Building a Community: Affordable Family-Friendly Housing in Emeryville Policy Report: City/Schools Committee

5/5/2010 Homayra Yusufi Master of Public Policy 2011 Goldman School of Public Policy (GSPP) University of California, Berkeley

Advanced Policy Analysis

1

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES MERCED RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ

RICHARD & RHODA GOLDMAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY 2607 HEARST AVENUE

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720-7320

TEL: (510) 642-4670 FAX: (510) 643-9657 URL: http://gspp.berkeley.edu/

The author conducted this study as part of the program of professional education at the Goldman

School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley. This paper is submitted in partial

fulfillment of the course requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree. The judgments and

conclusions are solely those of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Goldman

School of Public Policy, the University of California, or any other agency.

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary………………..……………………………………………………………….……………………………….…..2 Recommendations.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Recommendation 1…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Recommendation 2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Recommendation 3…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Recommendation 4…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 District Specific Recommendations.…………………………….…………………………………………………………….4 Looking Ahead- Further Areas of Research…………..…………………………………………………………………….4

Housing and Education………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 How the Housing Crisis Affects Education—And Vice Versa…………………………………………………………..6 Indirect costs to lack of affordable housing: Housing and Community……………………….…………………..7

Residential Mobility………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….......8 School Mobility……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..9 Overcrowding…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......10 Quality of housing………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………10 School Climate………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………10 Understanding the Landscape………………………………………………………………………………………….………….12 City of Emeryville……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………12 Emery Unified School District (EUSD)……………………………………………………………………………………………13

City/Schools Collaboration…………………………….…………………………………………………………………………….15 Emeryville Center of Community Life (ECCL) …………………………………………………………………………..…..15 Current Status of Housing……………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 Affordability of housing: National and Regional Trends……………………………………………………………....17 Lack of affordability in Emeryville………………………………………………………………………………………………..18 Decreasing the burden of cost……………………….…………………………………………………………………………….20 Lack of family friendly housing……………………….……………………………………………………………………….……21 Community Development……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………23

Enrollment Rates and Mobility…………..…………….………………………………………………………………….………25 Yearly Attrition rare for EUSD……………………………………………………………………………………………………...28 Pending status of RDA………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….29 Recommendations…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………..30

Recommendation 1………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………….30 Recommendation 2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31 Recommendation 3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….34 Recommendation 4……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….34 District Specific Recommendations.…………………………….………………………………………………………..…36 Recommendation 1…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…36 Recommendation 2………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….…36 Recommendation 3………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….…36

Conclusion: Next steps…….………………………………….....………………………………………………………….…….…38 References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…...39

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….45 Appendix A: ECDC Survey…………………………………………………………………………………………………….………45

Appendix B: Further case studies………………………………………………………………………………………….……..46

3

Executive Summary

There is a lack of affordable family-friendly housing in the city of Emeryville, resulting in a

proportionally low number of families with children as compared to households with no children. The

number of families with children only constitutes 7% of the total Emeryville population, as compared to

the 33% national average.1 There are numerous negative effects to the lack of families in a city. Families

with children are an essential component to having a community with a strong sense of identity and

vitality. Further, literature states that households without school-aged children have higher rates of

transiency.2 These individuals are often attracted to the luxury studios and single bedroom

condos/apartments in Emeryville that are located in a prime location that is neighboring San Francisco

Berkeley, and Oakland.3 However, data shows that once these individuals begin to have children, they

leave Emeryville because the housing developments do not meet the housing needs of growing families.4

The lack of affordable family-friendly housing goes beyond housing policy. It greatly affects

enrollment and educational outcomes of students in Emery Unified School District (EUSD). This is not

particular to Emeryville however; there is a considerable amount of research that demonstrates a strong

link between housing and education. The lack of a stable home that accommodates the needs of a

growing family may contribute to high mobility rates amongst students and can have negative effects on

their academic achievement. The negative impacts of the lack of adequate housing can be seen in Emery

Unified School District in that the district has considerably high attrition rates, which are constantly

substituted by incoming inter-district transfers. This causes instability within the classroom. Due to the

small size of the district, this greatly affects the district‘s overall academic performance. Without

adequate housing that accommodates the needs of families and encourages a strong sense of community,

it will be difficult for the district to increase enrollment and improve academic outcomes.

The city and the district have come together to develop an innovative collaboration between the two

entities in the development of the Emeryville Center of Community Life. The collaborative nature of this

project has brought together various interests and stakeholders to define the goals of the community and

work together towards building a sustainable future for Emeryville. Housing policies have not yet been a

part of the joint city/schools discussion of building a strong and sustainable community, but is essential to

its development. The city and district must understand the link between housing and education and thus

work together to develop housing that accommodates the needs of families with children in Emeryville.

4

The following recommendations would increase the ties between the City and the District in

developing a more equitable, diverse and sustainable Emeryville. I have also looked nationally at cities

that have taken major steps towards improving educational outcomes through developing innovative

housing strategies and provide examples within my recommendations. The criterion used to make these

policy recommendations are increasing equity, improving student outcomes (mobility, attendance, and

student achievement), increasing enrollment, and greatening political and economic feasibility.

Recommendation 1: Establish a joint commitment by the City and the District to work towards

creating a greater sense of community and identity for Emeryville residents. This is established

through prioritizing key factors that affect community cohesion and equity like affordable family-

friendly housing.

Recommendation 2: The City and District should work together to create guidelines for affordable

family friendly housing that provides minimum standards for developers as well as sets limits in

pricing for renters that are most vulnerable to burden of cost in Emeryville.

Recommendation 3: The City should work to increase incentives for developers to create affordable

housing in Emeryville.

Recommendation 4: The City should amend inclusionary zoning policies to require minimum 20%

family-friendly units for all new housing developments.

District Specific Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The District should be at the forefront of advocating for family friendly policies

within the city and positioning the schools as the center of the community.

Recommendation 2: The District should proactively work to increase enrollment by strengthening

ties between EUSD and partners such as the Emeryville Child Development Center and Headstart.

Recommendation 3: The District should maintain more comprehensive and cohesive data. This

should be achieved through developing better forms of analysis that would quantitatively capture the

changes that are currently occurring in the district.

Looking Ahead- Further Areas for research

• Economic feasibility study of the types of incentives for developers that would generate the

highest yields of affordable family friendly housing (city).

• Survey commuter population to develop understanding of this large population and their housing

needs (city).

5

• Conduct demographic and market study predicting the possible effects of increased competition

of surrounding schools, as well as the development of Emeryville Center of Community Life on

academic achievement and enrollment rates at Emery Unified School District (district).

6

The link between housing and education

How the Housing Crisis Affects Education--and Vice Versa

There is a considerable amount of literature that looks at non-school factors involved in student

achievement. It is important to recognize that there are many factors that affect a student‘s ability to

succeed academically. One major factor in this discussion is the importance of housing on education.5

Housing is often the largest portion of household‘s expenditures and therefore plays a significant role in

the lives of families and their financial sustainability. By definition, housing is affordable if it accounts

for no more than 30% of a family‘s total income.6 Therefore, households that spend more than 30% of

their income on housing costs are burdened by housing costs.7 Families who are below the official

poverty line are eligible for governmental assistance. However, many working families still struggle to

find affordable housing that meets the needs of their families. Many families face ―shelter poverty‖

meaning that they are households that are burdened by housing costs so much so that they cannot afford

to pay other needs. By this definition, larger families as well as renters often face higher rates of shelter

poverty.8 This is particularly an issue in urban communities in which low-income families are pushed

out of the city due to high property values and rental prices.

Looking at the issue holistically, a study by Jeffrey Lubell and Maya Brennan titled, ―Framing the

Issues- the Positive Impacts of Affordable Housing on Education‖ reports several positive effects of

affordable family-friendly housing on education9. The study finds that stable, affordable housing may

reduce the number of unwanted moves that cause students to change schools. Further, enabling families

to afford adequately sized homes prevents overcrowding which has negative developmental and

educational outcomes for children. Also, well-constructed and maintained affordable housing improves

the health and safety of children and reduce the number of homeless families with children. Finally,

affordable family-friendly housing that housing development and rehabilitation can contribute to overall

community revitalization which strengthens the sense of a community and invests in education of

children.

Recent literature looks at the main linkage points between housing and education and the effects of

housing on the individual student, the school, and the community as a whole. I will be discussing the

7

negative impacts of residential mobility, school mobility, overcrowding, and the lack of quality housing

on student achievement and community development.

Indirect costs to lack of affordable housing: Housing and Community

There is a great deal of evidence that correlates the quality and availability housing with the

economic and racial composition of a community. Studies have shown that low-performing schools are

more likely to be in low-income urban communities. Low-income communities tend to have a higher rate

of minorities (specifically black and Latino) and live in highly segregated communities. Studies show

that only 5% of white students attend high poverty concentration schools. Therefore, low-income schools

face segregation that is interlinked with race and economic status. Schools with high concentrations of

students of color often serve high concentrations of poverty. Since these low-income schools are in poor

neighborhoods, they often have fewer resources including lack of academic offerings, fewer resources,

overcrowded conditions, less experienced teachers, and high turnover of teachers.10

The communities

therefore often lack the resources to improve their schools let alone the overall community issues that

affect student achievement.

The correlation between housing and education run both ways. While housing affects educational

outcomes, schools can also play a central role in improving neighborhood environments and revitalizing

the entire community. The quality of public schools within a neighborhood is essential to the

neighborhood‘s vitality. The quality of education is most often measured by test scores, which are

affected by other factors including condition of school facilities, quality of teachers, attendance rates and

support services.11

Demonstrating the importance of schools, the 2000 Millennium survey conducted by

the American Planning Association/ American Institute of Certified Planners asked voters of suburbs and

small to medium cities what would lead them to live in a more urban setting, and better schools ranked

first on their list. Another survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California demonstrated that

schools were the third most important factor of which neighborhoods the respondents chose to live.12

There are many indirect costs to the lack of affordable housing that affect the vitality of a

community. A strong community is measured based on its access to quality schools, employment

opportunities, as well as the level of safety and health within the neighborhoods. The two primary cited

social costs to a community from lack of affordable housing are education and health care.13

These issues

are particularly difficult for ―working poor‖ families that are not able to attain governmental assistance. It

is further exacerbated for renters that often times fact additional costs associated with leasing such a

nonrefundable deposits and inability to establish credit. For these families, the latent costs of housing

have detrimental effects to their quality of life.14

Therefore, the lack of safe, adequate and affordable

housing can lower the strength and vitality of the community as a whole.

8

Residential mobility

A major factor involved in housing is the quantity and affordability of housing. Affordability

greatly affects residential and school mobility. Research demonstrates that there are many reasons for

mobility. The ‗cycle of mobility‖ is life events that often encourage an individual or family to move such

as marriage, children, stable jobs, etc. Upward mobility is a positive form of mobility in which

households move to homes that better accommodate the needs of the individual/family.15

These forms of

moves are often interregional moves in which the family moves to a better neighborhood or region.

Families and children often benefit from upward mobility in which families may experience economic

growth, improved quality of life, better schools, and other positive outcomes.16

However, this is not the case for the majority of residential moves, particularly in low-income

communities. Studies have found that all else being held equal, residential moves that stem from housing

or household instability have a negative impact on education.17

Residential moves within low-income

minority communities are most often within the same region, and do not generally change patterns of

living and are usually within the same labor and housing market. Such moves are most often due to the

need of more space for growing families and/or to lack of affordability and are more typical amongst

lower-income families.18

Schafft states that for economically vulnerable families, moves are not

generally due to ―moving up‖, but more often unplanned and unpredictable moves that result in ―broken

social ties and interrupted academic experiences.‖ 19

Evidence demonstrates that the lack of affordable family-friendly housing is seen as a primary

reason for the high mobility amongst low-income families. This is because the lack of affordability often

forces low-income families to move into cheaper housing. Most moves that are made due to affordability

are within the same jurisdiction, meaning that families generally stay within low-income communities.20

These forms of mobility are also affected by job instability of parents, lack of housing, mobile lifestyles,

and behavioral problems. Children whose families have difficulty finding stable housing are more likely

to be mobile. The Current Population Survey in 2000 found that over half of the respondents chose

housing related issues as their reasons for moving. While some are positive moves such as home

ownership and moving to more stable housing, an estimated 2.3 million moves were made in 1999 due to

the lack of affordability of housing.21

The lack of affordable housing may have many negative effects on the health and development of

the student that then translates to negative student achievement. For example, students with high mobility

often experience psychological issues such as low self-esteem, difficulty in acquiring new friends, lower

level of involvement in school activities, and feeling less self-directed control of their lives. Further, the

quality of parenting may be influenced by the housing in which the family resides because appropriate

9

housing gives parents a sense of control, choice and well-being which support parenthood. On the other

hand, parents that lack control over housing may experience a limit in their sense of choice and control

and ―children who live in housing that is inadequate for their needs may have a distinct handicap in the

struggle to escape from social disadvantage and the cycle of poverty.‖22

Translating academically, evidence demonstrates that students who are transient have a much

higher chance of dropping out of school and repeating a grade.23

24

Research also shows that residential

mobility may have negative impacts on attendance rates. A study by Dunn, Kadane and Garrow found

that students with higher mobility have higher levels of absent days throughout the school year.25

A

study by Schuler found that mobile students performed lower on math and reading test scores as well as

had more academic problems.26

Further making this evident, a study by the Kids Mobility Project found

that the average reading scores for students who moved three or more times were half those of student

who did not move. In this study, families reported the lack of affordability, safety and adequate housing

as a major reason for moves.27

The more a family moves, the more likely they are to become ―hyper-

mobile‖ in which students have extremely unstable housing environments and have the greatest academic

impairment.‖ Therefore, the effects of mobility are detrimental to student achievement in both the short

and long-term.28

School mobility

The practice of students making non-promotional school changes is referred to as student

mobility.29

High rates of school mobility is also often due to housing. This is when families move and

enroll their children in different schools. One study found that 30 percent of the poorest children had

attended at least three different schools by third grade.30

This negatively impacts the transient students‘

ability to succeed academically because through every move they must change teachers, curriculum and

classmates. Thus, transient students are more likely to repeat grades, not receive special education, and

do less well on standardized tests than stable students.31

Schools in low-income communities have higher attrition rates and constant influx of students.

This not only negatively affects the performance of the students coming in and out of the schools; it also

negatively impacts their classmates. This is because it is difficult to create a cohesive school climate and

greatly hinders the ability of teachers to teach effectively within the classroom. Teachers often have to

assist new students, and must backtrack and reteach information to new students who are lagging behind.

This causes less individualized attention to other students as well as slows down the entire class.32

A

highly mobile student body is also shown to be a cause of teacher burnout, which causes high turn-over of

teachers in low-income urban schools.33

Overcrowding

10

Another adverse effect to lack of affordable family-friendly housing that greatly affects student

achievement is overcrowding. Overcrowding is defined as more than two persons-per-room in a dwelling

unit. When families can no longer afford payments, they often choose to live with family or friends to

reduce costs. Figure 1 shows that minorities tend to have higher rates of overcrowding. This form of

housing-related stress can have many developmentally negative effects on students who do not have

adequate space and resources.34

Source: ICF International analysis of AHS data35

Quality of housing

The quality of housing plays a significant role in student achievement. Poor-quality housing is

common in low-income urban neighborhoods, which has numerous costs for families, especially their

children. Some common issues in poor housing include inadequate heat, lack of air-conditioning,

inoperable plumbing, rodent infestation, and lead poisoning. These conditions adversely affect children‘s

lives and their academic development by hindering their ability to learn. Research shows that stable and

quality housing can help foster good parenting by providing parents with a sense of control, choice, and

well-being. Further, well-constructed, maintained, and managed affordable housing can help families

address many health hazards, namely lead poisoning and asthma that can negatively impact student

learning.36

School Climate

A sustainable and positive school climate is essential to youth development and their ability to learn in

school. The National School Climate Council states that school climate includes norms, values, and

expectations that support people feeling socially, emotionally and physically safe. It is fostered through

sustained engagement and respect by students, families and educators to develop a shared vision of

11

common goals and expectations.37

There is a substantive amount of literature that demonstrates the

importance of school climate to academic success and quality of life of students.

Unstable and inadequate housing may have negative effects on school climate. The Educational

Consequences of Mobility for California Students and Schools states that a cost to mobility that school

personal have identified is that it negatively impacts the school climate. Schools that suffer from high

attrition often times don‘t have a strong school climate and culture.38

Teachers and school personnel have

a difficult time assessing the needs of students and have difficulty creating strong positive relationships

because of the constant change in the student body. Further affecting school climate is unsafe

environments. Schools in low-income neighborhoods often suffer from higher crime rates that infiltrate

into the school and affect the student climate. Feeling safe is essential to neighborhoods in that it is

directly linked to student learning and healthy development.39

12

Understanding the Landscape of Emeryville

The City of Emeryville

Emeryville is a small city, just 1.2 square mile bordering San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley.

The population of Emeryville is just over 10,000 with a workforce of about twenty-two thousand daily

commuters. Geographically, ethnically and economically segregated, the city faces many of the same

issues as many large urban cities throughout the bay area. The west side of the city has experienced a

great deal of commercial and residential growth over the past decade. This area holds the city‘s

governmental offices, police and fire department, as well as large high tech industry and retail

developments. The east side is populated by a more historic community of residents that are mostly low-

income minority families.40

The city of Emeryville has experienced massive growth over the past 30 years. The City

government has taken a leading role in growth and development through the Redevelopment Agency

(RDA) which has undertaken major redevelopment projects to revitalize brownfields and develop a more

livable, vibrant, and sustainable city. The work included massive environmental cleanup and chemical

waste projects to make the previous industrial zones more attractive to residential and commercial

developers. Due to these efforts, there was a 40% increase in population between 1970 and 1980s.

These demographics have continued to increase to the current residential population of about ten

thousand. Commercial industries have also greatly increased, with large businesses including Pixar,

Novartis, Bayer, Leapfrog, and Ikea. Due to the vast economic growth as well as the location of the city

which is neighboring San Francisco and Berkeley, the city is expected to continue to grow exponentially

within the next thirty years.41

Figure 2: General Plan Development Buildout Potential

Existing (2008) Buildout (2030) Percent Change

Population 9,727 16,600 71%

Housing Units 5,988 9,800 64%

Jobs 20,552 30,000 46%

13

Emery Unified School District (EUSD)

The Emery Unified School District is a small district containing only two schools, Anna Yates

Elementary School and Emery Secondary School with a total population of just under 800. Anna Yates is

currently a kindergarten through sixth grade and Emery Secondary School serves 7th grade through 12

th

grade1. The majority of students are reported as free or reduced lunch (80%) and 99% are racial

minorities.42

As of 2010/2011 school year, the demographics are 55% African American, 8% Asian, 1%

Filipino, 1% Pacific Islander, and only 4% white. These demographics vary greatly racially and

economically with the overall city population which is 45% white, 25% Asian population.43

Further, 17%

of total households in Emeryville are extremely and very low income.44

Total enrollment for the district in fall 2010 was 780. This has slightly decreased since 2007 which

had 822 students, and 2001/2002 school year which had 991 students enrolled. There are many reasons

behind the fluctuating enrollment rates.45

One commonly cited reason is the bankruptcy and mistrust in

the district‘s ability to manage the schools financially. Fluctuating test scores have been another

important factor. However, there has been a marginal increase in test scores within the past few years as

well as relative stability in management. As the table below demonstrates, district test scores in the

Academic Performance Index (API) increased from 589 in 2002 to 671 in 2008.46

It is essential for

EUSD to maintain stable enrollment rates to sustain funding and to improve test scores. Since enrollment

is linked to school funding, Emeryville must enroll at capacity in order to maintain its funding from the

government. Further, there is significant evidence that demonstrates stable enrollment rates is essential to

increasing test scores.47

Figure 3: API Scores 2002-2010

Year Score (EUSD)

2010 709

2009 706

2008 671

2007 656

2006 671

2005 665

2004 627

2003 559

2002 589

1 This will be changing as of fall 2011 in which Anna Yates will become a K-8

th in preparation for the

development of the new facilities.

14

City/Schools Collaboration

The City and the district have recognized that establishing a high achieving school district is essential to

creating a strong sense of community in Emeryville. However, improving student outcomes includes

more than what happens inside the classroom. Students are affected by their environments, and

particularly in urban cities where many societal issues such as poverty enter the classroom and effect

students‘ abilities to succeed. Due to this reality, it is necessary to take a holistic approach of looking at

student outcomes and how to improve them. This requires the City and District to not only align missions

and goals but also make sufficient commitment of resources.

The City of Emeryville and Emery Unified School District have been working at various degrees of

engagement to align goals and serve the need of Emeryville residents through their partnership. Former

superintendent Tony Smith described the motivations for this collaboration as, ―We began talking about

the linkage between children and families and the schools, and a healthy city and a vibrant sustainable

city – that city and community services and schools are not to be disconnected.‖ 48

Starting as a small

committee discussing possible areas of partnership, the committee has continued to strengthen their bonds

over the past decade.

Emeryville Center of Community Life (ECCL)

Through a decade of collaboration, the city and school district have been working together to develop

the Emeryville Center of Community Life (ECCL). ECCL will hold two new school facilities for the

elementary and secondary schools as well as a joint-use recreation center, community health and service

support centers, and a community library. This joint-venture is jointly funded and governed by the city

and the district.

The ECCL is at the forefront of school and city reform that takes from several initiatives including

Smart Growth and the Community Schools models. The project is based on Smart Growth policies that

focus on efficient models of building in densely populated cities. It utilizes joint- use facilities that best

serve the diverse needs of the community to increase regional equity. It also includes features from the

community schools movement. This model emphasizes the need for cities and schools to work together

cohesively in creating the school as the center for community life. Therefore, resources and services that

are traditionally dispersed throughout the city and often competing for membership and funds are brought

together in one place establishing the school as the hub of services for the community. This is done

through assessing the needs of the communities and working with various county, city, and community

organizations to establish the corresponding supports.49

These forms of ―schools as centers of

community‖ models have been made most popular recently with the Harlem Children‘s Zone and

15

President Obama‘s Promise Neighborhoods Initiative and is supported by innovative groups including

Building Education Success together (BEST), 21st Century School Fund, American Architectural

Foundation‘s Great Schools by Design Initiative as well as federal grants for Promise Neighborhoods.50

ECCL has taken from these models to create a unique center that is applauded by the Center for

Cities and Schools, a research institute located at UC Berkeley that promotes high quality education as a

means of promoting equity within cities and schools.51

―The Center for Cities & Schools sees the

Emeryville Center of Community Life as proof-positive for innovative, collaborative policy making,‖

says Deborah McKoy, the Center‘s director. ―The city and the school district are actively working to

bridge the longstanding disconnect between public education and urban environments that is pervasive in

so many locales.‖ It is rare for cities and schools to systematically coordinate and plan together for

community development. The City of Emeryville and EUSD have taken proactive steps to transform the

traditional roles of school and city into a partnership devoted to the development of the community‘s

needs.

Emeryville residents understand the benefits of high quality schools to the vitality of their

community. The passing of Measure J, the bond measure that provides essential funding for ECCL is

testament to the community‘s commitment to improving educational outcomes. Further demonstrating

this, in a survey conducted by the City, 65 percent of Emery residents strongly favor ―replacing old

inadequate and seismically unsafe local schools with school that meet current earthquake safety standards,

have updated classrooms, computers and libraries and have space for student health, after-school

programs and other community services.‖52

16

Current Status of Housing

Affordability of Housing: national and regional trends

Since housing is often the largest portion of most household expenditures, it plays a significant

role in the quality of life of individuals. The quality and affordability of housing play an essential role in

the well-being of families. A presentation put together by the University of Kansas‘s Community Health

Department defines livable housing as containing the follow criteria: decent, big enough, free of

hazardous materials and other threats to health, safe, accessible for all residents, in appropriate locations

and convenient to transportation and services.53

These are all integral parts of

An affordable price range for housing is under 30% of a family‘s total income. Individuals

having to pay more than 30% are recognized as having a housing cost burden. Households are considered

to be severely cost burdened if they are spending more than fifty percent of their total household income.

The Center for Housing Policy and National Housing Conference found that of the 46.2 million working

households in the nation, 22.8 percent of them had severe housing burden in 2009, equating to about 10.5

million households. In California, the issue of affordable housing is much more pertinent than other areas,

demonstrated by 1.6 million of the roughly five million households in the state having a severe housing

burden of cost. The unaffordability of housing is a greater problem for renters than home owners. Almost

one-fourth of renters have a severe housing cost burden.54

Figure 4: Share of Working Households

With Severe Housing Cost Burden55

Figure 5: Working Households and Severe Housing Cost Burden

17

The entire Bay area is experiencing increased cost of living, particularly in housing. On average 29%

of total working households in the Bay area are severely cost burdened.56

The lack of affordability is a

huge issue for families living in the Bay area which has worsened dramatically for low-income families.

While the cost of owning a home has decreased with the recession, job instability has greatly increased.

As Figure 6 demonstrates, while the median income of households has remained relatively stable, the

housing costs have increased exponentially over the past decade. This has made the cost of homes more

burdensome, particularly for renters. A major reason for the unaffordability is that the high demand for

housing contributes to high property values in the Bay area which allow developers to create higher

numbers of one bedroom apartment/condominiums and studios that increase density and therefore profit.

This is a major contributor to the problem of the lack of affordability of housing in metropolitan areas.

Figure 6

Lack of affordability in Emeryville

Emeryville‘s central location in close proximity to Oakland, Berkeley and San Francisco makes it

prime property for residential development. Many young professionals seeking lower rent prices than

San Francisco choose to locate in luxury condos and apartments in Emeryville. This has contributed to a

18

constant demand of luxury condos which are cheaper to maintain and provide more monetary yields than

larger units that require more space and amenities needed for families.

Data shows that the lack of affordability has become a significant issue in Emeryville. The city

has a higher number of renters which account for 63% of the population compared the 37% of owner

occupied housing57

. Housing is more unaffordable to renters than owners due to increasing rental costs.

The City of Emeryville recognizes this issue in that the Housing Element states that housing costs remain

high for Emeryville renters, in which 45% of renting households pay greater than 30% of their income on

rent. The majority of these households are extremely low, very low, and low income. The

unaffordability of housing is also seen in the for-sale housing prices in which Emeryville properties are

significantly exceeding the prices considered affordable.

Further demonstrating the lack of affordability in Emeryville, The Alameda HOME Consortium

Jurisdiction Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice states, ―Emeryville had a substantially

higher proportion of cost burdened households when compared to all other jurisdictions. Approximately

42 percent of all households in Emeryville spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs in

2000.58

Having conducted a survey of parents whose children are enrolled at the Child Development

Center (ECDC) and the Emery Schools, 76% of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement that

there was adequate affordable housing in Emeryville. Further making this apparent, in interviews

conducted with parents, nearly all stated that there is a lack of affordable housing in the city. Parents like

Belal Esa and Tania Jenkins that are both Emery

residents stated that they had witnessed many of their

neighbors leaving Emeryville due to the ever-rising

costs of housing.59

Even more so, many parents felt

that they paid more than thirty percent of their income

in housing costs. As one parent stated ―they aren‘t

kicking us out of our homes, they just aren‘t making

any place for us to stay.‖ 60

Therefore, it is the lack of

affordability coupled with the lack of quantity of

family-friendly housing that forces families,

particularly low-income families out of Emeryville.

“Emeryville had a substantially higher proportion of cost burdened households when compared to all other jurisdictions (within Alameda County).” Alameda HOME Consortium- Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing

19

Decreasing burden of cost

Due to the rising costs in housing affordability, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)

has taken measures to promote affordable housing within the Bay area. The state of California issues a

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) number to every region in the state meaning that each

county is given requirements they must fulfill in housing. This includes the minimum number of

affordable housing units per region. ABAG is then responsible for allocating the housing needs for the

101 cities within ABAG‘s jurisdiction. These housing units are distributed by income categories, and

state the amount of additional housing that is required per bracket. Emeryville‘s RHNA compliance

allocations are in the table below. In order to reach this compliance level, the City of Emeryville has

mandated that all new housing developments provide 20% of their housing units for below market rate

(BMR).

Due to this policy, Emeryville has worked diligently to reach state affordable housing minimums.

However, while there are requirements for varying levels of affordability, variability in the size of units

are not mandated. Due to this, most housing developers in Emeryville have allocated single bedroom

condos and apartments for affordable housing. This has mainly attracted senior citizens and disabled

persons without children. Therefore, there are not state or regional laws that currently protect family

friendly housing. Families with children are thus forced out of most Emeryville housing units due to size

and affordability.

Figure 7: RHNA Compliance (affordable

housing) for the city of Emeryville61

Very Low 186

Low 174

Mod 219

Above 558

Total: 1137 units

The city has also taken steps to decrease the housing cost burden for Emeryville residents. Most

notably, the city has developed the Homebuyer Program which provides loan programs and offers below

market rate housing units to encourage households to buy their first homes. This program has proved to

be successful in marginally increasing the level of home ownership in Emeryville in which 601 home

owners were assisted within the 2010 year and 71 of these families had dependent children.62

20

Lack of family-friendly housing

The city has experienced tremendous growth over the past decade in both population and

housing. The city‘s current population is 10,087 while there are 6,176 existing housing units and jobs are

at just over 20,0000. The population growth has been 41% since the 2000 Census. These numbers are

expected to continue growing over the next thirty years to sixteen thousand residents in ten thousand

homes and thirty thousand jobs. As the city plans to expand it is essential to understand how the city‘s

housing developments were planned and plan the future accordingly. Due to the vast economic growth

over the past decade, developers have invested in creating several new housing units within the city.

Between 1990 and 2000 there has been an increase of 764 total housing units, an increase of 24%.63

The majority of housing units in Emeryville are single unit condominiums and apartments.

These types of housing units have mainly attracted singles and couples without children. The table below

demonstrates the breakdown of housing units in Emeryville as of 2008. The housing breakdown

demonstrates the low number of single family units, consisting of only 4% of the total housing units in the

city, or 197 houses. Conversely, condominiums and large apartments constitute 83% of the city‘s

housing units. Demographer Shelly Lapkoff stated that this was an extremely low percentage, even for a

city in the Bay area. A major consequence to the lack of single family units (houses) is that this is the

most family-friendly form of residence. Therefore, the lack of single unit houses may greatly limit the

number of families that might move into Emeryville.

Figure 8: Distribution of Types of Housing in Emeryville64

Number Percent

Condominiums 2,717 48%

Condominiums/Townhouse style 269 5%

Condominiums/Loft style 351 6%

Units in Large Apt Complexes 1,095 19%

Units in Small Apt Complexes 304 5%

Single Family Units (Houses) 197 4%

Duplexes 142 3%

Triplexes 99 2%

Fourplexes 132 2%

Low quality Housing (Includes SFUs, duplexes) 130 2%

Units that are 100% Affordable 75 1%

Senior Housing 117 2%

Total 5,628 100%

21

The lack of family-friendly housing is an important factor in the proportional decline in the

number of Emery residents under the age of 18 since the proportion of families with school-aged children

has been greatly decreasing in comparison to single families. Emeryville currently has a lower

percentage of families than most Bay area cities. As the table below demonstrates, only 7% of households

in Emeryville have children. Compared to the 33% national average, this is exceedingly low.65

The city

is most attractive to young families with no children, or young children, typically between the age of 21-

24 who represent 33% of the total population and to senior citizens who are past childbearing age( ages

45-64 represent 48% of population).66

Further demonstrating the disparity of the lack of children, the

Watergate apartments which has 1247 luxury condos consists of only 2 student aged children that attend

EUSD schools.67

Figure 9: Percentage of children in bay area cities

Percentage of overall population Percent that live in Poverty

Albany 15.8% 7.5%

Berkeley 9.5% 11.55%

Emeryville 7.25% 14.7%

Oakland 16.8% 20.3%

With the upsurge of the development of residential housing units over the past decade, there has

been a lack of construction of houses and family-sized homes in totality. From the total housing units

that were built between 1990 through 2002, only 9% are appropriate for medium-sized families, meaning

3 bedrooms or more. The rate of non-family households has been far greater than that of family units.

The percentage of non-family units represents 91% of all current housing in Emeryville, an increase of

70% from 1990.68

While the city is expecting to increase its housing stock by 64% over the next thirty

years, this will mostly likely not ameliorate the issue because of the 1281 new dwelling units that the city

has issued building permits to be built by 2014, the vast majority are more single bedroom luxury condos

and apartments.69

Therefore, unless there are steps taken to proactively diversify the forms of housing

units, this issue will continue.

Statistically, families with school-aged children are more stable residents than young households

without children.70

This is significant in that the majority of Emeryville residents are in the age range that

is highly transient. This prevents the establishment of a strong sense of community for residents due to

the ever changing population and dynamics. Further, the stark contrast between housing the older and

more family-appropriate housing developments in the east and the single-bedroom condos in the West

give a feeling of discontinuity in the city.

22

Community development

Building a strong and cohesive community in Emeryville is a goal for the city of Emeryville. The

City Manager, as well as Mayor Nora Davis stated that the city is working to establish a stronger sense of

community within the residents. While interviewing current residents and parents in Emeryville, there

was a sense a lack of community within the city. Dave Martinez, a parent and president of the Dad‘s

Club stated that ―I don‘t think Emeryville has a cohesive community. Might seem like that from the

outside, but dig a little deeper, definitely no.‖ He went on to explain the social and racial divides between

the East and the West in terms of housing and development.71

Another parent connected education with

the vitality of the community. ―I believe the lack of housing attributes to the lack of attracting quality

teachers and raising the amount of a quality education.‖ She continued to state that the majority of

teachers live outside of Emeryville because of lack of affordability of housing prices. This may

discourage teachers from teaching within the district and therefore lowers the quality of education as a

whole.

23

Emeryville housing and education analysis

Students attending Emery Unified School District are experiencing negative effects in their student

achievement partially attributed to the lack of affordable family-friendly housing in Emeryville. EUSD

serves a largely low-income minority population that is greatly affected by housing availability and costs

in Emeryville. In accordance to the literature connecting housing to education, the result of the lack of

adequate affordable housing in Emeryville has contributes to Emery Unified having highly transient

student body. The effects of high transiency on test scores are difficult to quantify in a district like

Emeryville that has a lack of consistent data. However, it is easy to assume that due to the small size of

EUSD, a relatively small change in the schools composition due to mobility can have large effects on the

districts‘ overall enrollment and academic achievement.

The lack of affordable family-friendly housing has contributed to the proportionally small number of

children that currently live within the city limits of Emeryville. Emery Unified School District currently

has historically had a high number of inter-district transfers in Emeryville. Of the 722 enrolled students in

EUSD for the 2010/2011 school year, 45% of them are inter-district transfers from Oakland and other

nearby cities. A substantial number of inter-district transfers are former Emeryville residents. Shelly

Lapkoff‘s demographic study found that in 2008, twenty percent of inter-district transfers were former

Emeryville residents.72

There are a broad range of factors that explain these rates. First is the historical composition of the

city which families with children have historically settled on the outskirts of the city neighboring

Oakland. This has caused a highly permeable city boundary in which many residents cannot distinguish

the city‘s parameters.73

Many families often realize they are Oakland residents when they attempt to

enroll their children into school and must then go through the inter-district transfer process. Part of the

reason for this is that the city of Emeryville also shares a zip code with Oakland. Therefore, many

students who are technically Oakland residents live closer to EUSD schools than schools within their own

district.74

Another contributing factor is Allen Bill Transfers represent another twenty percent of total inter-

district transfers.75

This is in reference to the Allen Bill which is a California state statute that allows for

―parents of k-8 students who live in one district, but work within the boundaries of a second district may

apply to have their students attend school in the district in which the parents works, rather than in the

24

district of residence.‖ 76

Of the 79 out-of-district transfers in kindergarten through 5th grade in 2009, 41

percent of them were children whose parents worked in Emeryville but did not live in the city, referred to

as ―Allen Admits‖. Allen admits are important because they represent the large commuter population in

Emeryville. Out of the twenty thousand employed in Emeryville, a large portion is commuting into the

city.77

This is partly due to the lack of available housing within the city. The General Plan predicts that

these numbers will increase within the next twenty years to 30,000 jobs, roughly a 46% increase.

Therefore, the Allen admits will continue to play a large role in the development and sustainability of

EUSD‘s enrollment.

Enrollment Rates & Mobility

Looking at overall enrollment rates, in Figure 10 below, it is evident that overall enrollment rates

have been fluctuating over the past decade from a low of 705 students in 2009 to a 984 in 1998. There

have been many cited explanations for the lack of stability including lack of resources, financial

mismanagement, lack of trust, transiency of students, job instability of parents, mobile lifestyles and

various socioeconomic factors. Because of the negative impacts of mobility on education, it is essential

to the academic success of EUSD that there is stable enrollment.

Figure 10

25

It is difficult to quantify the exact mobility rates of families within Emeryville. However, Shelly

Lapkoff‘s demographic study attempts to quantify the high transiency of families with young children.

The study shows that there is a relatively large group of births in Emeryville. However, proportionally a

very small group of them actually send their children to kindergarten at Anna Yates. Lapkoff states,

―Because five years pass between a child‘s birth and his/her subsequent school enrollment and because

households with pre-schoolers are the most mobile part of the population, there is often not a stable

correspondence between the number of births and subsequent enrollments.‖78

The graph below

demonstrates the number of children born in Emeryville as compared to the residents that enroll their

children in Anna Yates Elementary. This graph clearly demonstrates a large discrepancy in that far more

children are being born in Emeryville than attending school within the city five years later, demonstrating

the high mobility rates of families.

Figure 14

The mobility rates in Emeryville are difficult to ascertain. The graphs below (figure 11) attempts to

analyze the cohort changes, it appears that there has not been an extreme change for elementary, middle,

or high school residents in recent years. Shelly Lapkoff demonstrated mobility as a total sum, meaning

that she took the overall enrollment of a given year and tracked how many of that cohort continued onto

the next school year. The graph below therefore demonstrates the net gains and losses of the overall

enrollment of students by a yearly basis. Calculating mobility in this method, there does not seem to be

extremely high attrition rates per year.

26

Figure 11 Grade Progressions for Emeryville Residents Only

Lapkoff Memorandom to EUSD- July 29, 2010

27

Yearly Attrition Rates for EUSD

Figure 12

Year students left new students Total number of

Students (EUSD)

%

attrition

2010 171 169 789 21.67%

2009 142 210 747 19%

2008 215 287 802 26.8%

2007 244 280 705 34.6%

2006 252 n/a 777 32.43%

However, the issue of mobility is demonstrated through the high attrition rates. I was able to utilize

EUSD data to track students‘ enrollment on an individual student basis. Therefore, I used individual

student information to determine the number of students that left the district throughout a school year and

how many of those same students were there the following year. I also used these Student IDs to

determine how many new students came in throughout the course of the year. Figure 12 calculates

attrition rates for the past 5 school years. Demonstrating the mobility broadly, EUSD lost 171 students

between the 2009 and 2010 school year. To replace these students, there were 169 new students.79

These

students are however almost immediately replaced by new students, often inter-district transfers.

Therefore, the chart shows that the district has an extremely high attrition rate of students throughout the

school year.

The negative effects of high attrition and mobility of students on EUSD is reflective of the scholarly

literature. Principal of Emery Secondary School, Ms. Allen stated that the high mobility rates affect the

student climate of the school in various ways. For the freshman and sophomore classes, she stated there

was a strong school climate in which new students have a difficult time penetrating the culture and

cliques. Therefore, new students have a difficult time adjusting. For eleventh and twelfth graders

however, the transiency rates have greatly hindered the ability to create a strong culture. There is thus a

lack of a sense of community.

Further demonstrating such issues, in an interview with Principal Jag Lathan from Anna Yates, she

confided that she was losing a couple of kids that week because they were moving out of the district and

that they were being replaced almost immediately with new students coming in.80

She stated that the

mobility of students can be very frustrating for teachers as well as the new students. However, that Anna

Yates has a strong school climate so students are often able to adapt to the new environments.

Enrollment director Wanda Stewart estimates that 25% of students are new every enrollment period. She

stated that teachers cite this as a major issue in designing their course curriculum.81

School board

member Josh Simon also affirms that transiency has negatively affected the culture of the students. He

28

stated that many children in EUSD will say they ―stay here‖ rather than saying that they live in

Emeryville and thus associate as their permanent residence.

Another indirect cost of housing that affects student outcomes is the issue of overcrowding. As

discussed above, there are several negative educational implications of overcrowding. Countywide,

twelve percent of all households were overcrowded, with renters experiencing substantially more

overcrowding than homeowners. While Emeryville is currently experiencing less overcrowded units than

the county at 9%, it is increasing at a disproportional rate82

. Therefore, the city is greatly increasing in

reported cases of overcrowding in housing, which is cited as having negative effects on student

achievement and quality of life.

Pending status of RDA

Due to Governor Brown‘s proposal to de-establish the Redevelopment Agencies throughout the

state of California, the future of housing is unclear. Currently, the RDA handles the affordable housing

projects in the city of Emeryville.83

While it is still uncertain what the outcomes of the RDA will be and

how it will affect housing, the state and federal affordable housing mandates continue to be in effect.

Therefore, cities such as Emeryville will continue to allocate funds towards the development and

maintenance affordable housing and should therefore continue to advocate for such policies.

29

Recommendations The limitation of housing is that it is not a cure all. Increasing affordable family-friendly

housing will not automatically improve test scores and reduce mobility of families. However, it is

important piece of the puzzle. Understanding the importance of stable families to the vitality of the

school district as well as the community as a whole; it is imperative for the City/Schools Committee

to take proactive measures to provide adequate housing that nurtures a stable and cohesive

community. The following are recommendations for the City as well as the District to collaborate

together in improving community life through creating more equitable housing policies.

Recommendation 1: To maintain a sustainable and equitable community, the

City/Schools Committee should establish a joint commitment to maintain existing families

with children and attract new families through working together to increase the availability

of affordable family friendly housing.

Developing equitable housing policies are an essential component to creating an equitable

community that is accessible to a range of ages, economic status and household size. The City/Schools

Committee should thus make a commitment to work together to maintain existing families with children

in Emeryville and encourage new families. An essential component in achieving this goal is to develop

more affordable family-friendly housing2.

A major concern of residents and city officials have been that with the competition in neighboring

cities for families, there might not be enough demand for family housing.84

Therefore, producing high-

quality large dwellings might not encourage families into Emeryville due to other available options. Lisa

Motoyama, the Director of Housing Development for Resources for Community Development (RCD)

disagrees. Ms. Motoyama stated that she was confident that there is a huge market for family housing in

Emeryville, but that they aren‘t currently being produced because there is not enough pressure from

Emeryville residents and city officials.85

Ariel Bierbaum of the Center for Cities and Schools echoed

these remarks in an interview. She also stated that the construction of family-friendly housing needs to be

2 The City/Schools Committee has committed to proactively and intentionally ―provide opportunities to enhance

the intellectual, financial and social resources for all members of the Emeryville community, especially those most

vulnerable.‖ As well as ―support and preserve innovative practices that challenge and confront social, economic, and

political inequalities.‖

30

advanced by the city which needs to commit to increasing family-friendly housing and therefore create

policies and reforms that will produce results.86

Collaboration between cities and schools on forging equitable housing policies are being

implemented across communities nationwide. Baltimore for example formally coordinated school

improvement, new housing development, as well as improved community services all with the particular

goal of maintaining old residents while attracting new residents in a diverse mixed income community.

These policies demonstrated to have positive impacts on the academic achievement of students that were

directly affected by the project. At the three elementary schools that served student living in the

affordable family-friendly housing projects as well as affected by the comprehensive city and school

reforms, students improved in their fifth grade comprehensive state test scores at a higher rate than at the

rest of the city‘s public schools.

Another example of city school collaboration that is very similar to Emeryville‘s City/Schools

partnership the City of San Diego and the San Diego Unified School District. The two partnered to

develop the Urban Village in City Heights, a high density metropolitan area of San Diego. Urban Village

is a pedestrian-friendly center for community members that contain an elementary school, library,

recreation school, continuing education center, retail center, multifamily housing and community services

center. The Urban Village has a 69-unit multifamily affordable housing project called Auburn Park

Apartments. These apartments are in close vicinity to the elementary school and provide affordable

housing to many of the families attending the school. The housing units include a meeting room, for

resident services, neighborhood community meetings and gatherings, on-site parking, and a public park

with 24-hour security.

Urban Village was created with the intent of developing a stronger sense of community in City

Heights. Through this project, the City and of San Diego and San Diego Unified School District

demonstrated that they not only spoke about community development and cohesion, but actively and

intentionally pursue it. While the ECCL and Urban Village share a common mission and many of the

same features, ECCL has yet to incorporate affordable family friendly housing as a priority. This is a

model that Emeryville should consider in further developing the collaboration between the city and

district.

Recommendation 2. Create guidelines for affordable family friendly housing that provide

minimum standards for developers as well as limits in affordable pricing for renters that are

most vulnerable to burden of cost in Emeryville.

31

To produce adequate housing that meets the needs of residents, it is imperative that all

stakeholders have a common definition of affordable family-friendly housing, and what it means for

Emeryville. Understanding that the Bay area is one of the most unaffordable regions in the nation,

Emeryville should recognize that it is not the only city to have to address this issue and work with

neighboring cities to develop guidelines for equitable housing. However, there are developed minimum

guidelines that are referenced in equitable housing literature.

The city recognizes that affordable family-friendly housing is a concern in Emeryville and needs

to be addressed. The General Plan states, ―The retention of students and their families who can no longer

afford to live in the city remains a concern. Emery Unified recognizes the need for an increase in

affordable family-friendly (3+ bedroom) housing.‖ 87 In order to improve the status of housing and

therefore improve student outcomes, it is essential to understand what type of housing give the highest

yields in terms of quality and quantity of housing for families in Emeryville.

Shelly Lapkoff, a prominent demographer in the Bay area published a report analyzing the

demographic factors affecting enrollment and an estimate of future enrollment levels. She looked at the

possible effects of higher test scores and an improved reputation of the District by the Emeryville

community. The report analyzes the effects of available housing on enrollment. It states that Emeryville

is unusual in that it contains relatively few houses. As stated above, condominiums and apartment

complexes comprise the vast majority of housing in Emeryville. This form of housing that are market

rate traditionally have low numbers of students because families that can afford luxury condos will often

choose to reside in more family appropriate housing units. Therefore, the condos and large apartment

complexes have extremely low yields of children in Emeryville.

The housing forecast estimates that with the establishment of 2,014 new market units by 2013 that

are only expected to house 15 students. This is representative of the current proportion of students in

similar housing units. Her report continues to state that the type of housing that produces highest yields of

students is affordable family-friendly apartments and townhouses. While houses also produce a high ratio

of students, there are so few houses within the city so numerically they do not produce a significant

number of students. Also, with the lack of available land, the most feasible form of family housing is

lofts that have amenities that accommodate the needs of urban families. Therefore, the best form of

affordable family-friendly housing that has demonstrated to have high yields of attracting families with

school-aged children are affordable townhouses and apartments that have adequate space for a growing

family as well as family-friendly amenities.

Emeryville should strive to meet the 30% affordability range for its residents. Since Emeryville

residents have a wide range of household incomes, it is essential to produce and maintain housing prices

to meet the needs of the economically diverse population. Guidelines and minimum standards should not

32

only be developed for new housing developments, but also for existing rental properties. Since the

majority of Emeryville residents are renters and most vulnerable to burden of housing cost, it is crucial

that housing policies address the current renter population. Figure 13 demonstrates varying income levels

and their maximum housing expenses that are within an affordable range. This demonstrates the level of

Below Market Rate housing that is necessary for low-income and very-low income families.

Figure 13: Sample Occupational Wages (Housing Element)

The following are various amenities cited by literature and echoed in interviews that make housing units

family-friendly.

Essential Family-friendly amenities cited by MIG’s presentation on family-friendly housing-

2-3+ bedrooms

Adequate storage space

Available parking

33

Green space- yard space, balconies (safe for children)

Windows that open to outdoor common areas

Large Hallways

Safe environments

Other amenities 88

Full bathrooms with baths and showers

Larger kitchens

Family room, large common area

Laundry facilities

Child care

Outdoor play space for children

Play rooms/community rooms, gathering space

Elevators

Property management policies which allows pets

Easily accessible Public transit

Recommendation 3. Increase incentives for developers to create affordable family- friendly housing.

There are various forms of incentives that are being used by cities across the nation to encourage

affordable family-friendly housing, and would take an economic feasibility study by the city‘s economic

developers to determine which forms of incentives should be utilized. Options include tax incentives,

subsidies, help with grants and permits, land offers, waivers of regulations, and enterprise zones can all

encourage family-friendly development.89

A concern for city developers is that due to the high property costs in Emeryville, it would be

unaffordable for the city to enforce harsher standards on developers. However, many cities are finding

that there are incentives that the city could provide to encourage the development of affordable family-

friendly housing.

One possible strategy for encouraging the development of affordable and family-friendly housing

is providing a ―fast track‖ for developers that provide more than the minimum twenty percent below

market rate units, larger units with more bedrooms, and family-friendly amenities. Chicago has

streamlined their permitting and planning review for developers who produce affordable family-friendly

housing. This fast track has encouraged construction of equitable and diverse housing developments.90

Another example of incentivizing is in neighboring Oakland. The City Community Development

34

Department has implemented a scale of all new housing developments. This system awards higher points

for developments that are affordable, and which have more bedrooms and family-friendly amenities.91

Recommendation 4: Inclusionary Zoning Policies which require minimum 20%

family-friendly units for all new housing developments.

Inclusionary zoning polices are defined as policies that require developers to maintain a specific

percentage of affordable housing in new developments within a region92

. Emeryville has implemented

city ordinances of inclusionary zoning policies in affordable housing in that the city requires 20% of all

new housing developments to be set aside for affordable housing. 93

However, the majority of below

market rate (BMR) housing is for single-unit apartment and condominiums. Expanding this requirement

to include family-friendly housing will be greatly beneficial to families in Emeryville.

With the city and school‘s goal of developing a stronger community, it must consider the needs of

families and develop effective mechanisms for increasing the number of family-friendly housing.

However, it will take a great deal of political might and organizing from the local community.

Developers that are trying to attain maximum gains for their developments will push back to this

proposal. Lisa Motoyama from Resources for Community Development stated that such inclusionary

housing policies are difficult to pass politically and take a great deal of pressure from the community to

implement. However, once established, inclusionary housing policies that mandate family friendly

housing are an extremely effective mechanism for increasing equity in housing developments.

Ariel Bierbaum, Programs Director for the Center for Cities and Schools discussed the importance

of the city‘s commitment to inclusionary housing policies. She stated, ―At the end of the day, it is the

responsibility of the city to set standards for developers that encourage a diverse community.‖94

Therefore, although it will take a great deal of pressure to develop 20% family sized housing with family-

friendly amenities, it is possible and is a highly effective strategy.

The district‘s role in developing this form of strategy is to mobilize families to advocate for such

policies and increasing information in understanding the benefits of inclusionary housing policies.

Deborah McKoy states in Housing and education: The Inextricable link, ―One of the most important

features of inclusionary zoning policies is that it uplifts the entire community in that it makes it possible

for low income families with children to live in housing developments that harbor community.‖

Therefore, disseminating information about the importance of such policies to residents, particularly to

families is essential to implementing inclusionary housing policies.

An example of a city that has developed family-friendly zoning policies is Vancouver. The city

not only has a 20% affordable housing requirement like Emeryville, but the city also requires that 25% of

all new developments have to be family-sized and necessitates numerous family-friendly amenities. The

35

City of Vancouver, like Emeryville was going through redevelopment of industrial land through much of

the 1980s. The city made it a priority to establish affordable family-friendly housing developments.

Some of these properties built on industrial lands include False Creek North, City Gate, Coal Harbour,

East Fraserlands, and Southeast False Creek.95

36

District Level Recommendations:

It is imperative for the district to be actively involved in the process of attaining affordable

family-friendly housing, but also improve other key factors. The following are some pragmatic

recommendations for the district:

Recommendation 1: The district should be at the forefront of advocating for family-

friendly policies within the city and positioning schools as the center of community

development.

The Emery Unified School District (EUSD) must play an active and intentional role in community

development. As research shows, schools are at the core of the strength of communities. Therefore, the

district should work proactively to improve community services and increase cohesiveness. Particularly

in Emeryville where families are the generally minorities and socioeconomically deprived, it is the role of

the district to empower and advocate on the behalf of their student body and the families they serve. The

district therefore needs to be at the forefront of family-friendly policies such as housing, health, and

community development.

In line with empowerment, the district should empower its residents through community mobilization

and increasing information streams. EUSD could achieve this through having community meetings at the

school cites to inform parents concerning city policies that affect their well-being.

Recommendation 2: Increase enrollment by proactively directing outreach to parents

of children attending city’s child development programs (ECDC and Headstart) as well

strengthening formal ties with these organizations.

It is essential to the academic success of the student body that the district works to stabilize its

attrition rates as well as incrementally increase enrollment. While there may not be a sudden increase of

families in Emeryville, there are a stable number of children currently being born as well as attending

childcare within the city. However, a very small portion of these children eventually enroll in Anna Yates

Elementary School. 96

The high mobility rates of the population are a major reason for this trend.

However, it is also an opportunity for the district. EUSD should strengthen outreach programs

specifically targeted at these populations because if parents choose to enroll their students in EUSD

schools, they will be less likely to move out of the city.

The Emeryville Child Development Center (ECDC) as well as the city‘s Headstart programs are

within close proximity to the district. These entities hold a large number of children that are potential

EUSD students. However, thus far EUSD has not been largely successful in developing relationships

37

with the organizations nor the parents enrolling their children these programs. In an interview with

Khadijeh Fathi, the Director of ECDC stated that the school district did not have strong ties with the

development center.

Ms. Fathi further stated that their center held presentations from various surrounding schools for

parents whose children were graduating from the center. Ms. Fathi stated that Anna Yates sent their

representative too late in the year when many parents have already made their decisions about where to

enroll their children. Because of this, the rate of transfer from ECDC to EUSD is not very high in that

less than 10 children that graduated from ECDC in 2010 transferred over to Anna Yates the following

year.97

Strengthening formal ties and communication with the child development centers will create more

consistency and information for parents. Representatives from EUSD can assist parents in understanding

the enrollment process. With more information and relationship building, EUSD may be able to attract

more students from these programs into their Elementary School.

Recommendation 3: Maintain more comprehensive and cohesive data. Develop

stronger forms of analysis to track changes occurring within the district.

Emery Unified School District is embarking on a new stage of its existence with the development of

the Emeryville Center of Community Life. It is therefore imperative that the district is able to clearly

demonstrate the outcomes of this project quantitatively. Thus far, the district has not been effectively and

continuously tracking essential data. The available information is therefore not comprehensive nor is it

reliable. While undertaking this project I was unable to use the bulk of the data I received from the

District because it was not coherent and had several discontinuities.

It is essential for the future of the district that it maintains clear and cohesive information concerning

its student body and their development. The district should therefore invest more resources in developing

a reliable data team that tracks student achievement and provides reliable information to the city and

district concerning its student body.

38

Conclusion- Next steps

The city and the district should consider the following areas for further studies.

Areas for further study:

1.) Economic feasibility study of the types of incentives for developers that would generate the

highest yields of affordable family-friendly housing (city).

i. As discussed in recommendation 3, there are various forms of incentives that the

city could provide to increase the amount of affordable family-friendly housing.

I provided some examples in Appendix B that further outline possible incentives.

However, it is important for City staff to develop a thorough study looking at the

various forms of incentives and which would create the highest yields of

affordable family friendly housing.

2.) Survey commuter population to develop understanding of this large population and their housing

needs (city).

i. I was not able to discuss the current trends within the commuter population;

however the city should look into the needs of these individuals, considering that

a large number of them might have school-aged children that could potentially be

enrolled at EUSD but are currently being sent elsewhere. Gaining a better

understanding of this population including their needs is important to the city‘s

development and stability.

3.) Conduct demographic and market study predicting the possible effects of increased competition

of surrounding schools, as well as the development of Emeryville Center of Community Life on

academic achievement and enrollment rates at Emery Unified School District (district).

i. This is important in that there are many changes that are currently occurring

within Emeryville and the surrounding cities. Oakland is currently on an upward

trajectory with primary education and working to improve its secondary

educational institutions. This could potentially affect the number of inter-district

transfers. Further, the establishment of the ECCL could positively affect

enrollment as well achievement. Therefore, predicting the possible effects of

these changes on enrollment and educational success is important for the district

in their development.

39

References

1 "Mayor Newsom's Policy Council on Children, Youth and Families Discussion Brief: Housing for

Families with Children in San Francisco." Policy Council on Children, Youth and Their Families

Discussion Brief (2006). Print.

2 Henley, Andrew. "Residential Mobility, Housing Equity and the Labor Market." The Economic Journal

(1998): 414-27. Print.

3 ―Interview with Josh Simon.‖ Personal Interview. 16 Feb. 2011.

4 Lapkoff, Shelly. "Updated Conventional Enrollment Forecast." Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic

Research, Inc. (2010): 3-5. Print.

5 Deborah L. McKoy, and Jeffrey M. Vincent. "Housing and Education: The Inextricable Link."

Segregation: the Rising Costs for America. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. 126-50.

6 Duke-Lucio, Joanna, Laura R. Peck, Elizabeth A. Segal. "The Latent and Sequential Costs of Being

Poor: An Exploration of Housing." Poverty and Public Policy 4th ser. 2.2 (2010). Print.

7 "Mayor Newsom's Policy Council on Children, Youth and Families Discussion Brief: Housing for

Families with Children in San Francisco." Policy Council on Children, Youth and Their Families

Discussion Brief (2006). Print.

8 Duke-Lucio, Joanna, Laura R. Peck, Elizabeth A. Segal. "The Latent and Sequential Costs of Being

Poor: An Exploration of Housing." Poverty and Public Policy 4th ser. 2.2 (2010). Print.

9 Lubell, Jeffrey and Maya Brennan. ―Framing the Issues- the Positive Impacts of Affordable Housing on

Education.‖ Center for Housing Policy.(2007).

10

"Planning for Families: The Housing and Education Nexus Proceedings Summary." Center for Cities

and Schools (2007). Web.

<http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/reports/CC&S_2008_planning_for_families.pdf>.

11

McKoy, Deborah L., Jeffrey M. Vincent, and Carrie Makarewicz. "Integrating Infrastructure Planning:

The Role of Schools." Center for Cities and Schools: Access 33rd ser. (2008). Web.

<http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/reports/Integrating_Infrastructure_Planning.pdf>.

12

Baldassare, Mark.―Public Policy Institute of California Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Land use.

San Francisco.” Public Policy Institute of California. (2002).

13

Lee County Affordable Housing Committee. "The Public Costs of Inadequate Affordable Housing in

Lee County, Florida." The Lee County Board of County Commissioners Management and Planning

Committee (2002). Web. Mar. 2011.

<http://www3.leegov.com/dcd1/Downloads/Documents/Studies_Reports/Housing/NoAffordableHousing

Cost.pdf>.

40

14

Duke-Lucio, Joanna, Laura R. Peck, Elizabeth A. Segal. "The Latent and Sequential Costs of Being

Poor: An Exploration of Housing." Poverty and Public Policy 4th ser. 2.2 (2010). Print.

15

Henley, Andrew. "Residential Mobility, Housing Equity and the Labor Market." The Economic

Journal (1998): 414-27. Print.

16

Schafft, Kai A. "Poverty, Residential Mobility and Student Transiency Within a Rural New York

School District." Northeastern US Rural Poverty Conference: Penn State University, University Park,

PA (2005). Print.

17

Lubell, Jeffrey, and Maya Brennan. "Framing the Issues—the Positive Impacts of Affordable

Housing on Education." Center for Housing Policy (2007). Print.

18

Clark, William A V, and Youqin Youqin Huang. "The Life Course and Residential Mobility in

British Housing Markets." Environment and Planning: Pion Publication 35 (2003): 323-39. Print.

19

Schafft, Kai A. "Poverty, Residential Mobility and Student Transiency Within a Rural New York

School District." Northeastern US Rural Poverty Conference: Penn State University, University Park,

PA (2005). Print.

20

Crowley, Sheila. "The Affordable Housing Crisis: Residential Mobility of Poor Families and School

Mobility of Poor Children." The Journal of Negro Education: Student Mobility- How Some Children

Get Left Behind 72.1 (2003): 25. Print.

21

Crowley, Sheila. "The Affordable Housing Crisis: Residential Mobility of Poor Families and School

Mobility of Poor Children." The Journal of Negro Education: Student Mobility- How Some Children

Get Left Behind 72.1 (2003): 22-38. Print.

22

Crowley, Sheila. "The Affordable Housing Crisis: Residential Mobility of Poor Families and School

Mobility of Poor Children." The Journal of Negro Education: Student Mobility- How Some Children

Get Left Behind 72.1 (2003): 22-38. Print.

23

Astone, N.M. & McLanahan, S.S.‖ Family structure, residential mobility, and school dropout: A

research note.‖ (1994).

24

Eckenrode, J., Rowe, E., Laird, M., & Brathwaite, J. ―Mobility as a mediator of the effects of child

maltreatment on academic performance.‖ Child Development, (1995).

25

Dunn, M., Kadane, J. B., & Garrow, J. R. (2003). Comparing harm done by mobility and class

absence: Missing students and missing data. Journal of Education and Behavioral Statistics, 28(3), 269-

288.

26

Schuler, D. ―Effects of family mobility on student achievement.‖ ERS Spectrum, (1990): 17-24.

27

"Kids Mobility Project. Rep. no. ED453326. Minneapolis: Center for Urban and Regional: Family

Housing Fund, 1998. Print.

28

Ersing, Robin L., Diane N. Loeffler, and Richard D. Sutphen. "Exploring the Impact and Implications

of Residential Mobility: From the Neighborhood to the School." Advances in Social Work 10.1 (2009):

1-18. Print.

41

29 Rumberger, Russell W. "The Educational Consequences of Mobility for California Students and

Schools.‖ Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE University of California, Berkeley &

Stanford University (1999): 21. Print.

30

Richard, Rothstein. "Class and the Classroom." 12th National Conference on Children and the Law:

The American School Board Journal (2007). Print.

31

Holloway, L. ―Turnover of teachers and students deepens the troubles of poor schools‖. The New

York Times. (2000).

32

Reynolds, Arthur J., Chin-Chih Chen, and Janette E. Herbers. "School Mobility and Educational

Success: A Research Synthesis and Evidence on Prevention." Institute of Child Development,

University of Minnesota (2009). Print.

33

Crowley, Sheila. "The Affordable Housing Crisis: Residential Mobility of Poor Families and School

Mobility of Poor Children." The Journal of Negro Education: Student Mobility- How Some Children

Get Left Behind 72.1 (2003): 22-38. Print.

34

The United Kingdom Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. “The Impact of Overcrowding on Health

& Education: A Review of Evidence and Literature.” Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Publications,

(2004).

35

Blake, Kevin S., Rebecca L. Kellerson and Aleksandra Simic. "Measuring Overcrowding in

Housing." US Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of Policy Development and

Research Prepared by Econometrica, Inc. (2007). Print.

36

Lubell, Jeffrey, and Maya Brennan. "Framing the Issues—the Positive Impacts of Affordable

Housing on Education." Center for Housing Policy (2007). Print.

37

―School Climate research Summary- January 2010‖ School Climate Brief. Center for Social and

Emotional Education. Vol 1 no.1 (2010).

38

Rumberger, Russell W. "The Educational Consequences of Mobility for California Students and

Schools.‖ Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE University of California, Berkeley &

Stanford University (1999): 21. Print.

39

Devine, J. & Cohen, J. Making your school safe: Strategies to protect children and promote learning.

Teachers College Press. (2007). Print.

40

"About Emeryville." Emery Unified School District (2009). Web.

<http://www.emeryusd.k12.ca.us/?pageid=150>.

41

Emeryville General Plan. Publication. Emeryville: City of Emeryville, 2009. Print.

42

Kim, Hayin. Beyond Political Will: A City-School Partnership and a Landscape of Redevelopment

and Gentrification. Diss. Stanford University, (2010): 28.

43

Kim, Hayin. Beyond Political Will: A City-School Partnership and a Landscape of Redevelopment and

Gentrification. Diss. Stanford University, (2010): 27.

42

44 Emeryville General Plan Update: Housing Element. Publication. Emeryville: City of Emeryville, 2010.

Print. 2009-2014.

45

Stewart, Wanda. Enrollment Data. 1996-2011. Raw data. Emery Unified School District, Emeryville.

46

Kim, Hayin. Beyond Political Will: A City-School Partnership and a Landscape of Redevelopment and

Gentrification. Diss. Stanford University, (2010): 51.

47

Deborah L. McKoy, and Jeffrey M. Vincent. "Housing and Education: The Inextricable Link."

Segregation: the Rising Costs for America. New York, NY: Routledge, ( 2008). 134.

48

Smith, Tony, and John Flores. "School as the Center of Community: How Emeryville Is Transforming

Its School and City Policies by Placing Education at the Heart of Redevelopment." Center for Cities and

Schools (2005). Print.

49

"What Is a Community School?" Coalition for Community Schools. Web. 1 May 2011.

<http://www.communityschools.org/aboutschools/what_is_a_community_school.aspx>.

50

Vincent M. Jeffrey. ―Emeryville Center of Community Life: City and School district collaboration.‖

Center for Cities and Schools. (2005).

51

Center for Cities and Schools. Web. Apr. 2011. <http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/>.

52

Bernstein, Ruth and Jessica Polsky. ―Survey of Emery Unified School District Voters: executive

Summary of Findings.‖ EMC Research, Inc. (2010).

53

―Improving the Quality of Housing.‖ PowerPoint Presentation. University of Kansas: Community

Health. (2008).

54

Smith, Tony, and John Flores. "School as the Center of Community: How Emeryville Is Transforming

Its School and City Policies by Placing Education at the Heart of Redevelopment." Center for Cities and

Schools (2005). Print.

55

Smith, Tony, and John Flores. "School as the Center of Community: How Emeryville Is Transforming

Its School and City Policies by Placing Education at the Heart of Redevelopment." Center for Cities and

Schools (2005). Print.

56

Wardrip, Keith. "An Annual Look at the Housing Affordability Challenges of America‘s Working

Households." Center for Housing Policy: Housing Landscape (2011). Print.

57

"Demographics." City of Emeryville (2000). Feb. 2011. Web.

<http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=70>.

58

Alameda HOME Consortium- Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Rep. San Francisco,

Bay Area: Bay Area Economics, 2010. Print.

59

Interview with Belal Esa. Parent. Personal Interview. 8 April 2011.

60

Interview with Tiana Jenkins. Parent. Personal Interview. 8 April 2011.

43

61 Alameda HOME Consortium- Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Rep. San Francisco,

Bay Area: Bay Area Economics, 2010. Print.

62

"City Homebuyer Program Loans for Market-Rate." City of Emeryville (2011). Web.

<http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=639>.

63

Emeryville General Plan Update: Housing Element. Publication. Emeryville: City of Emeryville,

(2010): 5. Print. 2009-2014.

64

Lapkoff, Shelly. " Demographic Analyses and Enrollment Forecast for

Emery Unified School District." Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. (2008) Print.

65

Mayor Newsom's Policy Council on Children, Youth and Families Discussion Brief: Housing for

Families with Children in San Francisco." Policy Council on Children, Youth and Their Families

Discussion Brief (2006). Print.

66

Emeryville General Plan Update: Housing Element. Publication. Emeryville: City of Emeryville,

(2010): 21. Print. 2009-2014.

67

Lapkoff, Shelly. " Demographic Analyses and Enrollment Forecast for

Emery Unified School District." Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. (2008) Print.

68

Emeryville General Plan Update: Housing Element. Publication. Emeryville: City of Emeryville,

(2010): 5. Print. 2009-2014.

69

Lapkoff, Shelly. "Updated Conventional Enrollment Forecast." Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic

Research, Inc. (2010). Print.

70

Interview with Shelly Lapkoff. Personal Interview. 10 March 2011.

71

Interview with Dave Martinez and Daniel Gamboa. Parents. Personal Interview. 12 April 2011.

72

Lapkoff, Shelly. "Updated Conventional Enrollment Forecast." Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic

Research, Inc. (2010):2. Print.

73

―Interview with Roy Miller and Hayin Kim.‖ Personal Interview. 28 Feb. 2011.

74

―Interview with Josh Simon.‖ Personal Interview. 16 Feb. 2011.

75

Lapkoff, Shelly. " Demographic Analyses and Enrollment Forecast for

Emery Unified School District." Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. (2008):1 Print.

76

"Interdistrict Transfer Because of Parent Employment/Allen Bill (CA Department of Education)."

District Transfers(CA Dept of Education). 2010. Web. 01 Apr. 2011.

77

Emeryville General Plan. Publication. Emeryville: City of Emeryville. (2009):1-11. Print.

78

Lapkoff, Shelly. "Updated Conventional Enrollment Forecast." Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic

Research, Inc. (2010): 4. Print.

44

79 Perry, John. EUSD Data. 2005-2011. Raw data. Emery Unified School District, Emeryville.

80

―Interview with Jag Lathan.‖ Phone Interview. 10 April. 2011.

81

―Interview with Wanda Stewart.‖ Personal Interview. 3 March. 2011.

83

"Governor Proposes Elimination Of Redevelopment Agencies." California Planning and Development

Report. Jan. 2011. Web. Mar. 2011. <http://www.cp-dr.com/node/2849>.

84

―Interview with Pat O‘Keeffe.‖ Personal Interview. 8 Feb. 2011.

85

―Interview with Lisa Motoyama.‖ Phone Interview. 11 April. 2011.

86

―Interview with Ariel Bierbaum.‖ Phone Interview. March 9. 2011.

87

Emeryville General Plan. Publication. Emeryville: City of Emeryville. (2009):4-8. Print.

88

Mayor Newsom's Policy Council on Children, Youth and Families Discussion Brief: Housing for

Families with Children in San Francisco." Policy Council on Children, Youth and Their Families

Discussion Brief (2006). Print.

89

―Improving the Quality of Housing.‖ PowerPoint Presentation. University of Kansas: Community

Health. (2008).

90

Mayor Newsom's Policy Council on Children, Youth and Families Discussion Brief: Housing for

Families with Children in San Francisco." Policy Council on Children, Youth and Their Families

Discussion Brief (2006). Print.

91

―Interview with Lisa Motoyama.‖ Phone Interview. 11 April. 2011.

92

Kautz, Barbara. ―In Defense of Inclusionary Zoning: Successfully Creating Affordable Housing.‖

University of San Francisco Law. Web. 2004.

<http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/usflr36&div=36&g_sent=1&collection=journals>

93

"Housing Policy and Progress in Albany, Berkeley and Emeryville." Final Report of a Two Year Study

by the League of Women Voters (2001): 32. Print.

94

Interview with Ariel Bierbaum.‖ Phone Interview. March 9. 2011.

95

―Affordable Housing Policy in New Neighborhoods : Housing Initiatives from the City of Vancouver.‖

City of Vancouver. (2002).

96

Lapkoff, Shelly. "Updated Conventional Enrollment Forecast." Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic

Research, Inc. (2010). Print.

97

Interview with Khadijeh Fathi.‖ Phone Interview. 23. Mar. 2011.

45

Appendix A: ECDC Survey

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES MERCED RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ

RICHARD & RHODA GOLDMAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY 2607 HEARST AVENUE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

94720-7320 TEL: (510) 642-4670 FAX: (510) 643-9657 URL: http://gspp.berkeley.edu/

ECDC Parent Survey

1.) Do you live in the city of Emeryville?

Yes No

2.) If no, which city do you live in? _________________________________

3.) Do you work in the city of Emeryville? Yes No

4.) What is your relationship to the child attending ECDC? a. Parent b. Grandparent c. Other relative d. Other: ______________

5.) How many children are under your care? _________________________________

6.) How long has your child attended ECDC? __________________________________

7.) Do you have any children currently attending Emery Unified Schools (Anna Yates Elementary and/or Emery Secondary School)?

Yes No

8.) Do you plan to enroll your child who is currently in ECDC in Anna Yates Elementary school? Yes No

9.) If no, what is the main reason you do not plan to send your child to Anna Yates?

46

_________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________

10.) How strongly do you agree with the statement: Housing Is a major factor in where I enroll my

child in school. a.) strongly agree b.) somewhat agree c.) somewhat disagree d.) strongly disagree e.) don’t know

11.) Do you believe that there is adequate affordable housing in Emeryville? (affordable= housing

costs are less than 30% of average family’s income) a.) strongly agree b.) somewhat agree c.) somewhat disagree d.) strongly disagree e.) don’t know

12.) Do you believe you live in an affordable family-friendly home?

a. ) strongly agree b. ) somewhat agree c. ) somewhat disagree d. )strongly disagree e. ) don’t know

13.) Do you have access to parks and other recreational facilities close to your home?

Yes No

14.) What type of home do you live in? a. Detached single unit house b. Attached Townhouse c. Condominium d. Apartment

15.) How strongly do you agree with this statement: There is a sufficient number of bedrooms and

storage space in my home. a.) strongly agree b.) somewhat agree c.) somewhat disagree d.) strongly disagree e.) don’t know

47

Appendix B: Further case studies:

A.) Family Friendly amenities: Frank G. Mar Community Housing, Oakland

The Frank G. Mar Community Housing complex is 119 units of 100% affordable housing in Oakland.

The apartment complex offer many amenities that attract and maintain families. The housing

development has a Head Start Childcare center within the residence for families with children as well as

the local community. The apartments are three to four bedroom apartments that specifically

accommodate large families in the city‘s Chinatown area, as well as having single bedrooms for senior

citizens. The apartments are high quality that supports the nurturing and development of families with

growing children. Each unit has natural light, cross ventilation, as well as high ceilings. The complex

also has public parking which is essential for families with cars, as well as being in close proximity to

shopping and transportation.97

B.) Tax Incentives: An example of a tax incentive program that encourages affordable

family friendly housing is New York‘s Department of Housing Preservation and Development‘s tax

incentive program.97

For example, there is partial tax exemptions for construction of new homes that are

owner occupied.

C.) Inclusionary Housing Polices: Montgomery County, Maryland

Montgomery County‘s zoning policy is that it allows the public housing authority, named the Housing

Opportunities Commission, to purchase one-third of the inclusionary zoning homes within every

subdivision of the city specifically to implement a federally subsidized public housing project. This

program takes the ―Moving to Opportunity‖ perspective of moving families that are earning below the

poverty line and placing them into affluent neighborhoods so that the families may benefit from better

neighborhoods with better schools. The housing authority has purchased about 700 apartments that are

located in market-rate apartment complexes that it operates as public housing.97

This type of reform is difficult for a city like Emeryville that is particularly small in size and whose vast

apartment complexes that serve the higher income households are not currently able to accommodate

families.