1 / 29

Presentation Roadmap

Leveraging Local Government to Achieve Healthy Housing Goals: A Case Study of Municipal Advisory Councils in Unincorporated Communities Ally Beasley ASPPH/US EPA Office of Children ’ s Health Protection Project Conducted: UC Berkeley School of Public Health and UC Berkeley School of Law.

delano
Download Presentation

Presentation Roadmap

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Leveraging Local Government to Achieve Healthy Housing Goals: A Case Study of Municipal Advisory Councils in Unincorporated Communities Ally Beasley ASPPH/US EPA Office of Children’s Health Protection Project Conducted: UC Berkeley School of Public Health and UC Berkeley School of Law

  2. Presentation Roadmap • Short discussion • Overview of unincorporated communities • Unincorporated communities in California • Short video • Health and housing issues • About the MAC project • MAC case study: South Modesto • Process evaluation • Recommendations and next steps • Resources

  3. Discussion: Defining Community • 5 minutes: Discuss the following questions with your neighbor. • What does it mean to you to be part of a community? How do you define “community?” 2. What are some of the benefits or services you expect as a member of your community? 3. What do you do if those expectations are not met? What avenues do you have/use for addressing concerns in your community?

  4. Defining Community • Shared geopolitical boundaries? • Shared sense of responsibility? • Shared government? • Shared social values? • Shared demographic characteristics? Image: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/dert/programs/justice/

  5. Unincorporated Communities: Overview • Not included in city boundaries, do not receive city services • Some very wealthy, many very low-income • US border region: colonias Photo credit (left to right): http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2010/10/daviod-bacon-the-people-of-the-central-valley-2-a-photographic-look-at-the-diverse-communities-of-ca.html and http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-neighborhoods-in-america-2014-2?op=1

  6. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) in California • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Definition: • Disadvantaged Communities: “communities with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income (Water Code Section 79505.5). • Disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs): “a territory that constitutes all or a portion of a “disadvantaged community” including 12 or more registered voters or some other standard as determined by the commission.“ (OPR, 2012).

  7. DUCs in California Short Video: Unincorporated California Source: http://californiawatch.org/node/15614

  8. California Unincorporated Communities by the Numbers • California total unincorporated: Approx. 2100+ • California DUCs: Approx. 438 to over 800+ • Total population in CA DUCs: Approx.1.8 million+ • Median Household Income in CA DUCs: Estimates range from under 10k/year to about 50k/year-but many households are home to multiple families

  9. Types of DUCs in California Image credit: Juan Carlos Cancino, CRLA/CEI

  10. Health and Housing Concerns in California DUCs Photos: sfgate.com(left) and Californiawatch.org (right bottom), Max Whitaker (top right

  11. Municipal Advisory Councils: Beginnings • Originated in 1967 in East Palo Alto, CA, a socioeconomically disadvantaged unincorporated area, as an avenue for community participation in addressing degraded infrastructure and economic downturn • Officially created by County Board of Supervisors under 1971 CA Government Code section 31010, which paved way for creation of 107 MACs in California as of 2013.

  12. Municipal Advisory Councils: Basics • Members are appointed or elected by community (typically elected) • Governing bodies but do not have fiscal authority or administrative organization • Other states have some similar organizations and structures, but CA statutory provision is unique • Bidirectional: council members act as conduit between county governments and community members. MACs serve as “county towns” • Land use planning, including annexation and city service provision, is one of the most common areas addressed by MACs

  13. Municipal Advisory Councils Serving Central Valley DUCs • Currently 27 MACs in the Central Valley, 16 of which serve DUCs • Median household income is 37,804.50 but standard deviation is 15,711.49! • Over 50% latino, many serve farmworker communities Growth of MACs in Central Valley, 1976-2010

  14. Municipal Advisory Councils: The Case Studies • Part of broader efforts working in unincorporated areas in Central Valley through Environmental Justice Practice Project and CA Rural Legal Assistance • Follow-up from 1977 report from CA Office of Planning and Research surveying existing municipal advisory councils in California, but this report did not specifically address DUCs

  15. Case Studies: Big Questions • What replicable insights into avenues for community participation and infrastructural improvements can we glean from the relatively recent formation of MACs in Central Valley Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities? • What inequities still persist in the structure and function of MACs serving DUCs that need to be addressed, and how might we address them moving forward?

  16. Case Studies: Process • Review of census data • Interviews with MAC members and county supervisors • Review of MAC bylaws, previous CRLA and OPR reports and research • Oral history projects with Central Valley DUC residents • Door-to-door surveys about housing, community, and infrastructure needs in Parklawn

  17. South Modesto MAC Basics

  18. South Modesto MAC Basics • Serves Bret-Harte, Parklawn, and North Ceres (formerly Shackelford also) • Unique: serves collection of unincorporated islands vs. single CDP

  19. South Modesto MAC Basics • Founded in May 2006 • 5 elected council members with 4-year terms • Advise the Board of Supervisors on matters of public health, welfare, safety, planning, and public works • Monthly meetings with county supervisor, law enforcement, public health and public works

  20. South Modesto MAC Demographics • Parklawn • Population: 1337 • % Black: 1.6% • % Latino 81.5% • % White: 50.3% • % Asian: 0% • Median HHI: $32,902 • % Below Poverty: 29.1% • %Male: 49.1% • % Female: 50.9% • % Rentership: 50.4% Bret Harte • Population: 5152 • % Black: 1.0% • % Latino: 82.9% • % White: 47.4% • % Asian: 0.8% • Median HHI: $30,833 • % Below Poverty: 38.1% • %Male: 48.5% • % Female: 51.5% • %Rentership: 45.3%

  21. South Modesto MAC Accomplishments • Parklawn sewer project • Stanislaus County laid sewer mains in neighborhood streets last year, but lacked funds to connect to homes after dissolution of redevelopment funds. MAC worked with county on $4.95 million grant through Clean Water State Revolving Fund, will connect to Modesto wastewater 2014 • Enhanced law enforcement response • Increased sense of social capital and collective efficacy • Annexation of Shackelford • MAC activity enabled Shackelford community (one of poorest CDPs in the US) to meet city standards related to storm drains, sewage, sidewalks etc

  22. South Modesto MAC Accomplishments • Parklawn lighting project • Streetlights • MAC convening hosted • All Central Valley MACs meet twice yearly • Park renovation • New playground equipment and restroom facilities provide safe meeting space • This space is also used by community-based organization VecinosUnidos de Parklawn for its meetings

  23. South Modesto MAC: Before and After

  24. Process Evaluation • Consider allotting a longer time frame to build upon initial interviews, schedule follow-ups, interview other key participants, etc. • Pay particular attention to how interview questions are phrased and consider re-working what is not well-received. • Consider ways to include voices and perspectives of community members and interviewees more directly and throughout the process in future case studies. • Challenges: occasional disconnect in how county vs. MAC members see roles.

  25. Next Steps • Participatory Action Research Project (PAR) at Berkeley Law grew from this initiative • More demographic data research and refinement • Research determination of MAC budget • Raise community participation and awarness

  26. Acknowledgements • UC Berkeley School of Law’s Environmental Justice Practice Project (EJPP) • Project Members Nancy Franco, Nikhil Vijaykar, Erica Rincon-Whitcomb, and Sara Stephens • UC Berkeley School of Public Health • US EPA Office of Children’s Health Protection • Assoc. of Schools and Programs of Public Health • Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors • South Modesto and El Rio/Del Norte MACs • California Rural Legal Assistance Community Equity Initiative • Juan Carlos Cancino, CRLA staff attorney, CEI legal specialist, project preceptor

  27. Acknowledgements

  28. Resources California Rural Legal Assistance: http://www.crla.org Community Equity Initiative: www.crla.org/community-equity-initiative Students for Environmental and Economic Justice at Berkeley Law: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/13098.htm Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors: http://www.stancounty.com/board/ PolicyLink CEI Page:http://www.policylink.org/focus-areas/infrastructure-equity/transportation-equity/community-equity-initiative Coachella Unincorporated: coachellaunincorporated.org

  29. Thank You! • Questions?

More Related