B. QUALITATIVE: FOCUS
GROUPS FINDINGS
This qualitative section presents a review of findings by
TOS, Population categories, institutional capacity and charitable giving on the perceived
needs and funding priorities.
1. Types of Service Categories
Types is the United Way taxonomy of services. There are
twenty-four types of social services in the United Way taxonomy. They are divided into 4
general categories: Economic Services, Health Services, Social Human Services, and Public
Society Benefit. The services are provided to all racial and ethnic populations in the
County. In this report, race or ethnicity is mentioned only when a need or service stands
out as affecting a population in a particular way.
The funding allocation priorities described under each
cluster represents the choices made by participants. Participants in the County-wide group
and the Donors/Non-donors were asked about the top 4 funding allocation priorities from
among all 24 service programs. Each person selected the top four service programs in order
of priority. They also selected the service program that in their opinion had the least
priority from among the 24 service programs. Participants in the Filipino group
specifically requested to see the list of all the services and were asked to do the same
exercise. Service providers were asked about the funding allocation priorities of the
programs within their own service cluster or category.
Some participants, service providers and donor/non-donors,
managers in particular, expressed their concern about the different types of service. They
felt that the list of types of service reflect the problematic state of social services,
that services are too fragmented.
Economic Services:
- Basic Needs Services:
- Emergency Shelter/Food/Financial
- Assistance/Clothing(l)
- Housing Services (2)
- Transitional Shelter and Self-sufficiency Services (3)
- Employment Services (4)
- Legal Services (5)
This services category's broad social goals include optimal
provision of basic material needs for all individuals in society, optimal economic
opportunity and income security, and optimal level of individual and collective safety.
The services systems are thus geared to providing nutritious food, adequate apparel and
household goods, decent housing, secure income maintenance and support for the eligible
needy, provide gainful employment for all able and willing persons, and the protection of
persons and property and the administration of justice.
The service receiving the highest funding priority is Basic
Needs Services (1) followed by Employment Services (4); Housing Services (2);
Transitional Shelter and Self-sufficiency Services (3); and legal Services (5).
According to service providers, the economic services are
needed by persons who fall under the poverty level; many belong to ethnic and racial
minorities. The number of Hispanics using the services has increased, many are immigrants.
But economic services is not only a racial, ethnic or an immigrant issue, women and
children in general are also in need. The need for these services is county wide.
The areas where the need for these services seems to be
most acute are the following: (1) East Palo Alto, (2) Redwood City, (3) Daly City and (4)
San Mateo.
Basic Needs Services (1) were chosen by the majority
of participants in the agency group, the county-wide group and the donor/non-donor groups
as having top funding priority. The objective is to have the basic needs always available;
it is considered an essential service for everyone.
Among agency representatives, some felt that allocating
funds to short term solutions does not solve the basic problem; the focus should be on
prevention and solution of the problem. These participants tended to choose Employment
Services (4) and Housing Services (2) as funding priorities. Other agency
participants felt that their clients needed short term needs met first; if they are
starving, they cannot work or think about housing and employment.
Among county-wide and donor/non-donors participants, Employment
Services (4) was considered a higher funding priority than Housing Services (2).
An overwhelming number of participants in the
donor/non-donor groups and some participants in the agency group and the county-wide group
felt that Legal Services (5) had the least funding priority of all the types
of service. Some participants in the donor/non-donor groups said that lawyers should
provide the services free.
Health Services:
- Physical Health-Treatment, Prevention & Research (6)
- Mental Health-Crisis Intervention/Counseling (7)
- Mental Health-Residential Treatment Services (8)
- Mental Health-Non-Residential Group Treatment Services (9)
- Alcohol/Drug Abuse Treatment & Services (10)
- Adult Day Health Care (11)
- Health Support Services (12)
- Health Education/Training (13)
This services category's broad social goal is the
attainment of an optimal level of well being for all individuals. The services systems are
thus geared to the promotion and maintenance of health, treatment, and where feasible,
cure of diseases, and rehabilitation of the handicapped.
The type of service receiving the highest funding priority
was Alcohol/Drug Abuse Treatment & Services (10) followed by Mental Health-Crisis
Intervention/Counseling (7), Mental Health-Residential Treatment Services (8), and
Physical Health-Treatment, Prevention & Research (6).
Alcohol/Drug Abuse Treatment & Services (10) was
the type of service given one of the highest funding priorities by both agency
representatives and county-wide representatives. Donor/non-donor groups also ranked it
high. Most participants tended to agree that the alcohol abuse problem is wide spread; it
is a problem affecting all socioeconomic classes and ethnic/racial groups.
Mental Health-Crisis Intervention/Counseling (7) and
Mental Health-Residential Treatment Services (8) were both
ranked after Alcohol/Drug Abuse Treatment & Services (10) by the agency
representatives. Some participants felt that the mental health problems and the abuse of
alcohol and drugs were closely related. By providing these services, the number of people
on the streets and the occurrence of home violence, for example, could be reduced. Also
needed is education about mental illness.
Physical Health Treatment (6) was mentioned as a
priority by some donor/non-donor participants as a need, because without health it is not
possible to have a productive life. Another reason is the increase in the population that
cannot afford health services and medical insurance.
In contrast, the general opinion among service providers
was that it should not be the role of social services agencies to provide Physical
Health Treatment (6). Certain programs are very well funded by other sources. AIDS
programs, for example, are considered to be well funded by the federal government and
organizations such as the Ryan White Foundation.
The need for Health Education/Training (13) was
mentioned by a very few. The service would include public education about mental illness.
Due to the increase in the number of people with mental health problems and the
misunderstandings people have about it, the need is to increase awareness and knowledge
about mental illness. The service would also target students of different ages with the
objective of preventing certain behaviors such as drug use.
The other services listed under the health services
category were seldom selected as a funding priority by either the agency representatives,
the county-wide representatives, or the donor/non-donors. These services are Adult Day Health
Care (11) and Health Support Services (12).
A few 65 + participants mentioned the need for Adult Day
Health Care (11) as a service needed by the elderly.
Social/Human Services:
- Child Day Care (14)
- Adoption & Foster Care Services (15)
- Youth Development Services (16)
- Companionship Services (17)
- Elder Adult Day Care/Development Services (18)
- Adult Development Services (19)
- Tutoring Services/English Language Training/Literacy
Training (20)
This services category's broad social goal is to enable
individuals to function in society at the optimal level of their capacities and potential.
This involves provision of opportunities for personal development of the individual,
opportunities for self-fulfillment and his or her social functioning at home, among
friends and acquaintances at work, at play, and in the larger community in general. The
services systems are thus geared to preserving and strengthening individual and family
life and to creating and promoting conditions conducive to personal growth. Thus enabling
individuals to lead a personally satisfying, enriching and socially useful life, in
harmony with family, friends, colleagues, and in peaceful coexistence with fellow human
beings.
Overall, Youth Development Services (16) were
considered a top priority by both agency representatives, county-wide representatives, and
donor/non-donors.
Most participants in one of the donor/non-donor groups
comprised of managers ranked both Child Day Care (14) and Youth Development
Services (16) as top priorities. These participants were at a childbearing age or were
active volunteers in activities involving children. In contrast, agency representatives
gave Child Day Care (14) a low funding priority because it is funded by the
government.
Adult Development Services (19) were given the next
highest funding priority, after Youth Development Services (16), by agency
representatives. Yet it received the lowest funding priority of all by several
county-wide representatives; it was ignored by the donor/non-donor groups.
Most agency participants thought that Tutoring
Services/English Language Training/Literacy Training (20) is a type of issue
and service schools deal with; schools are also funded to provide the service.
Several donor/non-donor and county-wide participants ranked
Companionship Services (17) as having the least funding priority of all.
Adoption & Foster Care Services (15) were given
a low funding priority by a few agency representatives. They were considered a higher
priority by a few donor/non-donor group participants.
Elder Adult Day Care/Development Services
(18) were not considered a high funding priority. Nevertheless, it was observed by
a few that the elderly population is increasing; it is sometimes poor and diverse.
A few agency participants thought that both Child Day
Care (14) and Adoption and Foster Care Services (15) are funded by the
government.
Overall, the high ranking received by both Youth
Development Services (16) and Child Day Care (14) is due to an
overwhelming concern of all the participants for the well being of our youth. The
objective of funding these two services is to prevent children from getting into trouble:
drugs, gangs, dropping-out, etc.
Public/Society Benefit.
- Advocacy/Public Education (21)
- Information & Referral/Social Services Access (22)
- Community Organization/Services Coordination (23)
- Volunteer Services (24)
This category's goal is the achievement of an optimal
degree of assurance for the maintenance and effective and efficient delivery of human
service programs as needed. The development of new programs is in response to current and
future needs through organized social and political action. The services systems are thus
geared to the social and political mobilization of people, the development of human and
material resources and organizational capacity building, and the enhancement of services
effectiveness.
Most agency representatives felt that a greater percentage
of funds should go to Advocacy/Public Education (21) and Community
Organization/Services Coordination (23) than to either of the other two types
of service. They seemed to agree that education is necessary. Teens, for example, need
classes about pregnancy and parenting; the objective would be to reduce the pregnancy rate
among teens and increase the number of teens continuing their education. For Black/African
Americans, for example, health prevention education could be about health problems that
are specific to their community.
Community Organization/Services Coordination (23) was
considered essential to effectively delivering the services the community needs.
Information & Referral/Social Services Access (22) was
thought to merit very little money or nothing at all by the agency representatives. They
felt that if someone needs information they would get it one way or another. Volunteer
Services (24) was also considered a type of service that should receive very little
funds, if any. |