Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutYFMP PHASE I SEPTEMBER 2009 (2)Santa Ana Youth & Family Ma Plan: Phas Prepared by Ersoylu Consulting, Inc. 7/1/2009 MO 2009 The Santa Ana Youth & Family Master Plan, Phase I Assessment evaluated the current youth physical activity programming and services that are offered. The objective of the assessment was to identify current programming and resources strengths and gaps with a focus on generating recommendations that foster obesity and crime reduction in Santa Ana. Table of Contents Acknowledgements........................................................................................................ ............................... 4 I. Introduction & purpose of report ............................................................................... ............................... 5 Background on Youth and Family Master Plan .......................................................... ............................... 7 SantaAna demographics ........................................................................................ ..............................8 Theoretical rationale for Phase 1 ................................................................................. ..............................9 Obesityepidemic ................................................................................................... .............................10 Data from youth service providers ........................................................................ .............................16 Youthviolence ........................................................................................................ .............................10 Youthinput ............................................................................................................ .............................18 Safeplaces & activities ........................................................................................... .............................11 Data& G IS maps ........................................................................................................ .............................19 II. Methodology .............................................................................................................. .............................13 Crimeindicators ..................................................................................................... .............................19 Youth services assessment methodology .................................................................. .............................13 Children's health indicators ................................................................................. ............................... Stakeholder interviews & focus groups ................................................................. .............................13 Youth and family- serving organizations survey .................................................... .............................14 Program and document analysis ............................................................................ .............................15 Soccer assessment methodology ............................................................................... .............................15 Keyinformant interviews ....................................................................................... .............................16 Athleticleague survey ............................................................................................ .............................16 Soccerparent survey .............................................................................................. .............................16 21 III. Youth services data & findings .................................................................................. .............................16 23 Stakeholder interviews and focus groups .................................................................. .............................16 24 Data from youth service providers ........................................................................ .............................16 25 Youthinput ............................................................................................................ .............................18 26 Data& G IS maps ........................................................................................................ .............................19 Crimeindicators ..................................................................................................... .............................19 28 Children's health indicators ................................................................................. ............................... 20 Open space & joint use indicators ....................................................................... ............................... 21 Survey of organizations serving youth & families .................................................... ............................... 23 Typesof services .................................................................................................. ............................... 24 Hours & locations of services ............................................................................... ............................... 25 Programaccess .................................................................................................... ............................... 26 Youth physical activity service provider survey ......................................................... .............................26 City of Santa Ana youth resources ........................................................................... ............................... 28 Interpretation of youth services assessment ............................................................. .............................30 Resources............................................................................................................. ............................... 30 Programming......................................................................................................... .............................30 Collaboration........................................................................................................ ............................... 31 IV. Youth soccer assessment data and findings ........................................................... ............................... 32 Keyinformant interviews ....................................................................................... .............................33 Athleticleagues' survey ....................................................................................... ............................... 34 Soccer parent survey .............................................................................................. .............................39 Interpretation of soccer assessment ......................................................................... .............................42 Quality.................................................................................................................. ............................... 42 Coordination.............................................................................................................. .............................43 V. Implications & recommendations ............................................................................. .............................43 Communityopportunities .......................................................................................... .............................43 Soccer programming opportunities ........................................................................... .............................46 Conclusion................................................................................................................ ............................... 48 References................................................................................................................... ............................... 50 Appendices................................................................................................................... ............................... 53 Appendix A: SAUSD Focus group summary findings ................................................ ............................... 53 Appendix 6: Orange County Probation Memorandum on juvenile offenders .......... .............................53 Appendix C: Santa Ana Police Department 2008 Calls for Service .......................... ............................... 53 Appendix D: Orange County Health Care Agency 2008 SAUSD student healthy body composition...... 53 Appendix E: Santa Ana Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency ........... ............................... 53 Appendix F: Trust for Public Land 2006 Park Deficit Analysis .................................. ............................... 53 Acknowledgements Ersoylu Consulting wishes to acknowledge the strong support received from dozens of individuals with whom we worked during the course of this project. This report was made possible with support from the staff and members of the following: City of Santa Ana Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency, Santa Ana Youth Commission, EPIC Commission, Santa Ana Police Department, Community Development Agency, Orange County Probation Department, Santa Ana Unified School District and Orange County Healthcare Agency. Furthermore, this project could not have been possible without input from the dozens of community youth and from select community organizations who provided input. Although it is difficult to properly acknowledge all who played a role in this process, the list below is an attempt to highlight those who contributed greatly to the effort. Among the many, the consultants wish to acknowledge the following individuals for their leadership and contribution: • Mr. Gerardo Mouet, Executive Director, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency • Ms. Jenny Rios, Recreation Superintendent, PRCSA • Mr. Jose Perez, Recreation Program Coordinator, PRCSA The consultants wish to thank the following organizations whose contributions made this project possible: • City of Santa Ana Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency • City of Santa Ana Youth Commission • City of Santa Ana Early Prevention & Intervention Commission • City of Santa Ana Community Development Agency • City of Santa Ana Police Department • Santa Ana Unified School District • Orange County Probation Department • Orange County Health Care Agency While the final responsibility rests with Ersoylu Consulting, we can truthfully say that much of the direction and recommendations for improvement came from the dedicated City staff and from the insights gleaned from the committed participants of the focus groups, interviews and survey respondents. Executive Summary Youth in the City of Santa Ana today face immense challenges and barriers to physical activity and safe play. Rising levels of childhood obesity constitute one of the nation's biggest health concerns, and recent studies show that Santa Ana has one of the highest levels of childhood overweight /obesity rates in the State of California (MMWR, 2006; OCHNA, 2005). Inadequate parks and open spaces and insufficient programming for youth services combined with high levels of youth violence and street gang activity suggest serious burdens that young Santa Ana residents must deal with as they grow into adulthood. With a shortage of safe places to play and mounting budgetary restrictions at the state and local levels, times are tough for the youth of Santa Ana. This report, the first phase of the Santa Ana Youth and Family Master Plan (YFMP), responds to the challenges of obesity and gang activity facing the city's youth. Beginning in August 2008, Ersoylu Consulting assisted the City of Santa Ana's Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency (PRCSA) in conducting a thorough assessment of the resources and programs available to young people and families. The assessment started with an assumption that the childhood obesity epidemic and relatively large gang presence in the city were two major issues facing the youth of the community. The research on obesity prevention and youth violence is clear: the provision of safe, open spaces and the availability of quality structured programming for youth physical activity are critical to putting youth on a path to better health and positive growth. The report outlines the results of a multi- faceted assessment of community resources. Results and conclusions are based on extensive interviews, focus groups, and surveys that were conducted with a wide variety of parties, including city officials, staff from community based organizations, Santa Ana youth, and the parents of youth involved with organized soccer leagues. The assessment also included the analysis of secondary data, including GIS maps, crime statistics from SAPD and county officials, and City of Santa Ana policy documents and reports. Analysis of the data identified recommendations of opportunities for the community at large as well as opportunities specifically aimed at improved soccer programming. Community opportunities include: • Data collection on Santa Ana youth must be coordinated and shared regularly to guide program creation. - An investment in mapping the types of physical activity opportunities offered city -wide can provide a clearer picture of where programs are located and who is being served. This will support better - targeted efforts into future needs. • Focus Dark fundina in Dark -Door communities. - By directing park and open space funding opportunities to the areas with the highest needs, city policy can lead to the reduction of childhood obesity for the neighborhoods with the greatest struggles. • Focus joint -use and athletic programming opportunities at schools with the lowest Fitness -gram scores. - Promoting joint -use, the use of school grounds for after hours physical activity, in areas with the greatest needs will likely lead to improvements in healthy body compositions in the city's most "unhealthy" neighborhoods. • Close the coordination gap in youth programming — especially for teen programming. - Very few youth programs operate at nights and on weekends. Increasing outreach for teen - serving programs and incentivizing organizations willing to stay open later and on weekends can help to bridge the gap in services to teens in Santa Ana. • Consider tailored interventions to communities with high crime. - The SALUD Initiative and Townsend Street Task Force provide models of best practices that other communities in Santa Ana could follow. These types of multi - stakeholder, resident - driven processes could support communities most in need. • Increase programming in city community centers by nonprofits. Many youth programming services require signing up or meeting some other referral criteria. Partnerships with community -based nonprofit organizations could fill the gaps in community drop -in services. Soccer programming opportunities include: • Coordinate an annual standardized training for coaches city -wide. - One basic coach training can be offered seasonally by a community college or by one of the larger Cal -South leagues. This would help facilitate a standardization in soccer league practices and expectations and would lead to greater uniformity in participation costs across leagues. • Increase business partnerships. - Increasing public - private partnerships to sponsor soccer leagues could lead to a win - win situation. The burden of costs for league participation would be taken off families and corporate sponsors would garner advertising and positive public relations. This is particularly timely given the city and state's budgetary challenges. • Coordinate all field reservations within the City of Santa Ana through a single entity. - This system would require that a single agency control field distribution, this would effectively streamline the annual soccer field -use reservation process by having both city and school fields coordinated and maintained together. This could also lead to enhanced access for families reporting that transportation to fields is a barrier to their child's participation. • Create a consumer education campaign to educate families about the soccer leagues. - A video in Spanish can be presented to the community on the city website so that families can get a clearer idea of the breadth and scope of the different soccer leagues operating in Santa Ana. This would support parents in making more educated decisions about their child's league participation. • Make soccer programming a priority for the City. - Soccer engages more Santa Ana youth in intensive physical activity than any other program. Because of this wide - reaching impact, it is important that the leagues providing the service are given clear guidelines about expectations to ensure that the highest levels of participation are met. I. Introduction &purpose of report The City of Santa Ana has a long history of evaluating its parks, recreation and community services. In 1980 -1981, the City conducted an analysis of recreation needs in order to prepare a guiding policy document that would shape future investments in recreation facilities and programming. In 1992, the City supplemented this research by contracting services with Economics Research Associates and Barrio Planners, Inc. for the creation of A Recreation & Community Services Needs Assessment for the City of Santa Ana, CA 1990 -2000. This comprehensive document served to evaluate past recreation programming and provided suggestions for the establishment of standards the City could use moving forward through the 1990s and 2000s. The document focused on the level of services, the methods to pay for services and funding streams to improve and expand parks and community facilities. At the time of that report, in 1992, Santa Ana operated 38 facilities; 34 parks, 4 school playgrounds, 3 senior centers and 2 community service centers. The consultants at that time found that the City had 1.2 acres of open space per 1,000 residents (in the 1980s, this number was 1.7 acres per 1,000 residents). In 1998, the City of Santa Ana Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency felt that it was appropriate to follow -up on the items identified in the 1992 assessment in a more targeted way. They 1 Economics Research Associates and Barrio Planners, Inc. 1992. "A Recreation and Community Services Needs Assessment for the City of Santa Ana, CA." engaged internally in a process of creating a Youth Services Plan that would include implementation tools for several of the key issues facing the city's youth. In particular, this plan called for the creation of a Strategic Alliance of over 30 organizations, a Youth Commission, and a Youth Alternatives Collaborative (YAC).2 At the time the document was created, it was responding to a need for a more coordinated crime - prevention strategy within the City. In 1998, the Project PRIDE, Minnie Community Action Network, the Empowerment Zone and Weed and Seed were all intensive, long -term interventions and programs heavily funded by the federal government in an effort to reduce violent crime and gang activity in Santa Ana. In the late 1990's the bulk of the attention was focused on the issues of crime and crime reduction with relatively little attention to the park and open space issues facing the community. At that time, the City of Santa Ana park system had expanded to operate 38 park and recreation facilities and had instituted joint use agreements with SAUSD at several school locations. Nonetheless, the open space at the end of the 1990s was continuing on its downward trajectory; it was only 1.15 acres per 1,000 residents. Although the issue of obesity was not on the public radar at the time, that plan- written well over a decade ago - does resonate with some of the key issues identified in today's YFMP: 1) a need for joint use, 2) a desire to keep the focus of interventions on prevention and 3) the role of evaluation in ensuring effectiveness. Background on Yojo -b and Family Master Plan 2006 was a particularly difficult year for the Santa Ana community; news reports highlighted several suspected gang - affiliated killings and the community coalesced around a town -hall meeting to address the violence (Daniels, 2006). Following that, in 2007, the release of the Orange County Report on the Conditions of Children was touted in the news with the following headline, "County study. Gangs lure more kids." (Miller, 2007). At that time, amongst headlines such as these, the concept for a Youth Master Plan emerged. The hope was that this plan, in conjunction with the creation of a new commission dedicated to gang prevention (Early Prevention & Intervention Commission), could provide data, policy and program recommendations to support a safe and healthy environment for Santa Ana youth. In 2007 the framework for a Youth & Family Master Plan (YFMP) was set into motion during a City of Santa Ana City Council Retreat (February 14, 2007). In early 2007, the Santa Ana Youth Commission began meeting to discuss the conceptual development of what the desired Youth Master Plan would encompass. Through their meetings, the group identified problems facing youth and based on this data, recommended that Phase I focus on the challenges of obesity and gang activity facing youth. The Youth Commission felt that Phase I of the YFMP should provide staff and Council with recommendations of how organized sports and fitness activities for youth can best be supported and enhanced (Youth Commission, 2007). Upon approval of the resolution for Phase I of a Youth & Family Master Plan by City Council in October 2007, the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency (PRCSA) was tasked with working with the City's Youth Commission to develop an RFP for a team to work with the city on the Phase I assessment. In June 2008, Ersoylu Consulting was chosen as the consultant group to support PRCSA in the assessment. The research presented herein is based exclusively on the requirements of the City's RFP and is aligned with the goals and objectives outlined by the PRCSA. The assessment process began in August 2008 and was completed in July 2009. Phase I of the Santa Ana Youth and Family Master Plan 2 A Memorandum of Support was signed to codify the Strategic Alliance in August 1999 by over 30 organizations committed to coordination of resources, interagency referral and coordinated service delivery. The YAC (created as a sub - committee to Santa Ana 2000) merged with the Empowerment Zone Youth Development Committee to oversee implementation of the Youth Services Plan. To date, it is unclear as to whether the goal of incorporating the Youth Services Plan as an element into the City's General Plan has occurred. (YFMP) started with an assumption that the childhood obesity epidemic and relatively large gang presence in the city were two major issues facing the youth and families of Santa Ana. In Santa Ana, community members ranked the lack of safe play areas, teenage recreation, and parks as the three top concerns facing the community in a recent resident study (SAEC, 2003). At the same time, the academic literature has highlighted the linkages between after - school programs and crime prevention (Vigil, 2009). Furthermore, in April 2008, the Early Prevention & Intervention Commission published a Progress Report to Santa Ana City Council with key interim recommendations of how to make the community "A safe, healthy and connected community, empowering its youth and families with trust and dignity to achieve success (EPIC, 2008). "As a result, the focus of Phase I became an analysis of youth serving organizations, programs and recreation opportunities throughout the city of Santa Ana. More recently, youth after - school programs have been targeted by public health efforts to increase physical activity and combat childhood obesity (CDC, 2005). This does not mean that other issues such as education, mental health, general health, arts and music programs are not important interventions to support youth and family wellness. Rather, the focus on recreation is a good starting point to an inquiry that can eventually examine all youth and family programming offered in the city. The goal of this assessment was to identify and analyze the resources and programs available to Santa Ana youth and their families. In particular, Phase I focused on an examination of what programs support a healthy and safe environment for youth. Research and analysis was conducted by Ersoylu Consulting, in collaboration with PRCSA staff, beginning in August 2008. Community partners and key city agencies were identified early on to provide insights, data and information. Santa Ana understands that, in order to create sustainable, strong communities, there must be healthy and secure places to recreate readily available to all areas of the community. The YFMP echoes larger scale initiatives on the national and global front, such as the California Endowment's Healthy Community Initiative, and it establishes a much - needed framework to guide local policies toward creating a healthier community for the future (Schmidt et al., 2006). The process of examining youth physical activity programming and resources is timely because it ties into a larger -scale endeavor underway in Santa Ana- a 10 -year Healthy Communities Initiative. In January 2009, the California Endowment chose Santa Ana to be 1 of the 14 sites for a Healthy Communities Initiative where a 10 -year multi - million dollar investment will be made to impact 10 key health outcomes. As a part of this, the initiative, headed by Orange County Human Relations, was presented to the Santa Ana City Council on April 20, 2009 and is underway as of June 1, 2009. It is our hope that the findings of this assessment can be used during the baseline planning phase of the initiative, serving as a baseline for understanding the current situation in Santa Ana. Santa Ana demographics The City of Santa Ana is a complex and nearly entirely developed city at the heart of Orange County. According to US Census Bureau, 14.1% of Santa Ana families are living below the poverty line. Of residents over the age of 25, 49.5% have a high school education or higher and 11 % have completed a Bachelors degree or higher.3 Currently, 83.4% of people (over age five) living in Santa Ana speak a language other than English in the home; of those, only 48.3 report speaking English "very well " .4 Santa Ana has a vibrant immigrant community that is home to many undocumented families. Research from the Public Policy Institute of California (2004) highlights the difficulty in providing municipal services, such as planning and programming, to immigrant communities. This demographic mix often makes 3 US Census, 2005 -2007 American Community Survey. 4 US Census, 2005 -2007 American Community Survey. service delivery difficult, as the community is often very cautious of engagement with City programs or staff for fear of having to reveal any information related to immigration status. Therefore, providing services to undocumented families in Santa Ana adds a layer of complexity, especially in the area of public safety and civic involvement in programming. Santa Ana is the 8t" most densely populated city in the United States; with a population of 333,236 it has 12,471 people per square mile.5 The average household size is 4.44. In terms of the environment in Santa Ana, there are approximately .9 acres of open space per every 1,000 residents, although the City of Santa Ana City ordinance sets the standard at 2 acres per 1,000 people .6 In California, the average is 3 acres per 1,000 residents and California cities average 7.9 acres per 1,000 residents. With a 34.8% childhood overweight /obese rate, Santa Ana ranks among the highest in the state. The City of Santa Ana is a young city, with a median age of 28.2 years old and 35% of the population under the age of 18 (and another 11 % between the ages of 18 and 24).' On average, 84% of elementary school and 72% of intermediate students in Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) schools participate in the free and reduced school lunch program. In terms of crime, the City of Santa Ana has 94 documented street gangs and over 5,000 documented gang members. Of these, approximately 10% are under the age of 18.$ It is our hope that as the City of Santa Ana continues to develop and evolve, the youth programming can meet the needs of the young population by empowering them through a combination of services, safe places and recreation leagues to support their development into healthy young adulthood. The assessment and subsequent recommendations are grounded in the literature on developmental assets, obesity prevention, crime and violence reduction and safe and open spaces. This theoretical framework provided a basis from which the data and information were systematically collected over the 12 -month period. Theoretical rationale for Phase I Youth need supportive environments in which to develop and thrive. The developmental assets literature suggests that when children are offered recreation alternatives, such as physical activities, they are less likely to engage in negative behaviors. In reviewing the Search Institute's "40 Developmental Assets," it is clear that community resources are needed to support youth to grow into healthy and responsible adults, including support, empowerment, boundaries and expectations, and constructive use of time (The Search Institute, 2009). In particular, the Developmental Assets lists " #18. Youth Programs: Young person spends three or more hours per week in sports, clubs or organizations at school and /or in the community" as a key asset for healthy youth development. Developmental assets can be both ignited and fostered when youth are surrounded by communities that provide consistent access to healthy people, places, and programs. Having support from non - parent adults and adult role models can provide a child with a strong foundation for future development and growth. In addition to learning teamwork and responsibility, engaging in team or group -based physical activity and recreation provides youth with the opportunity to interact with positive adults as volunteers and coaches. A partnership between America's Promise, led by General Colin Powell, and the Search Institute, identified five fundamental community resources necessary to engage youth and help them develop into healthy and responsible adults. Among these key resources was the need to create and foster safe 5 US Census, 2005 -2007 American Community Survey. 6 City of Santa Ana Parks, Recreation & Community Services. US Census, 2005 -2007 American Community Survey. 8 Personal email communication with Detective Sgt. Jon Centanni, May 25, 2009. places and structured activities, so that young people can maintain a "healthy balance between structured, supervised activities and unstructured time." In addition to stimulating pro - social development in these youth, building on both safe places and structured programming help battle two increasing community concerns: (1) the obesity epidemic and (2) youth violence (Northridge, 2004). Obesity epidemic Childhood obesity has become one of, if not the biggest, health concern facing the nation. Approximately one -third of all children and adolescents are overweight or obese (MMWR, 2006). The Orange County Health Needs Assessment found that 34.9% of Santa Ana children were overweight or at risk for being overweight (85th -94th percentile BMI) (OCHNA, 2005). In the same study, 70 -79.5% percent of adults living in Santa Ana were found to be overweight or obese. Furthermore, the Youth Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System, surveys youth ages 10 -24 years old nationwide, reports that in 2006, on average 24.9% of students do not participate in recommended physical activity levels. According to data from the 2006 -2007 California Physical Fitness Test, more 5th and 7th grade students in Santa Ana Unified School District (40 %) are overweight /obese compared to students in Orange County (29 %) and California (32 %). Fewer 5th and 7th grade students in SAUSD (22% and 29% respectively) met 6 of 6 physical fitness standards compared to students in Orange County (33% and 41 %) and in California (27% and 31 %). Multiple factors impact a person's ability to maintain a healthy weight and many of these health determinants are social (Marmot et. al., 1999). In particular, safe places to recreate are a key to maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Research shows that youth need safe, open spaces to play, at least 60 minutes a day, to keep healthy. Some research even suggests that maintaining healthy levels of physical activity may be even more important than carrying excess weight for prolonging and increasing quality of life (Active Living by Design, 2004). ouch violence Juvenile arrests for violent crimes in California significantly declined by 30% from 1994 -2003 (California Department of Justice, 2004).9 However, "... even with the substantial decline in child gun deaths, in 2002 nearly 1000 young Californians between the ages of 12 and 24 lost their lives to gunfire." (Commonwealth, 2005). The gang presence in Santa Ana is relatively large considering the city is only 27 square miles. The California Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General's Criminal Justice Statistical Center tracks the percentage of misdemeanor and felony arrests that are committed by juveniles and adults. This provides us with a sense of what percent of crimes in Santa Ana are committed by youth. For 2006, the results are as follows, ➢ 16.6% of total Santa Ana felonies committed by juveniles ➢ 16.2% of total Santa Ana misdemeanors committed by juveniles In targeting obesity prevention and youth violence, the literature on safe places, joint use and sports programming provide supporting evidence for ways that these three factors can have a positive impact on healthy and safe youth development. 9 Juvenile (used in the crime reporting literature) is defined as 17 years of age and younger. For the purposes of this report, it is used almost interchangeably with youth, which we define as 13 -18 years of age (USDOJ, 2009). Safe places & activities • Safe Places • Joint Use • Sports Programming Research on crime, open space and physical activity suggest open spaces contributes to pro - social behaviors and community capacity. The link between the built environment, social cohesion and positive health behaviors has been developed and accepted in the literature on public health (Northridge, 2004). Allowing for multiple and joint uses of spaces increases "eyes on the street" thus creating safe public spaces and neighborhoods for youth and families to be active (Jacobs, 1961). Safe places In addition to open space to be active in, youth need access to safe spaces in order to engage in physical activity. If space is perceived to be safe, adults are significantly more likely to encourage children to be active and participate in sports (Miles, 2008) and teens are more likely to engage in physical activity, particularly in urban areas (Babey et al., 2008; Babey et al., 2005). Research continues to show that low - income communities of color have reduced access to community -level physical activity opportunities (Powell et al., 2004; Gordon - Larsen et al., 2006), and that moreover, living close to a park is a critical determinant of physical activity in low- income minority communities (Cohen et al., 2007). Furthermore, when actual and perceived dangers are not taken into account, physical activity programs often fail at achieving health objectives (Roman and Chalfin, 2008). Access to open safe space is vitally important for children and youth to be able to maintain healthy levels of physical activity. Exercise levels are known to increase significantly when people have access to parks or safe places to walk or bike (Sherer, 2005). How "activity- friendly" a neighborhood is may be one of the most important predictors of how physically active children are (DeVries, 2006). Higher rates of inactivity have been often found in communities with high crime rates or even higher perceived crime threats. Although actual risk and perceived risk of violence are not always equivalent, research shows that fear of crime may be enough to produce hard -to -break sedentary habits, a pattern important to prevent in youth (Loukatiou- Sideris & Eck, 2007). This may be particularly true for girls who are often more prone to physical inactivity (Gomez et al., 2004). A cycle between crime, actual or perceived, and physical inactivity underscores the need for safe spaces and youth programming. From a two -day summit attended by park and urban experts, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) recently published seven factors of excellence to guide the development of city parks (Harnik, 2006): 1. A clear expression of purpose 2. An ongoing planning and community involvement process 3. Sufficient assets in land, staffing, and equipment to meet the system's goals 4. Equitable access 5. User satisfaction 6. Safety from crime and physical hazards 7. Benefits for the city beyond the boundaries of the parks Cities can work toward the goal of creating safe, open spaces but that alone cannot solve the situation of limited recreation space in a city that is built -out such as Santa Ana. For this, it is important to take a look at other open space opportunities within the city boundaries. Joint use with school districts is one way to expand the scope of a system of safe places for youth and families to recreate. 0 Youth & Family Master Plan Assessment, Phase I Page 11 joint use Joint use is when two or more entities, usually a school district and city government, share indoor and /or outdoor spaces increasing recreational resources and opportunities for children and adults (The Prevention Institute, 2009). In some cities, all public schools remain open after school hours, during evenings and weekends, to allow community members to take use school grounds and facilities as a way to engage in physical activity. In many communities, however, concerns about liability risk often keep school administrators from considering joint -use agreements, particularly in terms of negligence. Many of these concerns stem from perceived rather than actual risk, however, and there are several legal protections available to schools interested in entering into joint -use agreements (Spengler et al., 2007). Furthermore, it is important to note that locked schoolyards in urban areas have been linked to higher Body Mass Indexes (BMIs) for youth (Scott et al., 2007). Some cities have been able to surmount liability concerns and offer joint -use of school grounds. Other California cities include Chula Vista, Pixley, Fresno and Berkeley (The Prevention Institute, 2009). In Berkeley, all of its school grounds are open, including playgrounds, to the public during non - school hours (Flournoy, 2002). Other national examples include Pitt County North Carolina that opens its public school facilities, including access to gymnasiums, tennis courts, and playing fields, to community residents (Spengler, 2007). And lastly, the Seneca Valley School District in Pennsylvania allows residents to use school buildings for exercise walking during winter months (Izzo, 2005). The 2005 -2006 Healthy Kids Survey found Sports programming that only 57°0 of 11th graders in Santa Ana The 40 Developmental Assets model indicates that Unified Schools reported having exercised youth need a minimum of three hours per week in vigorously at least 20 minutes at least 3 sports, clubs, or other extracurricular activities (The days of the last 7 days (the minimum Search Institute, 2009). It is critical for youth to be standards recommended by the Centers for involved in structured programming to build on other Disease Control and Prevention). key assets such as the constructive use of time and setting boundaries. If those activities are not accessible and are without substitution, it becomes increasingly difficult for youth to maintain adequate levels of fitness and to learn healthy behavioral patterns. As less time is devoted to physical education classes in schools, there are fewer opportunities for youth to be consistently physically active. Some legislative efforts are underway to help provide for more structured physical education (PE) programming. California SB 362 was authored to require such programming, establish a PE professional development program, and removal of certain physical education exemptions. When put into effect (late 2009), it will also will require students to have 400 minutes of physical education every 10 days and add physical education as a core subject. It is crucial that the state and local governments continue to work together with community stakeholders to use programming to make up for the deficits in safe places facing youth. Two of the biggest components to combating the growing childhood and adolescent obesity epidemic will be to provide safe, open spaces and structured programming for youth to engage in healthful levels of physical activity. The impetus for the Santa Ana Youth Master Plan was to lay out the strategy and achievable objectives for creating healthier youth. It is clear that having sufficient recreation activities in the City of Santa Ana will support youth in developing on a positive path. E F r � aster Plan Assessment, , as OR- II. Methodology As noted above, the assessment of community resources was multi- faceted. The research design was created to garner input from those who provide regular physical activity opportunities for Santa Ana youth; in particular, community organizations and athletic leagues. This analysis allowed several key themes to emerge from the data, informing the recommendations and opportunities identified later in Section IV. Although multiple methods were implemented (often concurrently) the data analysis that follows is divided into two parts. Part 1 is an assessment of the youth services in Santa Ana with a focus on organizations providing physical activity opportunities. Part 2 focuses exclusively on athletic leagues in Santa Ana, with a deeper analysis of soccer leagues. Youth services assessment methodology The data collection and analysis for the Youth & Family Master Plan took place from August 2008 -June 2009. The assessment was a multi- tiered study of the youth services environment, including both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. This assessment of all youth services provided insights into youth programming networks and environment in Santa Ana. It identified details of particular programs and strategies involving physical activity and gang prevention. The method of identifying participants- the units of analysis- for Phase I was critical to the success of the project. The team tried to balance the need to hear from those that implement the City programs with the desire to hear from the broad -based network of community organizations operating in Santa Ana. Attention was also paid to the needs of youth and the voices of parents whose youth play organized sports (soccer). It is our hope that, given the resources allotted to Phase I, we gleaned the most pertinent information from the analysis. The data collection methods are listed below. Stakeholder interviews & focus groups Focus Groups with City Staff Two focus groups and several individual interviews were conducted with City of Santa Ana staff involved in youth services and programming. Over 30 staff participated in the two focus groups and stakeholder interviews that were held between October 2008 and February 2009. Staff members were recruited through the weekly PRCSA Coordinator's Meetings and snowball sampling of key stakeholders working with youth. These meetings were 1- 1 1/2 hours in length and focused on 1) assessing the current state of youth programming and 2) identifying gaps in youth services. Focus Groups & Interviews with Community Partners One focus group was conducted with staff from community based organizations providing youth physical activity programming in Santa Ana. Although the youth - serving nonprofit community is extensive in Santa Ana, due to the limited scope of Phase I, the invitations to participate were extended only to those organizations providing direct physical activity programming to youth. Twenty organizations identified as providing youth physical activity were invited to participate and a total of 8 individuals attended the focus group and shared their opinions and ideas about how physical activity programming and the built environment could better support healthy children and families in Santa Ana. In an attempt to better understand how community partners are currently working to support a safe and healthy Santa Ana environment for children and families, interviews and /or data collection were also conducted with the following organizations: the Early Prevention and Intervention Commission (EPIC), Community Development Agency, SAPD, Santa Ana Unified School District and Orange County Probation staff. A total of 12 individuals shared their insights and reflections regarding unmet youth and family programming needs. Youth Focus Groups Independent of this project, Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) conducted a Youth Forum in December 2008 that provided significant insights into the issues and concerns facing Santa Ana teens. 10 In October 2008, SAUSD administrators met with all Santa Ana high school principals (6 comprehensive high schools, 2 continuation high schools, 1 middle college high school and 1 community day high school) to inform them of the concept and development of the youth forum. In November 2008, each high school site randomly selected 15 to 20 students for an initial meeting for the forum, where a preliminary survey was given to the students. From the initial meeting in November, 3 to 5 students were picked from each school site. A total of 36 students were selected. The intent and process of the Student Forum was explained to the students and parents were informed. The Student Forum was conducted in December 2008 and all 36 students participated. The results of these findings are in Appendix A. A focus group was conducted with the Santa Ana Youth Commission in February 2009. This served to get further youth input, given that the initial impetus for the Youth & Family Master Plan originated in part from the Youth Commission, it was important to check in and make sure that the plan was relevant to them. Two other exploratory youth focus groups were conducted between October 2008 and January 2009 with youth from Kid Works and Orange County Therapeutic Arts Center to provide back - checking of data regarding the YFMP. Youth and family- serving organizations survey Data from a telephone survey administered by the SAPD in 2008 are fundamental to the analysis. The survey was administered to 155 organizations in order to help the city better understand the various types of nonprofit organizations serving the community. The database of organizations surveyed by SAPD was cross - checked against another listing of organizations including Youth Alternatives Collaborative (YAC) organizations and attendee organizations from the 2008 Youth Expo. The SAPD survey was administered to the outstanding 23 organizations in February -March 2009, creating a master database of 178 organizations providing services in Santa Ana. From this list, those agencies providing recreation and physical activity opportunities for Santa Ana youth were identified for further analysis. This entire subset of organizations was approached to participate in a shorter survey regarding their physical activity programming from April -May 2009. 10 We are thankful to Superintendent Jane Russo for sharing the summary data from the Youth Forum with us for inclusion into this report. It makes the analysis far more robust than it otherwise could have been given the limited scope of Phase I. Figure 1. Selection Process for Athletic Survey Implementation SAPD survey administerd by 178 community phone to all nonprofit organizations completed organizations in City of Santa program Ana database, 2008 -2009. survey Duplicates, adult -only organizations , child care centers and athletic leagues (soccer, little league, softball and football) removed. Of the 164, only 64 self - identifiec that they conduct physical activit and /or recreation. Organizations where recreati was not physical activity (sucl chess) or who operated outsi Santa Ana were removed. 33 organizations that provide regular physical activity opportunities to youth in Santa Ana were called for interview; 25 responded. Program and document analy In addition to the collection of primary data, several sources of secondary data were examined as a part of this assessment. The following are data sources incorporated into the Phase I analysis. o GIS Maps from the City of Santa Ana, Orange County Probation and Orange County Healthcare Agency ✓ City of Santa Ana PRCSA Map ✓ SAPD- 2008 Calls For Service Map ✓ Orange County Health Care Agency- SAUSD Fitnessgram Map ✓ Orange County Probation Department- Juvenile Offenders Map • Trust for Public Land GIS Maps & 2008 Feasibility Report • City of Santa Ana Park & Recreation documents • City of Santa Ana Community Development Block Grant documents Soccer assessment methodology Part II of the assessment focused exclusively on youth athletic leagues. With thousands of youth engaged in various clubs, leagues and teams across Santa Ana, it was important to assess the organizational capacity to serve youth interested in soccer and to identify any potential gaps in service. In particular, the City identified youth soccer as a program with significant youth and community involvement but where little is known about the organizational infrastructure. Part II used the following methodological approaches to understand the youth soccer environment. Key informant interviews Key informant interviews with city and school district staff responsible for field reservations and oversight were conducted from October 2008 -June 2009. These interviews were open -ended and relied on the administrators' firsthand knowledge to identify unmet needs for soccer fields and soccer programming in Santa Ana. The field -use data and GIS maps were analyzed to better understand what field- use gaps remain and what opportunities for open space exist. Athletic league survey The survey of youth sports leagues was administered from December 2008 - January 2009 to all athletic leagues that registered with the City of Santa Ana to use fields in 2009. Overall, 11 soccer, 4 baseball, 3 softball and the Pop Warner football league administrators completed the half -hour survey. This survey asked questions regarding ages of youth served, field use issues, coaching, costs, barriers and benefits to youth playing organized sports. Soccer parent survey We did not want to rely solely on the field use and soccer league administration perspectives to inform our understanding of league assets and barriers. When assessing a given program, it is important to hear from the consumers of the program in question; namely, those receiving soccer services in the city. In an attempt to gain a deeper understanding of youth soccer programming, a randomized, representative sample of Santa Ana parents was interviewed in March 2009. A total of 123 adults whose children play soccer in one of the several youth leagues completed the 20 -30 minute telephone survey. These data were important for the analysis as they helped to triangulate the data gathered through league surveys and interview data. III. Youth services data &findings Data from Part 1 of the assessment focus on the overall youth services environment. In particular, stakeholder input and various GIS maps are combined with the information and data gleaned from city and county agency programs. Stakeholder interviews and focus groups Focus groups and interviews took place with community organizations, city staff and youth. In the various meetings among city, school and community providers, several themes emerged. In particular, the need for sufficient spaces and services for the population was identified repeatedly. In particular, resources, programming and coordination were the common factors that were noted throughout the focus groups and interviews with youth - services providers. From the youth, the issue of mentors and safe locations were key themes. Data from youth service providers As mentioned above, two focus groups were conducted with City staff providing youth and family services and one focus group was conducted with youth- service providers from nonprofit organizations and the SAUSD. Throughout these discussions, resources, programming, and coordination were the key themes of concern, regardless of the focus group participants." Table 1. Major themes from youth service- provider focus groups 11 The table highlights the comments and feedback from the three focus groups; themes and concerns often overlap and may fall into more than one `theme' category, but to avoid duplication, `concerns' are listed only once. Key Theme Particular concerns Space (both open space and recreation space) Resources - cannot accommodate the entire community - insufficient park and open space Staff -some sites are under - staffed - unable to serve surrounding community because of city -wide event staff needs - cannot always full accommodate drop -ins from the neighborhood Funding - closed on weekends -few evening programs Programming Scope - demand is too high and current programs do not meet needs -need training for staff to expand promising programs Target populations - programs for entire families - strengthen teen programs - mentor programs Coordination SAUSD -city and SAUSD can increase coordination of resources and programming; especially related to joint use, soccer and after - school programming Other organizations -city and nonprofit organizations can coordinate service delivery at city recreation facilities - nonprofit organizations can increase coordination among one another to increase impact and avoid duplication of services Volunteers -youth volunteers - increase use of volunteers in lieu of paid staff - volunteers need to have proper training and understand roles and responsibilities within various programs in order to be effective Private Sector - increase partnerships with business community - business community can sponsor programs and services As one provider noted during the first focus - group, "We can't accommodate everyone." For example, city recreation centers need more staff to handle drop -ins from the local communities. In the past, according to city staff from both focus groups, the center staff could allot at least some time to outreach in serving the local community surrounding the center. However, in recent years, there has been an increase in city -wide events such as: Youth Expo!, Celebrate Santa Ana, Black History month multicultural parade, Christmas holiday parties and other city wide events. There is a feeling among city staff during the focus groups (late 2008 to early 2009) that these events take away valuable staff time from serving the immediate neighborhood with services (for example, nights and weekends) and providing local events that would benefit the neighborhood such as: movie nights, posadas and street carnivals. However, due to recent budget decisions and changes made as a result of the economic downturn, the centers are actually now turning back toward serving their immediate communities more directly. Citywide events have actually been eliminated (from 2009 forward) due to budget cuts. This has shifted the role of City Recreation Supervisors, making them increasingly ward - focused. Supervisors are assigned to a specific ward and act as the "eyes and ears" of the agency and follow up on complaints and issues raised by the residents at the neighborhood level. It is the supervisors' responsibility to conduct outreach by attending neighborhood association meetings and to identifying local non - profits and other agencies or individuals who can provide services at the recreation centers with minimal impact to the City's general fund. The Reservations desk is now a critical component of the Santa Ana PRCSA insofar as it helps to manage facilities to augment the availability of leisure classes and services provided by non - profits. The agency has shifted its focus to better support community pre -event meetings for other organizations and individuals who wish to conduct special events. Approximately 12 pre -event meetings are conducted each month to help organizations plan their events. Organizations include schools and colleges, non- profits, churches, and private promoters and they plan events such as community picnics, dances, graduation ceremonies, community resource fairs, health fairs, neighborhood association concerts and other events, sporting events, fiestas, and similar activities. The stakeholders interviewed identified several key components of youth services that need to be coordinated if youth are to be served effectively in the long run in Santa Ana. For example, there is a large untapped volunteer and mentor potential in the city. The city soccer programs have learned to effectively use volunteers extensively because, according to one city staff member," ... they [volunteers] know expectations, responsibilities, and plans so that they are accountable ". There were several comments suggesting that the process for using volunteers in other programs is not as fully developed as needed for the large amount of programming in the city. Participants from all three focus groups noted the need for teen workshops to train youth about dealing with self- esteem issues, life skills, leadership skills and job development. These issues extend beyond the scope of obesity prevention and are intrinsically tied to supporting an overall environment that, similar to the goals of the EPIC commission, would empower youth and could provide them with the tools and opportunities to avoid and /or overcome gang involvement. Yoti,tb input Three focus groups were conducted with over 40 youth (6th -12th grade) during the course of this assessment. 12 The protocol for the discussion was designed to primarily focus on physical activity environments and program needs. However, what emerged from the discussions most notably was a desire on behalf of the youth to have more programming that focuses on building leadership qualities and engaging youth in mentor /mentee relationships. When asked "What kind of programs or activities do you think would help teens in Santa Ana develop healthy habits in the community ?" the most common responses from the youth focused on wanting to build self- confidence and to have more adult advisors and mentors as role models. This information reinforced the data from the SAUSD Student Forum (December 16, 2008).13 In this forum, the youth identified the following community needs: ✓ more community and tutoring centers for homework and recreation 12 This includes youth from Santa Ana Youth Commission, Kid Works and Orange County Children's Therapeutic Arts Center. 13 See attachment for full summary report of SAUSD Student Forum, December 16, 2008. ✓ places that are safe and secure for students to use ✓ increased employment opportunities ✓ teacher - mentors ✓ self- esteem and peer pressure strategies /workshops At the forum, the youth responded to the following question "If feeling safe is a priority to you, what streets or places do you try to avoid in order to be safe ?" The responses are in the table below. Table 2. SAUSD student identified areas to avoid Streets Schools Parks Myrtle Near Spurgeon Salvador Park Bishop Intermediate Delhi Park Harbor Near Santa Ana Jerome Center Highland High School Townsend Pacific From the above information, it was clear that both the youth and youth service providers have a sense of what is needed to keep the youth of Santa Ana healthy and engaged. The discrepancy is found when we look at the resources and coordination available in certain communities to support these goals. Data & GIS maps Data from GIS maps and other analysis shed light on three particular components pertinent to the YFMP: crime, children's health and open space and joint use. Crime indicators GIS maps from the SAPD and the Orange County Probation Department were used to paint a picture of where crimes and perpetrators are located in Santa Ana. In particular, it was our belief that a better understanding of where crimes and /or crime perpetrators are located would suggest ideas for possible geographic locations for further interventions. The Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) does not track the number of juvenile offenders annually; nor do they use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map the locations where the offenders live. 14 Orange County Probation Department provides data on juvenile offenders but also does not use GIS to map the location of the communities in which they live. In 200615, 10% of all juvenile referrals to Orange County Probation were from the SAPD. Of these Santa Ana referrals, 55% (584) were for felonies based on the most serious offense level, and 45% (479) were for misdemeanors. Orange County Probation also shared information regarding youth referrals to Probation. Overall, they reported 1,711 Santa Ana youth were referred to Probation in 2008, at an average age of 16 years old. This is equal to18.2% of all youth referred to OC Probation in 2008. When a youth is referred to Probation, the referral disposition can include up to 5 offenses. For 2008 Santa Ana referrals, there were 3,653 offense charges total. 16 The most frequent were: 1. Vandalism- 15% 2. Probation violation- 10.8% 14 Communication with SAPD 11.19.08, 2.11.09 and 3.09.09. 15 Data from 2006 Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System (JCPSS), compiled by Probation Research staff for a Memo to Tom Serafin, SAPD dated 5.09.07. 16 Memo from Dr. Shirley Hunt, PhD, Orange County Probation, April 22, 2009. 3. Assault /battery- 8.6% 4. Theft (excludes motor vehicle)- 8.5% 5. Weapons- 8% 6. Burglary- 6.6% 7. Drugs- 6.3% 8. Promote /participate in crime (gangs)- 6.2% Because exact residence locations were not known for all the 1,711 Santa Ana youth referred, for the 1,151 Santa Ana youth with accurate address information, OC Probation mapped residences using the Thomas Brothers guide. 17 This analysis showed that the 1,151 youth reside in the following area bordered by: 17th St. (on N), Grand (on E), Warner (on S) and Fairview (on W). Within that area, the highest numbers of youths referred were located between Raitt & Bristol and Flower & Main (see Appendix B). These locations correspond loosely to grid areas identified by the SAPD as having "high" (over 3,399) calls for service in 2008. These areas were identified as Grid #146 (area bordered by: Bristol, 1St St., Flower and McFadden) and Grid # 186 (area bordered by: Main, 1 St St., Grand and McFadden Ave.). Most other areas of "medium" calls for service (1,700- 3,399) were within the overall border of Fairview, 1St St., Grand and Warner) (see Appendix C). Children's health indicators In terms of the health of Santa Ana children, several key data sources are relevant to this assessment. Santa Ana has a child obesity /overweight rate of 34.8 %; this is the second - highest in California for a city of its size (over 100,000 residents). Furthermore, California Physical Fitness Test (PFT) data were used to estimate healthy body composition among over 12,000 5th, 7th, and 9th grade students in SAUSD during the 2007 -2008 school year. PFT data are derived from direct assessments of student achievement in 6 key physical fitness domains, including body composition, using the Fitness grammethod. Using criteria consistently implemented across the State, student body composition was classified as falling into a Healthy Fitness Zone based on that student's height and weight for their particular age and sex. The attached map (Appendix D), produced by the Orange County Health Care Agency, shows the spatial distribution of healthy body composition among 5th grade students across the Santa Ana Unified School District by school catchment area. These data suggest inequities in the prevalence of healthy body composition among students in SAUSD school catchment areas. In particular, we noted particularly low proportions of health body composition (between 47 — 55 %) among students at the following schools. 17 Orange County Probation does not have geographic information technology at this time to generate GIS maps. ❖ Davis ❖ King ❖ Martin ❖ Edison ❖ Lincoln ❖ Washington ❖ Esqueda ❖ Madison ❖ Wilson ❖ Kennedy To put this data in perspective, it should be noted that the average percentage for SAUSD 5th graders on this fitness indicator was 59.5% and for Orange County overall it was 71.2 %. The average for the 5th graders in the State of California in 2008 was 68.4 %. As a comparison, we examined the healthy body composition rates for schools in the Garden Grove School District that serve Santa Ana youth. The rates for these youth are as follows: •'• Heritage Elementary- 63.1% •'• Rosita Elementary- 60.5% •'• Russell Elementary- 64.7% •'• Hazard Elementary- 64.3% The 92701 zip code of Santa Ana, one of the ❖ Fitz Elementary- 65.3 %1$ ❖ Newhope Elementary- 64.5% most densely populated places in the state and 92% Latino, has only 3 acres of park Open space & joint use indicators space for 61, 000 residents, 68% of whom The data on open space and joint use is a are living at or below two times the federal combination of data from the Santa Ana PRCSA GIS map of p J arks and joint-use locations poverty level (Flores, 2008). (Appendix E), as well as the Trust for Public Land's GIS map of park deficits (Appendix F). Research demonstrates that low- income neighborhoods - such as those found in central Santa Ana- are especially park -poor. This puts undue strain on communities that perhaps most need access to park space. A deficit of park space for children persists in Santa Ana, particularly for City Council Districts 2, 4, and 5, where less than 3 acres of park space exists for every 1,000 children (Trust for Public Land, 2006a). The analysis by TPL suggests that the area between Grand, 17th, Bristol, and Edinger is particularly in need of more park space to accommodate residents (Appendix F). To put this into perspective, in Denver, CO, nine out of ten residents live within six blocks of a park (Harnik, 2006). Nonetheless, as building more parks may be less feasible for built -out communities like Santa Ana, another option may be encouraging more joint -use of facilities. Currently seven schools in the Santa Ana Unified School District have active joint use agreements with the City of Santa Ana (Appendix E). These are: • Madison Elementary • Monroe Elementary School • Monte Vista Elementary School • Spurgeon Intermediate School • Willard Intermediate • Godinez High School • Valley High School 18 Data is for 7th grade because data is not available for 5th grade. As park and field availability is limited, communities often have to take a very organized approach to facilitating shared and joint use. In Santa Ana, where demand is high and space is often in short supply, poor management of field use agreements has led to disagreements over which teams and sport leagues get access to which fields (Barboza, 2008). Another area of analysis explored how the Parks & Recreation Department prioritizes park areas for reinvigoration and renovation. In particular, it is evident that more open spaces are needed within the areas of highest need than the city alone can provide with its current minor deferred maintenance and major deferred maintenance planning. Currently, there is not an allotted, ongoing budget directly for park improvements. Essentially, when the city wants to improve a particular park, it applies for grant funding either through federal, state or matching programs to fund it. This method has lead to certain recent projects such as synthetic turf in certain parks. The only constant funding stream for minor deferred maintenance received by the city is from the carnival promoters- hosting approximately 10 carnivals per year in Santa Ana. This gives the city approximately $67,000 in revenue for minor deferred maintenance annually. However, for 2008, the total cost for this upkeep was just over $1.5 million. 19 Of the 36 projects identified in 2007 -2009 for minor maintenance, two of them are within the most park -poor communities in Santa Ana. The Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) listing published by the city all have identified funding sources. Therefore, although the CIP project list annually cannot be used as a forward - looking planning tool but rather as a listing of what has already secured funding, it is useful to identify where the city is investing in parks. In terms of other funding streams targeted to park improvements, the Acquisition & Development (A &D) funds paid by developers in the past (on residential development only) have decreased in recent years. Currently, these A &D funds cannot be used for deferred maintenance, but only for new park developments based on the cities four zones and the park needs for each of these. From the City of Santa Ana CIPs for FY 2007 -2008 and FY 2008 -2009, we can see the following park improvements have been made. Table 3. City of Santa Ana Capital Improvement Projects (2007 -08 and 2008 -091 YEAR PROJECT 2007 -2008 2008 -2009 Civic Center Bridges Renovation Civic Center Fountain Renovation Civic Center Parton St. Landscaping El Salvador Park Pool Renovation Fisher Park Improvements MacArthur Blvd. Bike Trail Enhancement Memorial Park Pool Resurfacing Park Improvements Sandpointe Park Improvements Santa Ana Zoo "Tierra de las Pampas" Santa Ana Zoo New Lights Santiago Creek Bike Trail Extension Santiago Park Habitat Restoration Santiago Park Trailhead Project Thornton Park Playground Improvements "Centennial Sanctuary" Peninsula Waterflow at Centennial Park AMOUN) LOCATION $289,000 $645,000 $100,000 $88,475 $150,000 $467660 $1507000 $400,000 $350,000 $92)000 $513000 $655,280 $100700 $100,000 $150,000 $125,000 19 The amount of funding identified for Major Deferred Maintenance for 2008 was approximately $23 million. Centennial Road Renovation "Cienegas de las Ranas" Habitat Renovation at Thornton Park Fairview Triangle Stop Flower St. Bike Trail Extension McFadden Triangle Landscaping Santa Anita Pool Resurfacing Santa Ana zoo "Tierra de las Pampas" Thornton Park Basketball Court ;• • i 111 $1501000 111 $1501000 111 $110001000 _11 The majority of the funds for these projects came from the following sources: State of California funds (such as Prop 12, Prop 40), CDBG funds, city A &D funding and the Civic Center Fund (Improvements to Civic Center). The data above paints a picture of the City of Santa Ana parks and open space physical environment. In the next section, we supplement this data with an analysis of the organizational environment of Santa Ana programming and services. Survey of or iii-i fl w serving y ; ;-tb, , r f mi The database of all community- serving organizations compiled by the SAPID was analyzed to identify basic characteristics and patterns of youth services and youth serving organizations in Santa Ana. As the figure below demonstrates, the youth services are varied and, in particular, recreation services are quite dynamic and provided by several types of organizations. Figure 2: Youth physical activity service providers in Santa Ana • PRCSA • SAPD • Soccer • Baseba • Softball • Footbal The survey data from the database of community- serving organizations was gathered by telephone interviews in 2008 (January- December). As explained in the Methodology section above, the Santa Ana Police Department survey of 178 organizations' responses were recorded in 2008.20 Community agencies were asked a series of questions related to their agency characteristics (size of organization, clients served, location, hours of operation) and services and program details (type of program, evaluation methods, partners and funders). From the database of 178, the data was cleaned and coded, leaving 164 viable, unduplicated organizations. Only 3 of the organizations surveyed reported serving only adults; 161 (98 %) have services for youth. Of these organizations, 71 (43 %) reported serving only youth (defined as under 18 years of age). Table 4. Number and percentage of organizations by age groups served 0 -5 years 6 -12 Y ears 1 13 -18 years 19 -28 years over 29 years Seniors *not exclusive Types of services The following data analysis was based on the 161 viable, unduplicated organizations that explicitly reported serving Santa Ana youth. Table 5. Number of youth - serving organizations by type of program model Health Career Recreation # of total 28 17 59 organizations % of total 17% 11% 37% organizations* Mentoring Faith- Counseling based .. 33 1 33 50 10% 13% 31% Athletics FEEducationl 31 84 19% 152% Of organizations serving youth, over half reported using only one or two program models. The remainder of the organizations used multiple methods to engage youth. As mentioned above, the focus of our analysis was on the physical activity and athletic opportunities available to Santa Ana youth. Overall, 40% (64 organizations) of the youth - serving organizations offered some type of recreation or athletics to their participants. The following list identifies how many of the Santa Ana youth- serving organizations responded that they provide some type of recreation activity: • 59 recreation 31 athletic 20 The SAPD conducted 155 telephone surveys in 2008; this was augmented by another 23 telephone surveys conducted by Ersoylu Consulting of organizations in the Youth Alternatives Collaborative and participants at the 2008 Youth Expo. The same protocol was used for all 178 surveys. • 40 education and recreation • 26 athletic and recreational • 18 education and athletic Of the organizations serving 13 -18 and 19 -28 year olds, the most common foci were education and recreation. Organizations serving 13 -18 year olds Organizations serving 19 -28 year olds • 50% Education 56% Education • 36% Recreation 0 26% Recreation • 20% Mentoring 0 20% Career • 18% Athletics 0 18% Athletics • 13% Career 0 17% Mentoring Hours & locations of services To engage youth in effective programming, the types of services offered, as well as the location and time of day are all important factors. Below is a summary of the hours of operation and location(s) of services for the organizations surveyed. Of the organizations that serve youth: • 77% reported being open during the weekdays • 55% reported being open after school (defined as at least until 5 pm) • 25% reported being open on the weekends • 6% reported being open at night (defined as later than 6 pm) Overall, most programs for ages 13 -18 and 19 -28 year olds reported being open after school (53% and 59% respectively) but very few reported being open at night (8 %). In terms of programs serving all youth, only 25% reported providing services on the weekends (Saturday- Sunday). This identifies a potential gap in serving youth, especially for services that aim to service teenagers. In terms of program location, we found most youth service programming is offered within the 92701 and 92705 zipcodes. This also held true for organizations providing athletic and recreation opportunities to youth. This distribution also held for the organizations serving 13 -18 & 19 -28 year olds. Table 6. Number and percentage of youth - serving organizations by zip code Serving all youth Serving youth 13 — 28 years old Zip codes Number of Percentage Number of Percentage organizations organizations 92705 45 28% 39 27% 92701 43 27 % 42 29 % 92704 18 11% 15 10% 92706 17 11% 15 10% 92703 16 10% 14 10% i 92707 I 6 4% 4 3% M 92702 4 2% 4 3% 92711 2 1% 2 1 %0 Outside of Santa Ana 10 6% 11 8% Program access Program access- whether or not programs are open to all children and families or whether entry is restricted to those meeting certain criteria or paying certain fees- was examined. Overall, 65% of programs for youth and families had some type of restriction on participation. The most common restrictions were by age and by income. Many programs have multiple restrictions or criteria that must be met to gain entry into the program. • 19% age restrictions • 11 % income restrictions • 9% required referral through another service • 7% geographical restrictions • 6% restrictions related to a health diagnosis • 4% school specific • 1% citizenship restrictions The survey data showed some level of inter - agency collaboration insofar as organizations regularly refer youth to other organization's programs. Fifty percent of organizations had some sort of referral process. These processes varied from between referrals from social service agencies to referrals from school outreach efforts. Over half (65 %) of the programs offered to youth in Santa Ana reported being free (n = 104). The percentages were similar for athletics and recreational programs as well as for those serving age groups 13 -28 years of age. An analysis of the data also demonstrated that the youth - serving organizations received funding from various sources. Funding was categorized into public, private and fee - for - service funding with most organizations (71 %) have one type of funding and only 27% rely on more than one type of income. 74% of organizations reported receiving private funding 38% of organizations reported receiving public funding 13% reported fee - for - service funding Most organizations were funded through private means such as donations, fundraising, and grants. Sixty -three percent of organizations reported that they evaluate their programs. Youth physical activity service provider survey As mentioned above, the list of youth organizations providing physical activity was gleaned from the larger, master list of organizations serving youth in Santa Ana compiled by the SAPID and Ersoylu Consulting. For the analysis of organizations providing physical activity, several organizations self - identified as having "recreation" in the initial phone- survey were not coded as "recreation" and counted in the analysis below. This is because when agencies self- identified as having "recreation ", the list included places /programs such as libraries and chess clubs, which we did not consider physical activity. Therefore, the follow -up analysis focused exclusively on organizations that reported "athletic" or for which empirical evidence showed that the organization provided physical activity programming . 21 21 Some organizations self- identified as providing athletics, but upon follow -up analysis, it was clear that they did not provide regular physical activity opportunities to Santa Ana youth and were therefore removed from analysis. For example, the following organizations self- identified as "athletic" but were removed from the analysis because of their limited scope: The American Lung Association, Orangewood, Mentoring Children of Prisoners and Youth All of the 33 organizations identified as providing regular physical activity opportunities to youth were contacted via telephone or email and asked to respond to a brief provider survey. Of these organizations, 27 responded. Some of the organizations on the original list did not respond but referred us to other branches for their responses .22 The analysis below is focused on the 25 organizations that reported offering physical activity and recreational programming for youth in Santa Ana. The types of physical activities varied; some organizations concentrated on cultural forms of physical activity and recreation like dance, others focused on specific activities like karate or boxing, while others had more general programs with a physical activity component. Some organizations ran physical activity specific to school sites. 84% of organizations' physical activity programs were offered year round. The other 16% of respondents noted that programming varied throughout the year. Most (64 %) organizations' physical activity /recreational programs required sign -up before participation. Only 9 of the 25 organizations said their physical activity programs were drop in. Of the 25 organizations analyzed, most said that physical activity was a substantial part- over 50 %- of their total youth programming: • 3 reported that between 15 and 20% of their programming was physical activity • 6 reported between 25 and 45% • 5 reported between 50 and 60% • 7 reported that at least 70% but less than 100% • 4 organizations said that 100% of their programming is physical activity Most organizations (12 of 25) said that their physical activity /recreational programming was offered to youth between once and twice a week. Twenty -eight percent (7 of 25 organizations) reported they offer physical activity /recreational programming daily or almost daily. Most physical activity programs ran between 30 minutes to 2 hours in length, with 48% (10 of 21 organizations) responding youth exercised for more than 1 hour per program session. Physical activity programming is offered throughout Santa Ana. Sixty -four percent of the organizations held activities onsite and 36% held activities at off -site locations. Many organizations ran programs at multiple sites. Most of the program sites were in 92701 and 92707. The figure below displays all of the 25 youth - serving organizations that reported a physical activity component and their identified program sites. For example, Think Together offered physical activity as a part of their youth services at several Santa Ana school locations; all of these schools are included in the program distribution by zip code below. Figure 3. Youth physical activity program locations Commission. The goal of this analysis is to understand the types, location and hours of physical activity opportunities that are available daily to most Santa Ana youth. 22 This happened with umbrella organizations like Santa Ana Parks and Recreation who asked us to call each site to discuss the programming offered; the city has five sites (4 of 5 sites responded to the survey). A karate school that was listed twice under different names was only surveyed once. Thus, we collected responses for 27 unique organizations; 2 of which offered programs only during the summer. Program Distribution by Zip Code 92701 92702 92703 92704 092705 92706 92707 The above exploration of physical activity services provided in Santa Ana focused primarily on the nonprofit organizations operating in the city, as they are the majority of the organizations. The following section highlights resources that the City of Santa Ana focuses on youth programming through both its own programming and distribution of funding. City of Santa Ana youth resources A city can support youth and families in several ways by directing internal city resources. The City of Santa Ana supports youth through Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and through providing year -round programming- especially summer programming- at its community centers. An analysis of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds was conducted to assess what types of programs are supported. This analysis identified the proportion of regularly- distributed funds that were invested in youth programming for 2008 -2009. The results demonstrated that the City of Santa Ana invested significant resources in youth services- especially those that involve physical activity. Table 7. 2008 -2009 Santa Ana CDBG funding expenditures Program # Youth Served $ Amount Program # Youth Served $ Amount EDUCATION/ YOUTH SERVICES GENERAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY/ RECREATION BGCSA- Summer Youth Outreach 350 407000 PRCSA- Project Pride* 1,300 1091332 Ruben Martinez Literacy Program 12435 25,000 Police Athletic League 250 651000 Cambodian Family 130 25,000 St. Joseph Ballet 2,112 427000 KidWorks* 150 20,000 PRCSA- Pathways to Adventure 750 307000 Think Together 800 20,000 TKO Boxing Club 400 27,000 Assistance League- School Bell Supplies 1,300 20,000 OC Youth Commission- Santa Ana Boxing Club 45 25,000 Hope Community Services 330 5,000 Latino Health Access* 50 20,000 YOUNG ADULT CAREER & LEADERSHIP OC Youth Commission- Wrestling Club 70 187000 Taller San Jose 250 507000 Relampago del Cielo Arts Program 80 121000 Career Beginnings 45 15,000 ARTS Human Options Teen Program 850 157000 Orange County Children's Therapeutic Arts Center 40 221000 OC on Track 120 14,000 OCHR- Heart of Orange Mural 30 201000 Teen Challenge of OC 525 10,000 KidSingers 140 13,000 AISS 20 9,000 Bower's Kidseum 1 60 5,000 Latino Youth Leadership 50 57000 CRIME & VIOLENCE PREVENTION Institute Grace Family Resource Center 150 5,000 Community Court Foundation* 190 15,000 Network SPECIALIZED YOUTH SERVICES OC Bar Foundation- Programa 160 207000 Short Stop CSP Youth Shelter- Huntington 28 12,500 OC Bar Foundation- Stop short 70 157000 Beach of Addiction Blind Children's Learning 55 18,500 Westend C.O.P. 1,000 87500 Center *Those organizations with a " *" indicated that their program does not explicitly support youth. Overall, of the entire CDBG budget for 2008 -2009, $1,022,832 (or 15% of the total funds) was spent on community program funding.23 Of this amount, approximately 73% ($745,832) of the program funding supported youth programs.24 Of the amount spent on youth programming, 47% of the funds went to physical activity or obesity - prevention programming Beginning of each 5 -year cycle, the City of Santa Ana sets priorities for CDBG funding. However, due to the current economic situation, for the 2009 -2010 FY, the CDBG funds have been re- focused internally toward the City of Santa Ana programming for youth and families. In particular, no nonprofit organizations are set to receive funds (as of May 2009) except the Senior Serve food program, operating at City of Santa Ana Southwest Senior Center, Santa Ana Senior Center and Vietnamese Center. The Santa Ana library, PRIDE program and police helicopter will share the bulk of the CDBG funding to close current budget shortfalls. Project PRIDE received $152,000 in CDBG funding for 09 -10 and the Library received $200,000 for its tutoring program; these are both active prevention -based programs. The PRCSA tutoring and PRIDE programs provide added value to gang prevention and obesity epidemic. Project PRIDE is the city's gang prevention program and includes Family PRIDE Clubs at each recreation center, as well as a kayaking program. The program engages families in recreation programs that act as a deterrent to gangs, especially for the teens. Many of the activities focus on establishing a healthy lifestyle, including health and nutrition, physical fitness, and community service. All family members contribute as volunteers to the agency programs. Perhaps in the future, Santa Ana could consider a goal of 75% of program funds going toward youth programs that have an explicit linkage to either decreasing the obesity epidemic or gang prevention. This would ensure a continuation of much - needed youth services provided by either community organizations or the city. When we look closely at the City of Santa Ana's programming, we see several areas of activity for youth. In particular, the summer programming offered by the city at its seven recreation sites served 813 youth last year (2008). AFTERNOON ONLY DAY -LONG ✓ Logan ✓ Memorial ✓ Santa Anita ✓ Salgado ✓ Triangle (closed 2009) ✓ Sandpointe DAY -LONG ✓ Ell Salvador ✓ Jerome (set to re -open fall 2010) 23 According to the 2008 -2009 Action Plan ( Santa - ana.org /cda /default.asp), $1,022,832 will be spent on Public Services programs. 24 This percentage takes into account total amounts listed in table above, not weighted for those programs who indicated adults are also served, as that was not possible to separate out given the format of the data. Interpretation of youth services assessment In Santa Ana, youth services vary. In particular, recreation services are dynamic and are provided by several types of organizations. From the analysis, three themes emerged that highlight opportunities for augmenting youth services: resources, programming and coordination. Need for more "spaces" - both buildings and open' green spaces Need for consistent, long - term funding streams Figure 4: General themes •Needs to engage entire family *Needs to be affordable- especially to families with multiple children almproved communication between community organizations and city oCmproved communication between city and school district Several focus group participants noted that pursuing joint -use opportunities and making fuller use of the school facilitates would be one way to provide for more park space within the city. There is currently a Joint -Use Committee that meets regularly to explore current and future opportunities for shared resources. There are currently 7 joint -use collaborations between SAUSD and the City of Santa Ana. As the California Endowment Healthy Communities Initiative unfolds, the potential for several more in the upcoming years is possible. As the research on joint -use has increased in recent years, a California - based statewide task force, convened by the Prevention Institute, was created in May 2008 to provide support and resource tools for communities interested in pursuing joint-use . 25 It is important to note that the identified lack of space referred not only to green spaces- although those were identified several times- but also to buildings and spaces for community members to convene. The need for safe locations for families- mothers in particular- to congregate and foster civic capital was identified by several stakeholders. Several individuals mentioned that the families they work with constantly ask for locations to congregate for "cafecitos33 or other opportunities to engage one another and build relationships. Among stakeholders interviewed, it was felt that the schools could be ideal locations for such convenings. However, focus group participants felt that there is not currently a sufficiently robust protocol for families to be able to access these resources. Programming Providing safe and healthy places coupled with activity programming does more than foster good physical health in children and teens; it can also help divert youth from gang membership and prevent youth violence. Community mobilization is often needed to create momentum in creating healthy and safe spaces. As an example, in 2005, the Madison Park Neighborhood Association in Santa Ana expressed concerns to city government that the area around a paved trail that ran through Madison Park was covered in graffiti and had attracted homeless persons, which made the area feel unsafe for some local residents. The Safe and Active Living United Districts (SALUD) Initiative was created by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Agency, to address the communities concerns. Among other achievements, SALUD has staged a health fair, formed a mountain - biking club for youth, and offered a morning aerobics class with free child care at the neighborhood recreation center (ALBD, 2006). Actions 25 More information on this can be found at www.00intuse.org. r M a s t e r Plan ,ssessment, , tease like these not only contribute to the health of the community, but also could have an impact on safety and help deter youth from getting involved with gangs. Our analysis examined organizations that offer youth recreation opportunities to be physically active. Throughout our analysis, participants voiced a concern that certain age groups are targeted for interventions and other youth- teens in particular- do not receive sufficient levels of programming. Although several programs are available for teens, underutilization and lack of advertising may also be at play. Because 64% of the programming requires sign -up ahead of time and only 8% operate at night and 25% on weekends, the scope of the programming offered may not able to meet the particular needs of the teenage population. In addition, we find that programming is concentrated in the 92701 and 92707 zipcodes. At the same time, central Santa Ana and could benefit from augmented programming in other neighborhoods. Collaboration Collaboration and coordination was perhaps the most tangible need identified from across stakeholders including the city, schools and community organizations. The survey data showed that there is some level of collaboration insofar as organizations do refer youth into their programs. However, this collaboration was not extensive. Another potential issue regarding collaboration is the role that collaboration plays in crime prevention. Santa Ana currently has a program underway that has gotten a fair amount of traction from the community members, organizations and the City. This is the Townsend -Raitt Task Force. Townsend -Raitt Task Force: A Model in Santa Ana Townsend -Raiff Taskforce (TRT) is a group of stakeholders from the Townsend -Raitt neighborhood successfully engaging community residents in local crime prevention efforts. TRT emerged in late 2007 as an attempt to reinvigorate the Townsend Street area's Weed and Seed crime reduction efforts. The goals of the TRT, as identified by the community are: neighborhood improvements and continued community engagement through community forums. TRT is comprised of approximately 60 individuals from multiple agencies including law enforcement, youth and children resources, social service organizations, education, faith, developers, property owners, city agencies (PRCSA, Planning & Building and Development) and residents. Although the police department took the initial lead in facilitation, it has always been a collaborative effort. TRT has a horizontal structure and four subcommittees focusing on different community- identified priorities: 1) Infrastructure, 2) Crime & disorder, 3) Support services and 4) Resources for children. The TRT meets every 2 months. Community Forums- organized in partnership with residents and neighborhood associations- have been a key success of TRT. Forums generate neighborhood priorities through mapping out issues voting on priorities. On average, 100 residents attend. Successes include: • Increased ownership: Residents have a leadership role in the community forum meetings. • Sustainability: Increased resident connectedness and initiative assures the work remains locally relevant and self - sustaining. • Reduction in crime: In conjunction with other work by law enforcement over the past 5 years crime has reduced - the increased presence of police has reduced the perception of crime. • Building positive relationships: TRT fostered relationships between stakeholders that have resulted in other positive projects like community gardens in local schools and the commitment of a local developer to establish scholarships for local youth. Key characteristics of TRT: - Community ownership- community forums identify shifting needs and priorities - Site specific- focuses on small geographical area - Regular, consistent town forum meetings - Constant communication and collaboration improves trust and ownership - Participation of trusted local institutions made the transition to ownership by the residents oossible (ea. school nrincinals and local faith leaders) Youth & Family Master Plan Assessment, Phase I I Page 32 Key informant interviews The key informant interviews demonstrated that the city and school district have converged in recent years to: 1) coordinate field -use fees and 2) coordinate field reservation systems. Nonetheless, at this time, there remains no overarching system that safeguards the field reservation process against one league securing fields from one agency (the City), then going to the next agency (SAUSD) and securing more fields. This is in part because verifying residency of soccer players is a time - consuming and often difficult endeavor. The Parks & Recreation field reservation staff use GIS programming to allocate fields to leagues based on a combination of factors: where the players live, what percentage of players are in a certain league and each league's need for fields. City recreation programming staff noted that the GIS mapping of players and team -use does not always serve its full function. Simply because the majority of youth on a particular team live closest to a particular field, it did not necessitate they will be set to play their team games at that field every time. Field reservation staff noted the following considerations are made when delegating field permits to leagues throughout the year ✓ Time of year ✓ Field closures ✓ Size of field ✓ Lights or no lights at field ✓ Geographical location of players ✓ Location desirability The City of Santa Ana designates field use to leagues every six months: once in January, then again in June. City staff have been trying to verify player- residency for several years, but it is too time - consuming to warrant valuable, limited, staff time. SAUSD representatives also noted that, at this time, although the district has administrative regulations regarding field use, they are not implemented consistently. In September of each year, SAUSD gives permission for certain leagues to use particular fields for the upcoming school year. Essentially, the only regulation that is consistently implemented is a rule that "there is no soccer on baseball fields and no baseball on soccer fields ". Although the city staff report that the leagues do respect the past - year's field use decisions and self - regulate, the different registration schedules leave a gap in coordination of annual field use. This lack of systematic oversight of the leagues has allowed for them to operate outside of a systematized process for most of their history in Santa Ana. Leagues also noted that scheduling fields for practice is still a problem due to a lack of maintenance on certain fields, combined with the overall shortage of fields. Schools are often closed, so youth cannot use them regularly for practice. Therefore, often times the youth practice on their own at a location they find open space available. If coordination of field reservations could be combined into one citywide system, this could potentially increase the availability of practice fields for the youth teams. SAUSD currently requires each league to submit an application for field use whereas in the past, the field reservation was coordinated internally at each school site. Essentially, soccer schedules are based on what each league requests at the beginning of each school year September. Furthermore, coordination is also an issue at the internal league - level. The leagues do not have a system to coordinate the teams' fields based on the location of the youth in the league. The leagues continue to have the right to place teams anywhere in the city - regardless of where players live. For example, according to City staff, some leagues are allotted certain fields independent of where their players reside. In the 2005-2006 season, the leagues with largest number of players would be allocated the most fields. However, although respecting many of the time slot preferences from 2005 -2006, the larger leagues today do not necessarily get more fields based on their number of players. Athletic leagues' survey A survey was administered in December 2008 to all sports leagues operating on City of Santa Ana fields in 2009. The survey was administered by city staff to the league presidents or league liaisons to the city. This survey included a variety of questions regarding numbers of youth served, coaching, fees, barriers to entry and details about league travel. In total, there were 21 respondents, one from each of the sports leagues listed below. Table 8. Santa Ana athletic leaques SOCCER HASEBAL, AYSO Santa Ana North West Little League Aztec Youth Soccer League Santiago Little League Boy Scouts Soccer South East Little League California Soccer South West Little League Club America Soccer North East Santa Ana Little League Conquist America Soccer Club Valley Little League FC Barcelona SOFTBAL1 Olympic Youth Soccer League Santa Ana Girls Softball Santa Ana Development Soccer Santa Ana X -Treme Softball Santa Ana Football Club Santa Ana Softball Fastpitch Santa Ana Youth Soccer FOOTBALL Santa Ana Pop Warner Coaching Of the 21 leagues, the number of coaches per league varied greatly from 1 — 100 coaches. Nine leagues had less than 12 coaches but on average, leagues had 34 coaches. The soccer leagues had between 1 and 60 coaches; the football league had 88 coaches; the baseball leagues ranged from between 6 and 100 coaches and the softball leagues ranged from 2 to 58 coaches. Of the 21 leagues interviewed 74% of coaches underwent background checks, 24% did not. Approximately 50% of soccer coaches did, and all of the baseball, football and softball leagues coaches did undergo background checks. Coaches' training varied greatly. Trainings ranged from coaching clinics at Cal South to first aid and sexual harassment training. Over half (12) of the leagues reported that their coaches received training related directly to coaching. Only 2 soccer leagues reported that their coaches did not receive any training. Access, The majority of the leagues identified as nonprofit organizations. Only 3 of the leagues (1 soccer and 2 softball leagues) reported being City of Santa Ana Businesses. Three soccer leagues, 1 little league and 1 softball league enjoyed co- sponsorship by the City in the past . 26 Overall, respondents felt that Santa Ana youth are not being entirely served by the current athletic organizations. Eighty -one percent of respondents stated, "No ", they do not feel all Santa Ana youth who wish to play sports are being served. Of those that responded with a percentage (17 of 21), more than half reported that least 40% of youth in the area are not served (one reported 80 %). Another issue 26 However, as of June 1, 2009, due to the financial situation facing the City, each league became entirely responsible to pay all reservation fees. the league representatives provided insight into was the barriers to participation, according to what they heard most often from families. The responses are below in rank - order. ➢ Cost- 60% (60% of soccer leagues, 50% baseball, 66% softball, 0% football) ➢ Location- 42% (64% of soccer leagues, 17% baseball, 33% softball, 0% football) ➢ Time- 33% (18% of soccer leagues, 66% baseball, 33% softball, 0% football) ➢ Equipment- 30% (40% for soccer leagues, 0% for baseball and football, 66% softball) Cost was identified as a barrier by the majority of the league respondents. This was independent of whether or not the league had high, average or no registration fees. Respondents also noted that families where several children play soccer can be barriers for some families. League competitiveness & player assignments Most of the leagues use skill as a method to assign players to different teams (81 %). However, 4 of the 11 soccer leagues did not form their teams based on skill. Eight of the 21 leagues used neighborhoods as a basis to place youth on different teams. Nine of the 21 leagues created teams based on whether or not youth were Santa Ana residents. Six of 11 the soccer leagues made placement decisions independent of whether or not youth are Santa Ana residents. Over half of the soccer leagues formed teams independent of whether or not youth were from Santa Ana. When soccer league administrators were asked about how they assign teams to particular fields within Santa Ana, the following responses were received: • Availability of fields- 55% • Division of play- 55% • Size of team- 36% • Location of players- 36% • Cost of fields- 9% This corresponds to previous data suggesting that the field use reservation system combined with league preferences, place youth regardless of convenience for players or community integrity. League participation In Santa Ana, there are 9 major soccer leagues27 that provide Santa Ana and Orange County youth the opportunity to play soccer. These leagues are comprised of youth from all ages and various cultural and social backgrounds. For many of these youth, participating in these leagues provides them with an athletic alternative from the dangers and challenges that face them during their after - school hours. Of these 9 leagues, the California Youth Soccer Association was by far the largest organization with over 1,845 players representing over 30% of all the youth registered. ConquistAmerica Soccer Club was the smallest league with only 92 players. The 9 leagues can also be broken down into three categories as follows. Table 9. Santa Ana soccer leagues by size Size of League # of Players League • - California Youth Soccer Association 11845 27 FC Barcelona and Santa Ana Football Club are not included in this analysis as the City of Santa Ana does not have field -use information for them. Boy Scouts Youth Soccer Organization 11100 Santa Ana Youth Soccer 17045 Azteca Youth Soccer League 663 Olympic Youth Soccer League 529 American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) 506 Santa Ana Development Soccer Program 115 Club America 105 ConquistAmerica Soccer Club 92 Source: City of Santa Ana Youth Soccer league Statistics, 2008 Upon further analysis of the leagues, approximately 82% of the registered players resided in the city of Santa Ana, and 18% were non -city residents. The leagues with the highest percentage of Santa Ana residents included Club America, Conquist America Soccer Club, Boys Scouts Soccer League, AYSO, and Santa Ana Development Soccer Program all with 94 % -98% of their players residing in the city. The three leagues with the lowest percentage of Santa Ana residents included Olympic Youth Soccer League, California Youth Soccer Association, and Santa Ana Youth Soccer Association. Table 10. Percent Santa Ana residents in Santa Ana soccer leagues Club America ConquistAmerica Soccer Club Boy Scouts Soccer Leauge AYSO Santa Ana Development Soccer Program Azteca Youth Soccer League " California Youth Soccer Association Santa Ana Youth Soccer Association Olympic Youth Soccer Association Source: City of Santa Ana Youth Soccer Leagues Statistical Summary, 2008 League cost The average cost per year of league participation was $156. Leagues reported that their fees range anywhere from no cost to $660 /year. Most leagues cost under $100 and most soccer leagues cost less than $50. The majority of the teams (11 out of 21 leagues) said their field use rates per year determine yearly registration fees they charge. 8 of the soccer leagues said they had a registration fee 6 of those 8 said their registration fee depended on the field use rate Table 11. Santa Ana athletic leaaue fees (2009 $0 , 2 1 `o Under $50 $51-100 6 1 $150 and more 6 3 Of 21 total athletic organizations, 19 reported they offer scholarships to youth who cannot afford to participate. In order to raise funds, the leagues also engage in fundraisers and solicit money from corporate donors. The survey respondents noted the following breakdown of revenue: ➢ 19 charge registration fees or other fees ➢ 17 conduct fundraisers ➢ 9 have corporate donor support Field use analysis Responses from the surveys administered to the athletic leagues in Santa Ana provide insight to the perception of the field use and field quality around the city. Although there was a multitude of different responses, complaints and opinions, the information provided helps to identify some of the deficits experienced by the leagues and their players. Some of the common concerns regarding field use included a lack of staff at the fields and the deteriorating quality of the fields. Fields identified as being particularly under -used due to poor quality or other reasons included: Spurgeon Intermediate, DYSC #4, Thornton Park, Jerome Park, and Monroe Elementary. Fields identified as being over -used and over - programmed with practices and games included Adams Park, Centennial Park, Thornton Park, and Valley High. As we see from the table below, the actual field use does not entirely correspond to the under or over - utilization claims of the soccer leagues. According to the Youth Soccer Annual field Permits 2007 -08 most fields are at or over capacity. However the fields that are "under capacity" include Bomo Park, Heritage Park, Jerome Park #1, Lillie King Park, Monroe Dia, Spurgeon Track, and Valley High School. The table below notes various reasons for the chronic under - utilization of these fields. Table 12. City of Santa Ana field use 29 Field Hours used Notes per week "Under Capacity" Bomo Park 8 Limited use- only able to program 4 hours on Saturdays and 4 hours on Sundays. Heritage Park 20 Limited field space- used for practice and younger division games only. Jerome Park #1 16 Used as an over flow field- not available on Sundays (adult baseball). 28 The soccer league that reported no registration cost at the time of the survey was Conquist America Soccer Club. However, since then they reported that the league will begin to charge. 29 Youth Soccer Annual Field Permits, 2007 -2008 FMYouth & Family Master Plan Assessment, Phase I I Page 37 Lillie King Park 8 Limited use because a neighborhood park for 4 hours on Saturdays and 4 hours on Sundays Monroe Dia 23.5 Spurgeon Track 23.5 Valley High School 18 Not available on Saturdays (school programming) and Sundays (adult baseball). "At Capacity" Chavez /Campesino 24 Delhi (West) & 24 (East) El Salvador #1 & 24 #2 Jerome #2, #3 & #4 24 Rosita 24 Santa Anita 24 Spurgeon #1, #2 & 24 #3 Windsor 24 DYSC #430 44 Synthetic field with no restrictions on # of hours of programming. "Over Capacity" Adams 25 Because soccer is played at City and at school park spaces, it is important to examine SAUSD 7S perception of field use and over -use. Overall, SAUSD has 32 schools with current soccer programs. SAUSD reports that they are over the maximum recommended hours of field use on their fields- they are operating at over 20 hours /week. In the summer months, to compensate for the overuse of the fields during the school year, several school fields are closed mid -June through August to re -seed; this results in the surrounding community having one or more months of unavailable school field use . 31 Furthermore, with the approval of the recent Measure G school modernization bond, the following SAUSD fields will be impacted and the fields rendered unusable for 1 year from the date below: • Greenville — closed of December 2008 • Diamond — closed as of April 2009 • Lowell — closed as of December 2008 • Madison — closed as of December 2008 • Martin —set to close December 2009 In order to better maximize the use of the fields, adding more programming to fields that are least used should be considered. One such consideration should be made for Jerome Park. Field #1 at Jerome Park can be used approximately 8 more hours a week. Moreover, 484 registered players live within a half -mile radius of Jerome Park, making it the most densely populated buffer zone in the city in terms of 30 This field is synthetic turf and therefore, does not have the same 24 hour maximum weekly use. 31 For example, according to SAUSD Field Closure Summer 2009 (prepared May 19,2009), the following 17 SAUSD fields are partially or entirely closed from June 22nd until school reopens for the 2009 -2010 academic year: Century, Godinez, Saddleback, Santa Ana, Segerstrom, Valley, Carr, Spurgeon, Villa, Willard, Heninger, Pio Pico, Romero -Cruz, Roosevelt, Taft, Washington and Wilson. players living around a park. Possible leagues that could benefit from the use of this field are California Youth Soccer, Boy Scouts Soccer, and Santa Ana Youth Soccer Association, all of which have a fair amount of their players residing in this area. Valley High School also merits consideration for more programming on its fields for similar reasons. The half -mile radius surrounding the school is home to about 433 registered players in Santa Ana soccer leagues, making it the second most densely populated buffer zone. In 2008, Valley could have been used 6 more hours per week. One possible league that would benefit from the Valley fields is the California Youth Soccer Association. Although only 79% of California Youth Soccer Association's registered players reside in Santa Ana, 39% of the players within a half -mile radius of Valley play for this league. Heritage Park is another field that is being under -used. In 2008, the field was under -used about 4 hours per week. Although the buffer zone around this park is not as populated by registered players as other areas, the leagues using the fields do not accurately represent the zones demographics. Currently, 50% of the players living within a half -mile radius of Heritage Park are part of the Santa Ana Youth Soccer Association, however, none of the teams in SAYSA are using this field. Additionally the leagues that do use Heritage Park comprise of less than 23% of the resident players in that area. Furthermore, seven of the 9 soccer leagues surveyed noted that one of the barriers to accessing these leagues and programs was the location where they are being offered. By more adequately allocating field permits to the leagues with greatest need and based on proximity of the players living in the area of the field, more youth may be able to participate in these athletic programs, and the fields will be used more efficiently. This will start a process to support legitimate non - profit soccer organizations with the goals and objectives to serve youth that want to play soccer in the best way possible. By incentivizing those leagues who are interested in supporting neighborhood youth with strong soccer programming and life - skills, there is an opportunity for some leagues to benefit from potential benefits such as lower fees or first priority in field selection. Soccer Parent survey In April 2009, a randomized representative sample was identified from the City of Santa Ana unduplicated youth soccer rosters. Telephone surveys were conducted with 123 parents of youth that play in the nine soccer leagues. The findings of this survey provide insights into the youth soccer organizations that can be used for future planning efforts. Parent respondents were asked a series of questions related to how they chose a particular league, details about the league and their opinions on future activities and objectives of the soccer leagues. When asked why they chose a particular league for their child, most respondents identified location or having a friend or family in the league as reasons. The primary reasons are listed in order below- 0 48 %- convenient location 0 26 %- relatives or friends in league 0 17 %- cost 0 15 %- skill level of the league 0 13 %- level of competition of the league 0 9 %- coach or team recruited their child In terms of the amount of practice that each child participates in weekly, the results were varied. Eighty percent of parents reported that their child practices two to three times a week, 14% of parents reported practices once a week and 6% of parents reported no regular weekly practices. 0 Youth & Family Master Plan Assessment, Phase I Page 39 Of the 123 families surveyed, 37% of parents reported that they have other children who also play soccer; on average, these families have three children who play soccer. Cost ofsoccer league participation In terms of the cost families are paying to participate in soccer annually, the parents reported a variety of costs for each of the different leagues32: ❑ AYSO - Parents reported paying $80 -$200; $100 was the most commonly reported amount. ❑ Azteca- parents reported paying $15 -$50; $25 and $50 were the most common response. ❑ Boy Scouts- parents reported paying $20 -$60; $20 and $25 were the most common responses. ❑ California Youth- parents reported the most varied amounts here, with a range of $5 -$500 being reported; the most common reported fees ranged from $25 -$60. ❑ Club America- parents reported paying $30 -$80. ❑ Conquist America- parents reported paying $25 -$35. ❑ Olympic- parents reported paying $15 -$70; the most common response was $60. ❑ SADSP- parents reported paying no fee to $50. ❑ SAYSA- parents reported spending $20 to $100; most common responses were $45 and $60. The variations in reported fees may be due to certain leagues providing discounts when multiple family members play. However, the differences of responses were not correlated with the number of kids that the parents have playing in the league. 80% of parents reported their league had additional costs at the game. The only league where no one reported additional cost per game was the AYSO league. Seven families reported having to pay for unexpected expenses during the soccer season. Those costs were primarily for uniforms, snacks or if the other teammates did not show up, they had to pay supplemental referee fees. While 85% of parents reported that the cost of playing soccer for the league is affordable for their family, 70% thought that their league is affordable for the typical family in Santa Ana. Only 15% of the families were aware of league scholarships or financial aid options available to families that could not afford fees. Only 19% of the parents reported that their child plays another sport; of those families, most noted baseball, basketball and football as the other sport. Barriers forfamilies When asked about possible barriers to accessing soccer leagues in Santa Ana, participants had various responses. However, the two main barriers participants felt deterred families from participating in soccer leagues were the cost and transportation difficulties. According to the responses, 46% of participants felt that transportation was a barrier for families in Santa Ana, and 42% of participants also believe that the cost was a barrier. Other barriers that participants identified were the lack of interest in soccer (17 %) and parents having no time (12 %). Interestingly, 14% of the participants believed that Santa Ana families experience no barriers when attempting to use the leagues services. Table 13. Barriers to participation Barrier # responses (out of 123) % responded Transportation 57 46 Too expensive 52 42 32 The reasons for the discrepancies between the league- reported costs and these amounts can be attributed to parents giving an inaccurate sum by lumping the registration of multiple children into their idea of what it costs for one child to play. Also, some parents may have included food, equipment, tournament and referee fees into the cost of the league. Do not like soccer 21 17 No Barriers 17 14 No time 15 12 Benefits from participation Participants in the survey believed there are a plethora of benefits that their child experiences when playing in the soccer leagues in Santa Ana. Most participants reported experiencing more than three of these benefits. However, the two most reported benefits from playing in the soccer leagues were greater health and better discipline. Greater health was reported to be a benefit by 83% of all participants in the survey, and improved discipline was reported by 73% of parents. Sixty -eight percent of respondents indicated that the soccer leagues kept their child out of trouble. Increased levels of confidence, teamwork, and sportsmanship along with improved school performance were all benefits widely reported by the participants of the survey. Table 14. Benefits from participation Benefits # of responses (out of 123) % responded Health 107 83 Discipline 94 73 Staying out of trouble 84 68 Sportsmanship 58 47 Teamwork 56 46 Confidence 52 42 Better In school 39 32 Perception of coaches About 75% of the parents surveyed did not have any knowledge of a requirement for background checks on the leagues' coaches, while 25% of the parents were aware of mandatory background checks for coaches. Although many of the respondents were unaware of any required background checks, they were overwhelmingly in favor of background checks. About 91 % of participants in the survey were in favor of mandatory background checks for coaches, while only 9% felt otherwise. Table 15. Parent knowledge of coaches background check requirement Knowledge of coach background check # of responses (out of 123) % of responses Yes 31 25 No 92 75 Many of the participants gave multiple responses when asked about the role of the leagues' coaches. About 79% of the parents surveyed believe the coach's role is to be a positive adult in their child's life. Similarly, 62% of the parents also believed coaches should be role models for their child. However, 51 % of the participants in the study believed the role of the coach is only to instruct and coach soccer. Table 16. Parent perception of role of soccer coach Role of Coach # of responses (out of 123) % responded Only to teach soccer 63 51 Be a role model 76 62 Bea positive adult 97 79 Role of soccer in the family The responses given by the participants in the survey indicated that approximately 80% of Santa Ana soccer players practice 2 -3 times per week. About 14% of the parents stated that their child practiced once per week, and 7% stated that their child did not attend practices or training sessions. None of the respondents indicated that their child participated in more than three practices per week. Table 17. Intensity of soccer practice per week Practices Per Week # responses (out of 123) % responded 0 8 7 1 17 14 2 -3 98 80 3+ 0 0 When asked about the age that children should begin playing soccer, about 62% of parents responded: between 4 -6 years old. Twenty -seven percent of parents believed that the appropriate age to begin playing soccer was when the child wants to play and is ready. Significantly smaller percentages of participants believed that their child should begin playing soccer before the age of 4 (5 %), between 7 -8 years (4 %), and after the age of 9 (2 %). According to the responses given by the participants in the survey, 92% of the parents attended their children's soccer games on a regular basis, while only 8% were unable to attend regularly. Interpretation of soccer assessment The data above from the interviews, field use analysis and soccer parent survey highlight the need to focus attention on two particular issues: soccer program quality and coordination of services. Quality Youth soccer leagues in Santa Ana each have different characteristics; some leagues are more competitive than others, some rely on volunteer coaches, some work more closely in partnership with the city, others offer scholarships. The analysis of leagues found that fees vary greatly across leagues; there is no standard for cost correlated to quality. In particular, in terms of coaching, a strong potential to increase both the consistency and quality of coaching is evident. As the data demonstrates, some coaches undergo background checks and others do not while some coaches undergo training and others do not. Overall, the families surveyed felt that coaches should be positive role models for their youth, however, there is no current standard practice for doing so. There is a need to regularize the coaching and background checks of the coaches that work so closely with so many of the city's youth to ensure that quality is more consistent throughout programs. Furthermore, the fact that although most leagues claimed to provide scholarships to families in need (19 of 21) yet most parents interviewed were unaware of such opportunities (15% were aware) demonstrated a clear division in priorities between the leagues and parents. There is room for league priorities to converge with the priorities and goals of families who enroll their youth in soccer programs. Coordination Coordination is an issue at the internal level- coordination of city and leagues. The leagues do not have a system to allocate fields to the leagues based on the location of the youth in the league. Although the city has implemented a GIS tracking system for the players, the goal of locating a league at a field where the highest percent of youth live nearby has not been fully realized. This is because the preference of the league does not necessarily align with the geographic preferences of families. Leagues choose their fields based on their individual preference and their perception of whether the field is `a good field' or not. Coaches and league administrators base critical league and team decisions on skill and division of play rather than proximity of fields to the players' homes (therefore impacting ease of parental transportation which 46% of parents identified as the primary barrier). As the parent survey demonstrated, the location of league games and practices is a constant concern, so this issue could potentially increase coordination and ease the burdens on families, allowing more youth to play regularly. V. Implications &recommendations The analysis conducted for Phase I of the Youth &Family Master Plan has identified recommendations that will also be informed by the overall program goals of the City of Santa Ana Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency. These are: ✓ Increase places for youth to play sports, with expansion of joint -use areas as a key approach. ✓ Increase the effectiveness of programming on existing recreational space. ✓ Encourage healthy eating at parks and recreation facilities. ✓ As part of the Safe Active Living United Districts (SALUD) program: Encourage healthy life styles at all Santa Ana homes. Maintain public safety at all parks and recreational facilities. Keep all parks green, clean and beautiful. The recommendations fall into two categories: community opportunities and soccer program opportunities. Each recommendation is listed below and followed by a rationale that links that recommendation to supporting data. This is followed by a table connecting these recommendations with relevant outcome areas of the California Endowment's Healthy Communities initiative. When we examine the implications of the Youth & Family Master Plan within the framework of the California Endowment's Healthy Community Initiative (TCE HC), it is clear that implementing the recommendations can support the TCE HC 10 year objectives within Santa Ana. Several recommendations are aligned with the TCE HC initiative outcomes, specifically outcomes #3- #10: 3. Health & family- focused human services shift resources toward prevention. 4. Residents live in communities with health promoting land use, transportation and community development. 5. Children and their families are safe from violence in their homes and neighborhoods. 6. Communities support healthy youth development. 7. Neighborhood and school environments support improved health and healthy behaviors. 8. Community health improvements are linked to economic development. 9. Health gaps for young men and boys of color are narrowed. 10. California has a shared vision of community health. Community opportunities Data collection on Santa Ana youth must be coordinated and shared regularly to guide program creation. Implementation: Further research must be conducted on the number of unduplicated youth served by all programs. At this time, there is no main data - collection center that coordinates metrics from various city and county databases. In addition, a coordinated effort must be made for all organizations serving youth to ensure that they are regularly evaluating their impact on the health and well -being of the youth. Rationale: An investment in mapping the types of physical activity opportunities offered city -wide can provide a clearer picture of where programs are located, who is being served and identify future needs. With increased program oversight and evaluation, organizations can ensure their work is meeting the desired outcomes. There are many organizations providing physical activity and recreation programming for youth in schools, after - school and on weekends and during the summer. Assessing program effectiveness strengthens accountability- of all partners- in the long term. Organizations in Santa Ana with clear demonstrable evaluation outcomes will be best positioned to take advantage of fundraising opportunities and will provide potential partners with a clearer understanding of the impacts of their community -based youth programs. Only 63% of organizations surveyed reported regularly evaluating their youth interventions and programs; this leaves room for improvement. Focus park funding in park -poor communities. Implementation: Direct future park and open space funding opportunities to the areas with the highest need will have a positive impact on the reduction of childhood obesity. There are several key communities identified throughout this study, as well as through the recent TCE HC initiative that can benefit greatly from increased infrastructure and open space funding. Rationale: There is unequal distribution of parks; in Santa Ana, certain communities remain park -poor while other areas have park spaces that are perceived as unsafe by the community. Certain neighborhoods in Santa Ana fall far below the city's own desire to maintain 2 acres of open space per every 1,000 people. The data demonstrates that, to date, targeted funding via CDBG, state grants or other park development funding, has not been directed toward expansion and upkeep of parks in the city's most park -poor communities. In the future, a coordinated effort between PRCSA and the data from the TPL park inequity assessment and the TCE HC initiative can be used to support this effort. In particular, there is an opportunity for the city and community organizations to work together to influence the state and federal funding guidelines for park funds to ensure that resources can be targeted to the areas of highest local need. Focus joint -use and athletic programming opportunities at schools with the lowest Fitness -gram scores. Implementation: Using the TCE HC target area as a pilot, focus new joint use opportunities at the schools where the catchment areas had students with below- average healthy body compositions from the Fitness gram test. Rationale: Santa Ana schools with the lowest Fitness -gram scores pose the greatest needs in terms of public health benefit. Therefore, for schools with 47 -55% healthy body composition (listed on p. 18), targeted efforts to expand recreation opportunities at school facilities should be made. In particular, for the schools in this category that also lack a community park within 1/4 mile radius, priority should be given. Close the coordination gap in youth programming- especially for teen programming. Implementation: Increasing outreach for teen - serving programs and incentivizing organizations willing to provide evening and weekend programs can help to bridge the gap in services to teens in Santa Ana. Organizations must be sensitive to the timing and location of programs when providing programming for teens and young - adults. Furthermore, an increase in systematic mentorships is needed. Perhaps some kind of a database and quality - control software can be utilized to more effectively recruit and retain mentors to support young people throughout the teenage years. Rationale: At the beginning of each 5 -year cycle, the City of Santa Ana sets priorities for CDBG funding. Each year, 15% of the CDBG funds are distributed as community program grants. Last year, that amounted to $1,022,832 spent on Public Services programs; of that, 73% was spent on direct youth services. Because Santa Ana is such a young city with a large need for services, the city can consider a goal of 75% of CDBG programmatic funds supporting youth programs that have an explicit linkage to either decreasing the obesity epidemic, or gang prevention. Only 8% of youth programs operate on weekdays after 6pm; only 25% operate on weekends. Through conversations and data analysis we understand that, although there are programs throughout the city - including teen programs- focus group findings showed that there is relatively low knowledge about teen - specific programs. In addition, teens themselves voiced a desire to connect with caring adults, mentorship is one mechanism to do this. There is currently a disconnect between the programming offered and the knowledge of these programs in the community. Consider tailored interventions to communities with high crime. Implementation: Conduct more athletic programming in areas of highest crime; consider replicating the SALUD Program and the Townsend Street Task Force in other communities as models of best practices for community engagement and crime prevention. In terms of identifying communities for implementation, if the SAPID and OC Probation can coordinate data to track juvenile offenders closely by neighborhood, this could allow for a clearer understanding of whether or not certain communities are in need of more services than others. Rationale: Youth focus group data indicated that certain streets are identified by youth as unsafe, combining this qualitative data and "on the ground knowledge" with the data from SAPID regarding calls for service could help to identify areas that could benefit from a Task Force similar to that at Townsend. This type of multi - stakeholder, resident - driven process would support communities most in need. Increase programming in city community centers by nonprofits. Implementation: City recreation centers should offer more community -based drop in services for youth & families. If the city cannot provide these program staff, partnerships with community -based nonprofit organizations should fill the gaps. This close relationship can be fostered and strengthened by a city- wide commitment to youth services and may involve the city taking on the role of coordinator and a clearinghouse of information on programs for Santa Ana. This would have the potential to decrease the duplication of efforts, thus making the best use of increasingly limited resources in the community. Rationale: There is a lack of drop -in services for youth & family; most youth programming requires signing up or meeting some type of referral criteria. Youth service - providers noted that this shift away from direct outreach and community programming has left a void in the role of community centers as drop -in centers for the local youth. Addressing this gap would increase the chances of youth to engage with positive adult role models in their community on a more regular basis. Soccer programming opportunities Coordinate an annual standardized training for coaches city -wide. Implementation: The PRCSA can require training for Santa Ana coaches from all athletic leagues operating in the city. One basic coach training can be offered seasonally by a community college or by one of the larger Cal -South leagues, with other trainings particular to only soccer coaches held bi- annually. This would help facilitate a standardization in soccer league practices and expectations. Rationale: Given the data from the league surveys, as well as parent responses from the surveys, it is clear that there is no consistent training and /or role identification for coaches working in the various soccer leagues serving Santa Ana youth. Furthermore, with 80% of the families reporting that they are paying additional costs each game, there is a lack of financial uniformity as well. This lack of oversight and consistency does not support positive youth services. Standardizing some components of basic coach training (such as the need for background checks, first -aid, basic skills, ethics, sexual harassment, roles and responsibilities, and others) could increase player and community safety. Increase business partnerships. Implementation: Consider increasing public - private partnerships to sponsor soccer leagues, thus allowing more families to take advantage of scholarship and financial aid opportunities. Rationale: Forty -two percent of families surveyed report that cost is a barrier for families to participate. Although 19 of 21 leagues reported offering financial aid, only 15% of families reported having knowledge of this. Furthermore, only 9 of 21 leagues are actively receiving funds from corporations whereas 19 of 21 are charging registration fees and 17 of 21 have fundraisers. Corporate partnerships, when engaged in for the long term, can provide a sustainable source of revenue to the leagues, as well as advertising and positive public relations for the corporate sponsor. These partnerships can provide a win -win situation for both parties involved. This would help to support the leagues so that they do not have to tie player registration fees so closely to the field use fees (as is currently the case). This would keep the cost from being directly transferred to the families. This is particularly timely as the city no longer has the resources to partner with teams who would like decreased (or free) field use. Coordinate all field reservations within the City of Santa Ana through a single entity. Implementation: This system would require that a single agency control field distribution; this would streamline the annual soccer league field -use reservation process by having both city and school fields coordinated and maintained together. Incentivize those organizations that are increasing recreational play and could allocate based on different factors. This increased coordination would allow leagues to work with the city and school districts to make use of their GIS mapping capabilities to ensure that youth can play soccer in their own community, thus enhancing access. Consider providing PRCSA with the resources needed to program all city and school fields in Central Santa Ana as a targeted pilot program component of TCE initiative. In return, PRCSA can create clearer guidelines for leagues wishing to use fields. Rationale: There is a need to create a balance in Santa Ana soccer between leagues that are more focused on competitive level play as opposed to those that place a higher value in providing recreational soccer opportunities to all participants- regardless of skill level. There must be an effective increase in recreational leagues, supporting teams that are youth development organizations, not simply those based on athletic performance. Leagues report that youth placement on teams is based primarily on skill level (81 %) and furthermore that teams are assigned to particular fields based on field availability (55 %) and division of play (55 %). Over half of the leagues reported that they make their team assignment decisions independent of whether or not a player lives in Santa Ana. This leaves the leagues void of any geographic considerations for natural community and neighborhood boundaries. Forty -six percent of survey respondents noted that location of fields is a barrier for many families to engage in the soccer league programming. Because the majority of leagues are based on player skill level, the location of programming will continue to be a problem in providing the Santa Ana youth with access to affordable, recreational soccer. Create a consumer education campaign to educate families about the soccer leagues. Implementation: Annually, a community educational piece is distributed throughout the local Spanish and English language newspapers, targeting families interested in youth soccer. On the city website, as well as on television, a video in Spanish can be presented to the community so that families can get a clear idea of the breadth and scope of the soccer leagues operating in Santa Ana. Among other things, this could include information on the costs, fees, seasons and levels of play, as well as the scholarships offered and coaching credentials. Rationale: Families currently are making soccer team decisions based upon personal contacts- with little "comparison shopping" or information on league characteristics. Ideally, they would like to make more educated decisions regarding their child's league participation. These PSAs regarding "soccer league do's and don'ts" could provide very informative to families; this could close the knowledge gap, allowing families to make decisions on league choice that best fit their needs. Soccer programming becomes a priority for the City. Implementation: Soccer engages more Santa Ana youth in intensive physical activity than any other program. Because of this wide - reaching impact, it is important that the leagues providing the service are given clear guidelines about expectations to ensure that the highest levels of participation are met. Soccer field -usage could be programmed based on the location of team members. For this geographic model to be successful, the city parks, as well as SAUSD fields would need to be coordinated through one field -use master list that could reach youth in all parts of the city. It is important for this level of collaboration to start within a pilot area such as the California Endowment Healthy Community target area. The city has resources to run these sites and the city and SAUSD together could identify soccer leagues who comply with geographic preferences. For this to geographic model to be successful, the city parks, as well as SAUSD fields would need to be coordinated through one field -use master list that could reach youth in all parts of the city. Rationale. A collaborative approach could make this change in the community, increasing the ability of youth to engage in soccer in their own neighborhoods. According to the responses to the survey that was completed by the athletic leagues in Santa Ana, an overwhelming majority of the leagues believe that much of the youth population are not being adequately serviced by the city's athletic programs. Also, 7 of the 9 soccer leagues surveyed noted that one of the barriers to league participation was location. By more adequately allocating field permits to the leagues with greatest need and proximity of the players living in the area of the field, more youth will be able to participate in these athletic programs, and the fields will be used more efficiently. Due to the inherent competitive nature of the sport, it is important that strict regulations are maintained and implemented within the leagues to ensure that competition does not overshadow the need to provide the comprehensive service to the maximum number of players possible. 0 Youth & Family Master Plan Assessment, Phase I Page 47 Table 18. Recommendations and TCE outcomes Recommendation: TCE Outcome(s) impacted: 3 4 5 6 7 8 Community Opportunities Focus park funding in park -poor communities. � Focus joint -use and athletic programming opportunities at schools with the lowest Fitness -gram scores. Close the coordination gap in youth programming- especially for teen programming. Consider tailored interventions to communities with high crime. Increase programming in city community centers by nonprofits. Soccer Programming Coordinate an annual uniform training for � coaches city -wide. Increase business partnerships. � Create a consumer education campaign to � educate families about the soccer leagues. Soccer programming becomes a priority for the City. Coordinate all field reservations within the � City of Santa Ana through a single entity. Conclusion The City of Santa Ana faces many difficult challenges in addressing the health and vibrancy of its youth. There is a shortage of parks and open space, and few parcels of land are available for future conversion to park space. Many families live below the poverty line, and financial and budgetary restrictions are straining the city's ability to fund existing programs. The city's rates of childhood overweight /obesity are among the highest in the state. The data collected through this assessment demonstrate insufficient recreational opportunities, soccer fields already used beyond their capacity, high levels of demand for strained nonprofit services, and youth asking simply for more adult mentors and role models. In many regards, the prospects may look grim and the obstacles to overcome seem steep. Nevertheless, this report's assessment of the challenges facing Santa Ana youth suggests many favorable opportunities that demand little in the way of financial obligation or organizational overhaul. Many recommendations focus on greater coordination of agencies: between the city and the school district; volunteers and nonprofits; and the private and public sectors. Through more joint -use collaborations, schoolyards could be used for after - school athletic play. Careful targeting of policies in park -poor neighborhoods and "unhealthy" school catchment areas will lead to greater social equity city- wide. Action on these recommendations could aid in deterring youth from getting involved with gangs and could offer children and teens safer places to exercise and socialize as they develop into healthy adults. Given that the city is now entering a 10 -year Healthy Communities Initiative with funding from the California Endowment, there is even greater cause for hope. This report and its findings may well offer data and support as the initiative goes underway. Further, implementing the report's recommendations can support many of the Healthy Communities Initiative's objectives and outcomes. Interventions now can lead to a significantly healthier City of Santa Ana for many years to come. References Active Living by Design. 2004. Priority Populations and Physical Activity: An overview of issues related to active living. Active Living by Design (006. A Healthy Takeover by Santa Ana, CA Citizens. Accessed at http://www.activeIivingbydesign.org/ communities / featured - community /healthy- takeover- santa- ana -ca- citizens, March 31, 2009. America's Promise, Safe Places. 2009. Accessed at http: / /www. americaspromise. org /APAPage. aspx ?id =6336 , March 24, 2009. Babey, S. H., Hastert, T. A., Yu, H., & Brown, R. 2008. Physical activity among adolescents: when do parks matter? American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 34, 345 -8. Babey, S. H., Brown, E. R., Hastert, T. A. 2005. Access to safe parks helps increase physical activity among teenagers. Policy Brief UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, PB2005 -10, 1 -6. Barboza, T. 2008. Santa Ana, other cities, clamp down on selling access to public playing fields. Los Angeles Times, August 31. Accessed at, http : / /www. la times.com /news /local /la- me- soccer31- 2008aug31, 0, 797842. story ?page =1 &track =rss, March 27, 2009. Caddell, A. 2009. Personal communication regarding Townsend Raitt Task Force. May -June 2009. California Department of Education. 2005. Physical Fitness Test Website accessed May 265 2005: http:/ /data 1. cde. ca. gov /dataquest/. California Department of Health Services. 2004. Strategies to Reduce Obesity and Overweight. Sacramento, November. California Department of Justice (Attorney General's Office), Criminal Justice Statistics Division, "Criminal Justice Profiles" (statewide California) for the years 1994 through 2003. Additional data may be accessed on the Attorney General's website at www.ag.ca.gov. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2009. Healthy Youth! Physical Activity, promoting health: strategies: After school Care Programs. Accessed June 24, 2009; http:// cdc. gov /healthyyouth /physicalactivity /promoting health /strategies /afterschool. Centanni, J. 2009. Personal email communication regarding SAPD role in Townsend Street TF. May 25, 2009. City of Santa Ana. 1999. "Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency Youth Services Plan ". January 1999. Cohen, D. A., et al. 2007. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 509 -514. Commonweal. 2005. Youth Violence in California: Are we about to jeopardize a twelve year safety record? Accessed at http:/ /www. commonweal. org/ programs /jjp- reports l2005PolicyBriefFNLarial. doc, April 1, 2009. Daniels, S.M. 2006. "Intervening in gang violence: A town hall in Santa Ana is called to discuss how to put a stop to shootings." Orange County Register, Friday, December 22, 2006. DeVries, S. I., et al. 2006. Determinants of activity - friendly neighborhoods for children: results from the SPACE study. Health Promotion, 21, 312 -316. Economics Research Associates and Barrio Planners, Inc. 1992. "A Recreation and Community Services Needs Assessment for the City of Santa Ana, CA." April 23, 1992. EPIC Commission. 2008. Progress Report to Santa Ana City Council. April 2008. Flores, G. R. 2008. Active living in Latino communities. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 34, 369 -370. Flournoy R. Regional development and physical activity: issues and strategies for promoting health equity. November 2002. Available at: http -// www. policylink .org /pdfs /PhysicalActivity.pdf. (Accessed April,6 2009.) Gomez, J. E. et al. 2004. Violent crime and outdoor physical activity among inner -city youth. Preventative Medicine, 39, 876 -881. Gordon - Larsen, P., et al. 2006. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics, 117, 417 -424. Harnik, P. 2006. The Excellent City Park System: What Makes it Great and How to Get There. The Trust for Public Land. Hunt, S. 2009. Orange County Probation Memo Regarding Juvenile Offenders. April 22, 2009 Huston, S, Evenson, K, Bors, P, et al. 2003. Neighborhood environment, access to places for activity and leisure time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18, 58 -59. Izzo M. 2005. Seniors returning to school to find path to better health. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. December 8 2005. Available at: www. post - gazette .com /pg/05342/618566.stm. Accessed April 6, 2009). Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York City, NY: Random House. Lewis, P.G. et al. 2004. "Governance and Policy in High- Immigration Cities: Results from Surveys of Elected Officials, Planners and Police. Public Policy Institute of California, Occasional Papers. March 2, 2004. Loukatiou- Sideris, A., & Eck, J. E. 2007. Crime prevention and active living. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21, s380 -s389. Macedonio, M.2009. Personal communication regarding Townsend Raitt Task Force. May 15, 2009. Marmot, M. 1999. "Introduction" In Social determinants of health. Eds. Michael Marmot and Richard Wilkinson. New York: Oxford University Press. Miles, R. J. 2008. Neighborhood disorder, perceived safety, and readiness to encourage use of local playgrounds. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 34, 275 -281. Miller, S. 2007. "County Study: Gangs lure more kids. County report findings are part of annual report on children." Orange County Register. Fuesday, October 16, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2006. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 13, http: / /iier. isciii. es /mmwr /PDF 1wk/mm5501. pdf Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2007. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 13, http: / /www.cdc.gov /mmwr /preview /mmwrhtml/ss5704a 1.htm Northridge, M.E., Schultz, A. 2004. Social Determinants of Health: Implications for Environmental health Promotion. Health Education & Behavior. 31(4), 455 -471. Orange County Health Needs Assessment. 2005. Obesity: health crisis in Orange County. Accessed at http: / /www. ochna. org/ publications /documents /Fina15aDay. pdf, March 31, 2009. Orange County Department of Education. 2005 -2006. Orange County Healthy Kids Survey, Technical Report: Grades 5, 77 11. Powell, K.E., Martin, L., Chowdhury, P. 2003. Places to walk: convenience and regular physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1519 -1521. Powell, L. M., Slater, S., Chaloupka, F. J. 2004. The relationship between community physical activity settings and race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Evidence -Based Preventative Medicine, 1, 135- 144. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 2006. Health education and physical activity, In Balance, Issue 2 Roman, C. G. & Chalfin, A. 2008. Fear of walking outdoor: a multilevel ecologic analysis of crime and disorder. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 34, 306 -12. Santa Ana Police Department. 2007. Annual Report. Available at: http://Www.ci.santa- ana. ca. us /pd /documents /2007AnnualReport. pdf, accessed April 6, 2009. Santa Ana Unified School District. 2008. SAUSD Student Forum Summary Report. December 16, 2008. Schmid, T. L., Pratt, M., Witmer, L. 2006. A framework for physical activity policy research. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, S20 -S29. Scott, M. M., Cohen, D. A., Evenson, K.R., Elder, J. 2007. Weekend Schoolyard Accessibility, Physical Activity, and Obesity: the Trial of Activity in Adolescent Girls (TAAG) Study. Preventative Medicine. 44(5), 398 -403. Spengler, J. O., Young, S. J., Linton, L. S. 2007. Schools as a community resource for physical activity: legal considerations for decision makers. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21, 390 -396. The Prevention Institute. 2009. Accessed at: http: / /Www.jointuse.orgl, June 19. The Search Institute. 2009. Accessed at: http: / /www. search - institute. org/, March 28. Troped, P.J., Saunders, R.P., Pate, R.R., et al. 2001. Associations between self reported and objective physical environment factoras and use of community rail - trail. Preventive Medicine, 32, 191 -200. Trust for Public Land. 2006. Park Deficit Analysis Map. Santa Ana, California. October 3. Trust for Public Land. 2006. Park Equity Analy sis Map. Santa Ana, California. October 3. United States Census. 2005 -2007. American Community Survey. United States Department of Justice. 2009. Accessed at: http: / /ojp.usdoj.gov /, June 21. Vigil, D. 2009. Stopping gangs with a balanced strategy: prevention, intervention, suppression. Unpublished manuscript, forthcoming. Yanez, E. & Muzzy, W. 2005. Healthy parks, healthy communities: addressing health disparities and park inequities through public financing of parks, playgrounds, and other physical activity settings. A policy brief published by the Trust for Public Land. Youth Commission. 2007. "Youth Master Plan Action Plan Discussion Summary." September 11, 2007. Appendices Appendix A: SAUSD Focus group summary findings Appendix B: Orange County Probation Memorandum on juvenile offenders Appendix C: Santa Ana Police Department 2008 Calls for Service Appendix D: Orange County Health Care Agency 2008 SAUSD student healthy body composition Appendix E: Santa Ana Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency Appendix F: Trust for Public Land 2006 Park Deficit Analysis 9 [:Cr7 cn C 5 E 0 E 0 0 2 a cn CQ Cis C 42 m CD cu toll ca v u U C1 2) cu 0 C3 0 Santa Ana Unified School District o tL? o .. .. ,. ( to CID rvw. 0 2 0 o tll C.. H :w .0 C CCs C- " yr, CD o ct cu ,. o M -1 (n Q. .0 � cn t7 • -1'� 0 =3 k: C v 2 � C] o 0 ..0 0 0 E �c� cn MCI (1) CU L... CU C7) CIO =... m'.. � C .J Ca CU 0 0 0 :w co C cm cn 2-0 CL Cp =A Ci cn •� W cm ` ? o LC77 o tU (n _o T3 o C . 2 t73 C C7 � • � o �,.... � . �. . n ,F -0 1.2 Q o 0 , W C ca 0 � p CU 0 C s... -K3 CL %nx o CU C33 �:.. 0 0 az o cn o Q o 2,+0- ' i a Q- .0 , C K9 as C� c3 a pax A.g o 0 -0 0 0. E (0n . © c= CQ Cc v ._w.. = =x m 0 0 0 0 v, C Q -+� A v 2 m- (n 3: ,�y'ar ^: sama 0 -E-j 0 0 (D C1] cn L1C.... ' > 0).c �.. Cc E 0 � -J wT in W . (n o Cc co 0 C ` .E .�..� d 0 Nr - C ^: �°° v CL IS �.... C� �� C ca (n (n US eat � ' C Ca C cu o (n C ?r E E -0 cn -- R Lw 0 2 0 2 a- l— <YZa 0 Q 0 u cu CL 0 .0 .CL CU 0) 4— sr r by '` ;N 0 , °1;�. =aka "' '�" y,� l•i+.. C U CD C Nay £3� `.� (1) C cu .r;^s" C o C " C L (/3 C y41 cn KKZ C Z' y +�« C � F o CL C " 0 =3 CU Cis ca CL a ccs (ID .� cc o co cu CO y cu A cu Dam" C'Li c C cu CD :. C ca CCU A�9 C C Ci3 CIO 6�1, g ca 'cZ 0 as ss CZ,. q r Cc 0 > Q? tU 0 ,16— 0 cu o„ � CI] tI F t CD cu to CU Fdi ^s Y^ T 0 ^z (D t o C N°� o ❑3 a< C C!) (n cc ! to 0 � ca 0 N C to 0 Ws (}y���] o �`r •�iI F MNA1M -0 F` iw .w fww. Appendix A tis cn E 2 C� s,..,. a- 0 0 W tQ t.3 CD .0 E w 0 cn v Cu E 0 0 E cc v a 0 0 0 � o '0 con 0 C CD 0 � C C E C CU = CD cu »� o C • CD C o may o •� �rY ^. � o ...�. ca o �... a % : ill cu =e Cu 0 u3 p0 CU rw ,�,., 0 3 0 Cl. �,9� ,. as E o (n 0 �.O .0 Cu i++. CID CL q 0 0) //�1111�. V• 0 cu 5� �a co w (n (n o o .� o .,C Lo CU T3 ECi CD cu 2 2 � C= C cu .0 CU C (n 0 y Cc -� o : 0 0 C o a �-.. L gig 9a� cn tU Z7 � a � o, 0 E 0 Cn C nz o all 2 ys 9•�s�� Cc (D . ..C3 C tD a a cii L ° rp o o 4 ::,.. C)) cn ca °? o 0 s =` 0 Cn *(D ':• ';fin ��TM -s: 2 v .y (� , Wwom ;:may, s•=N �. " :> #�... cc Ln CU ���y. err yLi��� • C11- 0 cl- T3 0 -E 0 -0 cm a X ©� CL 0- CU 0 cu =3 0 0 0 >% ' I• m o CL -0 tip 0 0 (n C: 0 F- �" LO Santa Ana Unified School District od a C= C= =3 co (0-0 -Z2 tl CL 0 cc R- cu cn o R , r 42 o CD CO W, ttS 0- CL co CD (D C) 0 (D 0 3: cu cu W C= (n C.) 0 j> ID Ca C= 0 (1) cn 12 a) 0 C (D 0 0 E -O"r E 0 W E 0 cu cc cl) Cc co CL C) M C-) 0 a) =3 E m W CD C5. cl Z CL C/) D erq =3 co 0 (n =3 4= (2) CL Q 0 a) CD 0— lz: cn CD CL 0 -C= C) Vl*. cc 0 42) cu > tt CD U) 0 o . w a) (D > CL > C 0 a 15 rx m 2 =03 a 0 0 a- CD — ro cu 0. o F cn 0 0 0 0 cn CD 0 LU CD -0 0 cu > 2 © CU o P. CL Cf) cm 0 cn cc 0 cn CD CC -0 (D 4m cm X Cc o (D cc 0 =5 0) cu CIL) CO =3 ca cu > CTJ >-, E. cc 0 co CU 0 0 =3 CIL 0 0 0 o (D Co cu -0 C/) C/) 0 O)o NO, 0 0 (1) cn 0 C> 0 -0 y. LD ED 0 0 C= 4— (2) -0-0 0 0 (D cc C) > C= 0 cn cL cn a> 0 CL cc -0 LD >.- 0 CL 0 > o . ... . . ....... Appendix A Ca erg 0 'el 40 2 .0 "g Vnr =fir: 0. Cc ca 0 0 0 0 CA >, o :t-- e - 75 E [) C) 0 tm cc c 0 0 E 0 co M Ca CU o CL W W cc 0 0 F— 0 cc 0 U) 0 C33 [l3 0 ff (n o E M IX cc 0- Co 0 . 0 0 0 W 0 W ca 0 X 0 ca .5 co cn co 40 0 (D 0 L C Ca (15 E 16 Q cc -a 0 t5 a- ca 0 F- 0 sib° ....... . .. 0 c:: E m cc o 0 CO 0 M w q aka 0 (a (1) > 0 m ca y -% C= '4 0 0 cu E Q 0 ca % 0 E 4— 0 ca 0 C= (D 0 cp 0 Q =3 Cc =3 0 E d :3 0 0 pj 0 0 Cr- CL m ................ ........ . .... v 0 yCCIO �I M� ca cc a Cl) 1111F��1�1�' M cc T Q Q Q cu T Q .;.ri F� Santa Ana Unified School District X I Q 0 Ca Rm9¢ uy„ Co :r xd % -0 0 Cc Q ^A^ �0c CIO " "�''L,�,,,,,y rM► ��1�j H:p <. Kq= .......... .:�'; °yam . . . . . . . . . . Q tin ° ti.�'.�s °.• '.d cu (D Q ca mo n 0 ca v ti v v •a Ra3s a.e' g ai 0-0 �N/ M� I�NM �,,... a vv Q •�{ ccv ., •x �• 0 � � co v � � � SIR K4. w w ��/ .w��w m•. R v V.ijrrJ N 4 M� ewo V i � i�..yYl)! (D VII Ca a) (D � i 4 � I4� CD C, 2 � —w. (n ca v g a= �c 0- -o � v � w -- Q © -6.,. ._ Q .w cL X ;x xa p Q ,�,.,� © Q3 cc V3 Q Erb D oR° © [L� �., rC� .�c Q� '� irr yJ Q .0 Vii C g cn w 0 � '� CD N 0 cv c au ` � Gme a# ; 2 Rs v � -� szc-� f= q R v v� a) cc Rc r. ��.... CL CU c v 0 (A v CD CC a► -'Nd . 0-0 .ymxY�L= yx q MV cc V � "+ w it � v v cc i� V .�E..r ►� �ww /�ww �T'r v /� / +�F (1) • yi7 CD y,....f�R C: M mx •.P'�.n'x yr �" .0 ..n .�...j Vi v �ri V) 0 M .Fa ice} x° cu Q "ztt'ttas ° ' ° p bsx'p� -pxeti � tt nn [11i►7 a i�11R v may! �r y' a) p�'be•�s'xi - xasRY' 0-0 'tt E yysu -cea.sf Etta `Ss: r .. x R:: a9ay z ::.: T. � ) o 0 Q �a•3 ' °•e �.�'sYKa Q v CU'h y0� t� cu I } ca �r� ca L V La ca Ln Q Lo a . r. cc Appendix A m CD 4m ORANGE COUNTY a i o �. Al 1 909 -200 r MEMORANDUM DATE: April 22, 2009 COLLEENE PRECIADO CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER TELEPHONE: (714) 569 -2000 1535 E. ORANGEWOOD AVENUE ANAHEIM, CA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 10260 SANTA ANA, CA 92711 -0260 TO: Gerardo Mouet, Executive Director, Santa Ana Parks, Recreation and Community Services CC: Jenny Rios, Santa Ana Parks, Recreation and Community Service Leah Ersoylu, Ersoylu Consulting Colleene Preciado, Chief Probation Officer FROM: Shirley Hunt, Director, Research Division SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO 2.23.09 SANTA ANA REQUEST The information provided in this memo was prepared in response to your February 23rd request. It includes information from the Juvenile Court &Probation Statistical System (JCPSS)l unique records regarding juveniles residing in Santa Ana referred to Orange County Probation with 2008 dispositions. Two maps are included that show the 2008 Santa Ana youth referrals by the proportion of total Santa Ana referrals within Thomas Brothers' page guides. (Probation does not currently have geo- mapping software.) The requested information was compiled by Research Division staff, Naomi Nguyen and Marya Forster, and IT Division staff, Marian Zannella. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (714) 569 -2174 or at shirle..huntkprob.ocgov.com. Also, when the Youth and Family Master Plan Assessment is completed, we would be very interested in obtaining a copy of it. ' SOURCE: The Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System (JCPSS) is the official Department of Justice system that contains records of all juveniles referred to probation with their final probation or court dispositions. These records are submitted to DOJ by the Probation Department. The Probation Research staff compiled the information for this request. Appendix B 4/22/09 Response to Santa Ana Request Of all _youth (unduplicated) referred to Probation in 2008, how many are Santa Ana _youth? What is the average ale? As of March 2009, there were a total of 12,456 referral dispositions for 9,393 unique juveniles countywide recorded by Probation during calendar year 2008. • Santa Ana Youth: There were 2,305 referral dispositions on 1,711 unique Santa Ana juveniles • In sum, 1,711 or 18.2% of the total unique juveniles (9,393) were living in Santa Ana. The average age at the first 2008 referral for Santa Ana minors was 16 years old. Out of these 1,711 Santa Ana juveniles referred to Probation: • 1,299 juveniles or 75.9% had only 1 referral disposition during 2008. • 288 juveniles or 16.8% had 2 referral dispositions during 2008. • 87 juveniles or 5.1 % had 3 referral dispositions during 2008. • 24 juveniles or 1.4% had 4 referrals referral dispositions during 2008. • 13 juveniles or .9% had 5 or more referral dispositions during 2008. The majority of the 2008 referrals came from Santa Ana PD, followed by Santa Ana Unified District PD, and then by the Probation Department. For Santa Ana _youth, what are the top 5 offenses? Each referral disposition can include up to 5 offenses charges. For the Santa Ana 2008 referrals, there were a total of 3,653 referral offense charges. The most frequent referral offenses were: (See next page for complete listing). 1. Vandalism at 15.8% (24% Felony, 76% Misdemeanor) 2. Probation Violation - 777(A)(2) WI at 10.8% (all Misdemeanor) 3. Assault- Battery at 8.6% (38.1% Felony, 61.3% Misdemeanors) --this includes Threats 4. Theft at 8.5% (38.8% Felony, 61.2% Misdemeanor) -- this includes Petty Theft but excludes Motor Vehicle Theft. 5. Weapons at 8.0% (79.9% Felony, 20.1% Misdemeanor) 6. Burglary at 6.6% (85.1% Felony, 14.9% Misdemeanor) 7. Drugs /Controlled Substances at 6.3 %, (48% Felony, 52% Misdemeanor) -- if we include Other Drug Law Violations, the total percentage would be 7.4% 8. Promote /Participate Crime - Street Gang at 6.2 %, (all Felony) Page 2 of 3 Appendix B Number of Total Referral Average Age at YEAR Unique Dispositions Referral Juveniles 2008 1711 2305 16 Out of these 1,711 Santa Ana juveniles referred to Probation: • 1,299 juveniles or 75.9% had only 1 referral disposition during 2008. • 288 juveniles or 16.8% had 2 referral dispositions during 2008. • 87 juveniles or 5.1 % had 3 referral dispositions during 2008. • 24 juveniles or 1.4% had 4 referrals referral dispositions during 2008. • 13 juveniles or .9% had 5 or more referral dispositions during 2008. The majority of the 2008 referrals came from Santa Ana PD, followed by Santa Ana Unified District PD, and then by the Probation Department. For Santa Ana _youth, what are the top 5 offenses? Each referral disposition can include up to 5 offenses charges. For the Santa Ana 2008 referrals, there were a total of 3,653 referral offense charges. The most frequent referral offenses were: (See next page for complete listing). 1. Vandalism at 15.8% (24% Felony, 76% Misdemeanor) 2. Probation Violation - 777(A)(2) WI at 10.8% (all Misdemeanor) 3. Assault- Battery at 8.6% (38.1% Felony, 61.3% Misdemeanors) --this includes Threats 4. Theft at 8.5% (38.8% Felony, 61.2% Misdemeanor) -- this includes Petty Theft but excludes Motor Vehicle Theft. 5. Weapons at 8.0% (79.9% Felony, 20.1% Misdemeanor) 6. Burglary at 6.6% (85.1% Felony, 14.9% Misdemeanor) 7. Drugs /Controlled Substances at 6.3 %, (48% Felony, 52% Misdemeanor) -- if we include Other Drug Law Violations, the total percentage would be 7.4% 8. Promote /Participate Crime - Street Gang at 6.2 %, (all Felony) Page 2 of 3 Appendix B 4/22/09 Response to Santa Ana Request TYPES OF REFERRAL OFFENSES- Santa Ana Youth 2008 Juvenile Referral Dispositions Valid Cumulative Frequency Y ercent Percent Percent ARSON 12 .3 .3 .3 ASSAULT - BATTERY (includes Threats) 315 8.6 8.6 9.0 BURGLARY 241 6.6 6.6 15.5 CHECKS /ACCESS CARDS 4 .1 .1 15.7 DISTURBING PEACE 83 2.3 2.3 17.9 DRIVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE 19 .5 .5 18.5 DRUGS / CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 229 6.3 6.3 24.7 ESCAPE - ATTEMPTED ESCAPE 15 .4 .4 25.1 FORCIBLE RAPE 31 .8 .8 26.0 FORGERY - FRAUD 5 .1 .1 26.1 HIT - AND -RUN 19 .5 .5 26.6 HOMICIDE - ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE 13 .4 .4 27.0 INDECENT EXPOSURE 4 .1 .1 27.1 KIDNAP 3 .1 .1 27.2 LIQUOR LAWS 71 1.9 1.9 29.1 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 36 1.0 1.0 30.1 MANSLAUGHTER - VEHICULAR 1 .0 .0 30.1 MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 87 2.4 2.4 32.5 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 50 1.4 1.4 33.9 OBSTRUCT /RESIST PUBLIC OFFICER 64 1.8 1.8 35.6 OTHER DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS 39 1.1 1.1 36.7 OTHER FELONIES 97 2.7 2.7 39.4 OTHER MISDEMEANORS 151 4.1 4.1 43.5 OTHER SEX LAW VIOLATIONS 62 1.7 1.7 45.2 PROBATION VIOLATION 393 10.8 10.8 56.0 PROMOTE /PARTICIPATE CRIME STREET GANG 226 6.2 6.2 62.1 PROSTITUTION 5 .1 .1 62.3 ROBBERY 75 2.1 2.1 64.3 STALKING 1 .0 .0 64.4 THEFT 312 8.5 8.5 72.9 (includes Petty Theft but excludes Motor Vehicle Theft) TRESPASSING 42 1.1 1.1 74.0 TRUANCY 75 2.1 2.1 76.1 VANDALISM 579 15.8 15.8 92.0 WEAPONS 294 8.0 8.0 100.0 Total 3653 100.0 100.0 The table above uses information from the Master JCPSS data with up to 5 referral offenses per referral date and the California DOJ offense table of offense classification. Page 3 of 3 Appendix B SANTA ANA JUVENILES REFERRED TO PROBATION WITH DISPOSITIONS IN 2008 (*) Number of Juveniles Referred by Residence per Thomas Brothers' 2008 Guide Thomas Brothers Page # 829 828 859 799 800 858 830 Total Juveniles Mapped Thomas Brothers Page 829: Alphabetical Grid: J H A B D G F E C Total Juveniles Mapped on TB Page 829 Total # of Juveniles with Referral Dispositions 1 151 (See below) 172 128 106 23 9 9 1598 Total # of Juveniles with Referral Dispositions 7 58 110 141 146 157 165 175 192 1151 NOTE: The percentages displayed on the maps reflect the % of total unique Santa Ana juveniles with 2008 referral dispositions in each of the designated pages, or grid areas on p. 829. SOURCES: Orange County Probation Juvenile Court Statistical System 2008 referral disposition records and Probation Case Management System. Current residence information as of April 2009 was located for a total of 1,598 of the 1,711 Santa Ana juveniles, including some who's current residence is outside of Santa Ana. Prepared by Probation Research and IT staff, Response to Santa Ana Request, 4.20.09 Appendix B oA 0 0 N z z 0 H o zoo �oo ao � O o � a o A" W Ct W � � W � i Z a N W 00 ct a z H z r� r aL Ad tiY 1 •u Ir O � i \ O O � ,ULD -L A l • L 94 T 1--1 � O O\ V pp Moo V � s la sr ST i. �,l l $1 �`'Y _ E . ,y - - HAK •-._ Ilk UR A PR Iwo = _ � =` 1 ST - kn . . _ pip V k o o kn _r, a� V c a 1.1 Y r -.� y LJI . - ' _.' '1 -3 J _..� -. j itr �, T ll oA 0 0 N z H� a � A � H � N o� Ha �a o= x° O� H � A o W s w °o W N W � Z o C a� d 'a H z '. -fir; ` -A col wr) rte. WE O c N V � � 0 a zoo A v � O kn "PF lq�E-MWFO a �o0 A\ / /L+-� lLJ AVM 0 4° ct 0 0 l�j ct O lrj \p ct A V 0 0 m c Q a a U - rAA 0 o N � Q� O 0 U a a bb O In d' ct A v �' O ■ nm Nllt�� Healnm�� iiwii�i�n nmm■.o Ion �173T, ii •�� �f.4�l Y1 lll�li- MID iii ■ �� �� NEI PI S n AP -A col wr) rte. WE O c N V � � 0 a zoo A v � O kn PLO a �o0 A\ / /L+-� lLJ AVM 0 4° ct 0 0 l�j ct O lrj \p ct A V 0 0 m c Q a a U A V ct 0 o N � Q� O 0 U a a bb O In d' ct A v �' O a� PLO a �o0 0 AVM 0 4° City of Santa An 2008 Calls For Service N hr-- E r7- J II *• J _ MEMOR �'C HAVEN I �e� : f0 0 1 rya r S 17 SANTA CLARA� 3 ar 17TH II VITI"Lin rr J _ 17TH Iz 1 z HAZARD ,� � I II o Q � — ❑❑ ❑ CIVI�ENTER a �❑ w , 65 a ■■■� Q❑ ~ L _� ■�� J E:1 r ❑ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ° ❑❑ C❑� M M111 C FAD —plus � M ��_ -- ❑❑ p ■ ■����■ 1 C E N QEJ _ I I — -- N /Indsor Par � I ❑ wl ❑ ❑q �I I 0 � p EDINGER w % CIOLL11 J w p 0� ❑ > C/) �Q WARNER J "IllllllllllllllllllIlljl SEGERSTROM Q I MACARTHUR ❑ I 1 _J ❑ SUNFLO E�._ __ i .❑ 2 4 Miles 0 No Calls For Service 0 Low (Less Than 1700) 0 Medium (1700 - 3399) High (Greater Than 3399) Appendix C Percent of Fifth Graders with Healthy Body Composition by School Catchment Area, Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), 2007 -2008. (4,193 of 4,406 students assessed) L.6r-j Orange g Chapman W % HEALTHY BODY COMPOSITION, 5th Graders p SCHOOL, 2007 -2008 School Year _ '.:, iapman Adams (57.6%) Garden Grove J Davis (49.5 %) Diamond (61.8 %) Edison (53.8 %) Esq ueda (48.5 %) Franklin (58.7 %) 22 0 co Fremont (64.9 %) Garfield (69.4 %) ~ m dr/r SANTIAG Harvey (67.1 %) U- Heninger (68.4 %) Hoover (70.5 %) I� th Jackson (57.9%) o � /FREMONT DAVIS Jefferson (53.6 %) WILSON Kennedy (55.5 %) �z King (53.2 %) ROMERO Lincoln (53.6 %) REMINGTO o / Lowell (60.2%) GARFIELD � �t Madison (51.7 %) Santa Ana HENINGER ROOSEVELT Martin (47.0 %) LINCOLN LOWELL Monroe (70.3 %) Monte Vista (59.6 %) KING PIO PICO WALKER Pio Pico (70.3 %) JACKSON MONTE VISTA RANKLI Remington (64.0 %) KENNEDY MARTIN Romero (59.9 %) `- .; DIAMOND MADISON Roosevelt (60.9 %) - - _ _ Santiago (62.4 %) HARVEY � Sepulveda (60.2 %) EPULVED Taft (62.1 %) J ESQUEDA EDISON Walker (60.4 %) Warner ADAMS TON Tusti n Washington (54.6 %) Wilson (51.8 %) - All SAUSD (59.5 %) ' Orange County (71.2 %) High: (Laguna Beach Unified, 87.0 %) TAF Low: (La Habra City Elementary, 57.5 %) California (68.4 %) I Sunflower NOTE: School labels on map denote � ® Sun _ catchment area, not school location. -7-a 7rfl e Oar Garf elc� did ROE - nt � irLgton Beach I Baker w,o N Costa Mesa Irvine W E Legend Parks /Open Space ■ SAUSD Elementary School Catchment Areas �► Mks 0.5 1 2 % Fifth Graders with Healthy Body Composition `�► 47.0-55.5 wport Beach Q55.6 -64.0 Q 64.1 - 70.5` Prepared by: Sources: Orange County Health Care Agency California Department of Education Public Health Services California Physical Fitness Test, 2007 -2008 Health Promotion Division Santa Ana Unified School District Travers Yoshio Ichinose, MS, MA Teleatlas tichinose @ochca.com Appendix D PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY French Is Santa Anita & Wildlife and Watershed O Adams ® Friendship m' Santiago ACabrillo Tennis Center Interpretive Center ® Angels Comm. (D Heritage ® Sarah May Downie ACorbin Center e © Birch Jerome Herb Garden AEI Salvador Community Performing Arts Center Q Bomo Koral Ward Recreation Supervisor ® Sasscer Center* . `n Z a Mabury ® Segerstrom Triangle A Jerome Rec. Center* Center O Centennial J) Jeannie Jurado Thornton ALogan Rec. Center ` ® Memorial ® Windsor AMemorial Rec. Center* e Santiago Cabin Campesino O2 Pearl Raya a Neal MachanderTennis e Santa Ana Zoo @ Chepa's ® Portola LA VETA AV. Center Prentice Park ® Anthony Novella Prentice Park � Monroe E. S A Salgado Rec. Center* —' —' 22 ® Riverview 55 a Santa Anita Rec Center* ® Jeannie Jurado GARDEN G BL. CORRGAN AV." Q ASandpointe Rec. Center R � ��K •`.. ■ _ ■- ■ '�' ® Saddleback View 4D Willard I.S. ® Donna Shultze nr, '!IN Centers with Pool �_._ g� PARKLN. SAN T = � 1 im Bike Trail 0-ITNT-ly-1 MN v~i ' _ _ o Larry Chavez L • — �.� w ■ • Q FAIRHAVEN AV. J V 22 • , z Z ■ LU I SANTA CLA �' ' A AV. � J Q O > I TRASK AV. � , "' Z J SANTA CLARA AV. I EDNA DR. IN ! r 17TH ST. H V) ' I I Z Fv ■ I • HAZARD AVE z �" _WASHINGTON AV. . Q (ON �wN� 5 Ln ■ �® o .� " O ", J ' Q Q ■ ROOSEVELT AVE 5TH ST. ¢ w CIVIC CE TER DR. FRUIT ST. L I ' 5TH ST. 6TH ST. N ® ¢ W ' SAN A ANA BL. 4TH ST. V LL LU z 1ST ST. 3 0 ' I Ln < °, a U Lnn Z n to NO : J u •" W ■ ■ r■ ■ ¢ Q w z J m z MYRTLE ST. Q >_ a = _ cc Q I- I L L' BISHOP ST. > Q 1 Q MONTH VISTA AV. 0 N ® 7 ■ co Q ® AV. I w z ® RICHLAND Z pC m ; L ; Z oC L Z ® r ■ _ a MCFADDEN AV. L' "' - ' LM MCFAD EN AV. ■ ■ .' - L LU LA VERNE AV. EDINGER AV. < Ln J Ln LU 1 V)— J Ln LU , = ,� O U LU 8- p Lu = z ; OC ST. ANDREW L L. PL. ,` ,' ` ENTENN AL G N. GLENWOOD PL d Z ; ST GERTRUDE PL. ST GERTRUDE PL. I Z Q • `^ WARNER AV. �P ADAMS AV. ; ■ �Q OQ 55 ' SEGERSTROM _; _R RD. to , w ALTON AV. _ ALTON AVE. do ALTON AV. -- 2L----------------------------------- Q - - - -- Z -------------- ------ `. U- I Q ;" ... MACARTHUR BL. c; ,z �a v 405 z ;' LL, LD ¢ • q�T ' SUNFLOWER AV. :; • N 01/2008 PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY French Is Santa Anita & Wildlife and Watershed O Adams ® Friendship m' Santiago ACabrillo Tennis Center Interpretive Center ® Angels Comm. (D Heritage ® Sarah May Downie ACorbin Center Godinez Gym & © Birch Jerome Herb Garden AEI Salvador Community Performing Arts Center Q Bomo Koral Lillie King ® Sasscer Center* e Santiago Lawn Bowling Q Cabrillo Mabury ® Segerstrom Triangle A Jerome Rec. Center* Center O Centennial Madison Thornton ALogan Rec. Center e Fisher Cabin Q Cesar Chavez ® Memorial ® Windsor AMemorial Rec. Center* e Santiago Cabin Campesino IS Morrison a Neal MachanderTennis e Santa Ana Zoo @ Chepa's ® Portola QD Godinez H.S. Center Prentice Park Q Delhi Prentice Park � Monroe E. S A Salgado Rec. Center* A Santa Ana Stadium 40 Eldridge ® Riverview Spurgeon I. S. a Santa Anita Rec Center* A Central Public Library OD Edna Rosita Valley H. S. - � Monte Vista E.S. ASandpointe Rec. Center e Newhope Library EI Salvador ® Saddleback View 4D Willard I.S. Santa Ana Senior Center nr, '!IN Centers with Pool ® Fisher n i n ®Sa dpo to ® Madison E.S. d Southwest Senior Center � 1 im Bike Trail 0-ITNT-ly-1 MN Appendix E Park Deficit Analysis Santa Ana-, California Chapman 0.25 0m5 7; Chapman LU o Garden Grove C2?) Edna park ----------- .................................... ytqtitminster t I A7 _j_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17th Council 7 ------------- District El Salvador a Council District Sas Angels Park Jerome Council District 4 Windsor,) 0 Council District 4 Edinger --------­-- Centennial 1 Regional I I Warner our i. Talbert Mac arthur anta..................... i A_ na River Ellis Chapman M 21 -C 0 Pa Tt:! Ia Park Po j! Council District 3 t�Counci,l District 3 17th a U French Park Mabury Park Ca i I lo-� b Park 4th Irvine 1st f Prentice Park' . ................ Z Madison Park ................................. .......... ae 7F) Baker sn Diego Creak 'ha"al N 0.25 0m5 1 Mile Legend Special thanks to the following data providers: Thomas Brothers, ESRI, and the CA Department City of Santa Ana Transportation Number of Park Acres This map shows the results of The Trust for Public Land's Park of Education THE Council District Boundary � Interstate per 1,000 Kids Deficit Model. The park deficit model calculates how many acres of Map created by The Trust for Public Land on October 3, 2006 'TRUST Parks and Open Space Highway 0.00- 0.50 park or open space exist per 1,000 children under the age of 18 Created in ESRI ArcMap 9.1® for Major Road 0.50-1.00 within city council districts. It then identifies those districts where Map Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane PUBLIC Local Road — Railroads 1.00-3.00 3.00 - 5.00 there is an insufficient amount of parkland. California V1 FIPS 0406 Feet TPL, Trust for Public Land, and The Trust for Public Land logo trademarks The Trust for Public Land. LAND 5.00-7.00 7.00-9.00 Appendix F are of Copyright © 2006 The Trust for Public Land. wivwtpl.org Information on this map is provided for purposes of discussion and visualization only.