MSIC Cohort presents updates on and recommendations for IMC's 2019 Community Needs & Aspirations Assessment

1. Community Needs and Aspirations Assessment
Summer 2019
July 24, 2019

2. Student Team
Introduction
Middlebury Social Impact Corps
(MSIC)
2
First cohort of MSIC working in the
Monterey area
MIIS Graduate Students
● Emily Hoang & Adam Schreiber
Middlebury College Undergraduates
● Nina Cruz, Jayla Johnson, Mollie
Smith & Ben Yamron
Primary Goal: support the IMC
2019 Assessment

3. Assessment
Methodology
3
● Key Informant Interviews
(KI)
● Community Conversations
(CC)
● Online/paper Surveys (youth
and adult versions)
+
● In-person outreach
throughout the county
(including libraries)

4. ● Insert Text Here
Key Informant
Interviews
12 interviews conducted 6/24–7/24
4 additional interviews scheduled
7/24–8/1
All interviews were recorded
4
Common Themes
Unaffordability
● Housing, low wages
Intersecting Problems
● Requires a systems approach
Marginalization of certain groups
● Leads to fear and isolation
16 Key Informants

5. ● Insert Text Here
12
Community
Conversations
Total of 7 conversations, 85
participants between 6/24–7/24
5 additional conversations
scheduled between 7/30–8/24
5
Community
Conversations
Successes
● Reaches lower-income participants
● Non-English speakers
Challenges
● Time-intensive to schedule and
complete
● Requires trained facilitators

6. Needs and
Aspirations
Survey
1,110 recorded responses as of
July 19
708 (adult) + 76 (youth) completed
surveys as of July 19
Promotion strategies
● Email blasts, social media, in person
outreach, library tabling
Successes
● Over 1,000 responses prior to HS
dissemination
● Geographic distribution
Challenges
● Survey length is a barrier
● Paper versions must be distributed and
collected 6
1,110 Survey
Responses

7. 92 social media
respondents through
22
word of
mouth
respondents
heard via
2
flyers
respondents through
an organization
“I am part of”
respondents heard from
86
412
email from IMC
Respondents from
58 other...
respondents through JANE PARKER
LIBRARY Hartnell
College
Guardian
Scholars
Program
CASP
Neighborhood Association
How respondents found
out about the survey
7

8. Demographics
Income, Education, & Location Distribution
8

9. 9
Actual Census Data:
● 51.8% Male
● 48.2% Female
Source: factfinder.census.gov
Age/Gender
605
Female
respondents identified as
(72.6%)
228 Male
respondents identified as
(27.4%)
Age
Survey
Responses Census Data
Under 35 16.60% 23.60%
35-45 years 20.10% 15.40%
45-54 years 18.60% 12.30%
55-59 years 11.30% 4.00%
60-64 years 10.80% 3.10%
65-74 years 15.80% 5.30%
75-84 years 5.80% 3.50%
85+ years 0.90% 1.20%

10. Race # of Respondents
American Indian/
Alaskan Native
19 (3%)
Asian 45 (6%)
Black/African American 23 (3%)
Native Hawaiian 19 (1%) 10
282Hispanic/Latino
Identified as
553(80%)
White
Identified as
Actual Census Data for Monterey County:
White: 65%
Hispanic/latino: 58%
Source: factfinder.census.gov
Racial & Ethnic Identifiers
175
9-20 years
Respondents have lived in
Monterey County for
(41%)
561
20 years
Respondents have lived in
Monterey County for
more than
(81%) (25%)

11. Net Income # of Respondents
<$25,000 35 (5%)
$25,000 - $49,999 90 (13%)
$50,000-$74,999 143 (21%)
$75,000-$99,000 114 (16%) 11
149>$150,000
(21%)
respondents had a net-income
Countywide median household income (2017):
$63,249
Source: factfinder.census.gov
Income
(survey respondents vs. countywide)172
$100k-$149,999
(25%)
respondents had a net-income
between
<$24,999 24%
$25,000-$49,999 22.5%
$50,000-$74,999 19%
$75,000-$99,999 13.6%
$100,000-$150,000 15.2%
>$150,000 13.7%

12. 12
253
Bachelor’s Degree
respondents earned a
241 Master’s Degree
respondents earned a
Education Level # of Respondents
No HS Diploma 2 (0.2%)
HS Diploma/ GED 47 (6.8%)
Trade School / Certificate 22 (3.2%)
College Credit, No Diploma 139 (20%)
Associate Degree 87 (12.5%)
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher:
● Actual Census Data: 23.9%
● Our Survey Respondents: 75%
Source: factfinder.census.gov
Education
(36.4%)
(34.6%)

13. 13
231 Parent/Guardian
Respondents were a
6-18 years
had children ages
179
55
0-2
years
had children
ages
66 3-5 Years
Respondents had children
Parent/Guardian
Actual Census Data:
35% are parent/guardian of
child(ren) under 18
Source: factfinder.census.gov
(33.2%) (9.5%)
(25.8%)
(8%)

14. Salinas had the largest
number of survey
respondents
14
Location

15. 15
Survey Completion by Zip Code

16. 16
95012: Prunedale, Castroville, Elkhorn Slough
Libraries
Libraries we visited:
Monterey *
Seaside *
Carmel Valley *
Pacific Grove
John Steinbeck (Salinas) *
Prunedale *
Castroville
Greenfield
King City
Gonzales
San Ardo
Big Sur
César Chávez (Salinas)
Soledad
San Lucas
high potential
but many barriers

17. Team Reflection
17

18. Week 1 & 2
CPTED Training
CAT Meeting
NFCCC Meeting
Walking tours of
Monterey and
Salinas
June 4,
2019
Week 3
2020 Census Meetings
Gonzales City Council
Monterey City Council
Marina City Council
CASP
Stuff the Bus Kick-off
Blue Ribbon Task Force
Rancho Cielo
Seaside City Council
Elder Justice Summit
*Email Blast
June 17,
2019
Week 4
Census Meeting
KI Interview #1
CC #1
KI Interview #2
KI Interview #3
KI Interview #4
Blue Zones
Volunteering
June 24,
2019
Week 5
KI Interview #5
Salinas City
Council
South County
Outreach #1
KI Interview # 6
CC #2
July 1,
2019
Week 6
KI Interview #7
Seaside Library
CC #3
South County
Outreach #2
North County
Outreach
July 7,
2019
Week 7
Carmel Valley
Library Outreach
Steinbeck Library
Outreach
CASP
Blue Ribbon Task
Force
KI Interview #8
KI Interview #9
KI Interview #10
July
15,
2019
18

19. What have we learned?
19
Reflection
Outsider Perspective:
● Benefits of connections, trust, & collaboration in community
○ In- person conversations
○ Library outreach & Key informant interviews
Experiential Education:
● Personal outcomes & opportunities
○ Managed & facilitated multiple successful community
conversations

20. 20
Gaps & Challenges
Survey
● High barriers to participation (length and format)
● Can unintentionally exclude less privileged groups
Community Conversations
● Labor intensive, typically relies on support from network partners
Lack of name recognition
● Challenging to explain IMC’s work and 2015 assessment history
Geography
● Cross-county travel is time-consuming and expensive

21. 21
Recommendations
● Survey design
● Outreach and promotion
● Breadth vs. depth