surveys. The following table shows survey collection goals and results by target area:

34

35

APPENDIX II: COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY QUESTIONSThe Community Institute for Policy Heuristics Education & Research (CIPHER) is conducting this surveyto provide data on the jobs and health care needs in communities throughout Los Angeles. All informationwill be kept confidential. Questions and complete surveys should be directed to: CIPHER, 1715 W. FlorenceAve., Los Angeles, CA 90047, (323) 789-7920: phone.

I. About You and Your HouseholdQuestions 1-16 are background questions about you and your household. Please answer in a way thatmost accurately describes yourself and your household.

1. What is your zip code?2. Including yourself, how many people are part of your household? Including yourself,

how many are adults age 18 or over? How many are children between ages 5 to 17? Howmany are children under 5?

3. What is your gender?4. What is your racial background? Asian / Pacific Islander; African American; Native American; Latino;

White; Other, please specify.5. In what year were you born? In what country? If not born in the US, how many years

have you been in the US?Please answer questions 6-8 on a scale from 1-5: 1 for not at all, 3 somewhat, 5 fluent.6. How well do you speak English?7. How well do you read English?8. How well do you write English?9. What is the highest level of school you have completed or highest degree you have

received? Include school in other countries. 8th grade or less; some high school, no diploma; highschool degree or equivalent; some college, no degree; 2-year college degree (AA or AS); 4-year collegedegree (BA or BS); graduate or professional school.

Did you complete this level of school or degree in the US? If not, in which country?10. Have you ever attended a trade or vocational school? If yes, for which field or occupation?11. Do you hold a professional license or certificate in the US? If yes, for which occupation?12. Do you hold a professional license or certificate in another country? If yes, for which

occupation?13. Have you or anyone in your household ever received aid in the past or currently from any

of the following government programs? AFDC or TANF; food stamps; ADC; WIC; HealthyFamilies; SSI; social security income; Section 8; other, please specify.

14. Which category best describes your total annual household income in 2000? Includeincome from all members of your household as well as any income from your answers toQuestion 13. Under $10,000; $10,000-$20,000; $20,000-$30,000; $30,000-$40,000; $40,000-$50,000;$50,000-$60,000; $60,000-$70,000; $70,000-$80,000; above $80,000.

15. On a scale from 1 to 5, how difficult is it for you to live on your total household income?1, not difficult; 2 somewhat difficult; 3 difficult; 4 very difficult; 5 extremely difficult.

16. This year, do you expect your total household income to be: more; less; same; don’t know.

36

II. About You and Your JobQuestions 17-23 are about your current employment situation. If you are not currently working,answer questions 20-29 based on the last time you had a job.

17. Are you currently working?18. What is the main reason you are not currently working? Lost job or were laid off; family or

personal obligations; in school or training; childcare needs; retired; cannot find work; health limitations;other, please specify.

19. How many years ago was your most recent job?20. How many paying jobs do (did) you currently have?21. How many hours do (did) you usually work in a week?If you have (had) more than one paying job, answer questions 22-29 for your main job:22. What kind of work do (did) you do or what is (was) your occupation?23. How many years have (had) you worked in this occupation?24. What kind of business or industry do (did) you work in?25. Does (did) your current job represent an improvement in pay or status from a previous

job?26. What level of education would you say is (was) necessary to do your job well? Less than

high school; high school; trade or vocational school; Associate degree (AA)/2-year college; Bachelors de-gree (BS, BA)/4-year college; graduate / professional degree; don’t know.

27. How long does (did) it usually take you roundtrip to get to and from work?28. Are (were) you a member of a labor union?29. Does (did) your job offer: employer-paid health insurance; health insurance plan paid

for by both you and your employer; retirement or pension plan; paid days off (sick days/vacation); opportunities to advance in a career; training or continuing education oppor-tunities?

30. Have you ever attended a job training program? If yes, what institution or organizationprovided this program? What job or occupation was this training for? Did your trainingexperience help you get a job? Help you advance into a better job? Not help at all?Other, please specify.

31. Have you every worked in the healthcare industry? If yes, in what occupation? In whichcountry or countries?

32. In which of the following industries would you most like to work? Entertainment or media;technology or computers; government; education; healthcare; service; manufacturing; other, please specify.

37

III. Your Access to Health careQuestions 32-28 are about your household’s access to health care.

33. Do you have health insurance? If yes, choose the option that best describes the type ofcoverage you have: Medi-Cal; Medicare; employer-provided; privately purchased.

34. Do you or anyone in your household have any of the following conditions? Diabetes, orsugar in the blood; high blood pressure or hypertension; heart problems; any form ofcancer; chronic lung problems, like asthma, emphysema or bronchitis; migraineheadaches; arthritis; an ulcer; kidney or bladder problems; back problems; chemicaldependencies; mental health problems; AIDS or HIV-positive; other sexuallytransmitted diseases; other, please specify.

35. How much did your household spend on medical care, including medicine, last year?None ($0); less than $250; $250-$500; $500-$1,000; $1,000-$2,000; $2,000-$5,000; $5,000-$7,000;$7,000-$9,000; more than $9,000.

36. Last year how many times did you go to see your doctor?37. How long does it take roundtrip to get to and from your doctor’s office or clinic?38. On a scale from 1 to 3, how important do you think the following are?: 1 not important;

2 moderately important; 3 very important.a. Making sure everyone has health insurance coverageb. Increasing the number of health care facilities in my neighborhoodc. Hiring more staff for health care facilitiesd. Making health care facilities more friendly and accessiblee. Improving transportation to health care facilitiesf. Creating more community health education programsg. Other, please specify

Please make any additional comments.

38

Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education

The mission of Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (SCOPE) is to reduce barriers tosocial and economic opportunities for economically disadvantaged communities. SCOPE achieves itsmission by combining community organizing, progressive policy campaigns, community-based research,training, and capacity-building to shape a strong movement for social and systemic change.

SCOPE’s history began with AGENDA, founded in response to the civil unrest in 1992, as a resident-drivenorganization in South Los Angeles dedicated to improving neighborhood conditions. In 1993, AGENDAestablished the Los Angeles Metropolitan Alliance as a network of organizations and individualsparticipating in public policy campaigns at local and regional levels. The lack of data available to communityresidents led to the development of CIPHER, a community-based research and policy component, in 1997.The Environmental and Economic Justice Project (EEJP) came under SCOPE’s umbrella in 2001 to strengthenthe organization’s capacity for political education, training and technical assistance. SCOPE hasconstituents in South Los Angeles who are active through AGENDA; in Silverlake, Hollywood, and Echo Parkthrough the Silverlake-Hollywood-Echo Park Metropolitan Alliance; and in Mar Vista and Venice throughthe West Los Angeles Metropolitan Alliance.

The work of SCOPE work is made possible in part by the generous funding of The Ford Foundation, RockefellerFoundation, Christopher Reynolds Foundation, French American Charitable Trust, Liberty HillFoundation, Needmor Fund, New World Foundation, Norman Foundation, Jesse Smith Noyes Foundation,Public Welfare Foundation, Solidago Foundation, Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock,The California Wellness Foundation, and the UCLA Center for Community Partnership.

SCOPE1715 West Florence Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90047(323) 789-7920www.scopela.org