San Luis Obispo - Caltrans - State of California

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN Agency Reported Caseloads Agencies and organizations were asked to estimate the number of persons on their caseloads, the average daily attendance and that requiring specialized transportation assistance and/ or were traveling in a wheelchair (Table 3-2). Table 3-2 - 2007 Stakeholder Survey, Reported Caseload and Daily Ridership Caseload Related Questions n=61 Private, For Profit Private, Non- Profit Public Agency Faith Based Org. 7 27 25 2 Enrolled clients/ consumers 110,802 1,061 7,871 101,615 255 Percent of total caseload reported 100% 1% 7% 92% 0.2% Daily attendance/ ridership 16,594 370 2,573 13,596 55 Percent of caseload attending 15% 35% 33% 13% 22% Estimated on-site daily requiring transportation assistance 2,527 60 257 2,210 0 Percent of clients attending daily 15% 16% 10% 16% 0% Estimated on-site daily in wheelchairs 198 53 73 72 0 Percent of clients attending daily 1% 14% 3% 1% 0% Caseload information drawn from respondents, suggests that 110,802 persons are touched by the agencies represented. If these were unduplicated individuals, this could be 46 percent of the county’s approximately 250,000 residents. It is highly likely though that these agencies reflect some level of duplication as individuals who present to the social service system or may be using public transit, may also be utilizing other services represented among the survey respondents. Of the individuals reported, an estimated 16,594 (15 percent) are traveling daily to activities, programs, training or services provided by responding agencies. Responding public agencies are seeing the greatest number of these persons, almost 14,000 of the reported almost 17,000 traveling daily. For non-profit agencies, although only 2,573 persons are reported as traveling daily, these represent a greater proportion of these agencies’ caseloads (33 percent), than for the public agencies that reported just 13 percent of total caseload are traveling daily. This is consistent with the likelihood that non-profit agencies are seeing their clientele more frequently than is possible for the larger public organizations. Consumers needing transportation assistance were estimated at 15 percent overall by all reporting agencies. The responding public agencies reported a lower percentage of daily attendees requiring transportation assistance, 13 percent. For profit and non-profit organizations reported high proportions of their caseloads attending daily programming, 35 percent and 33 percent respectively. Mobility devices, predominately wheelchairs, were observed in use by just one percent of the overall population, almost 200 individuals traveling daily. The highest incidence was reported by the private for-profit agencies (14 percent), possibly because this includes a dialysis center as well the specialized for-profit transportation provider, R&D. 27 OCTOBER 2007
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN Primary Clients Served While there is some overlap among populations served by the responding agencies, there are also differences and Table 3-3 shows the primary population(s) indicated. As agencies or organizations may serve more than one population these numbers do not total but are inclusive. Also, many of the public transit operators were reporting on their specialized transportation programs and so while they may be serving the general public for their fixed-route services, for this survey response, they typically related it to the senior and disability community populations. Overall, low-income populations are the largest single group responding agencies serve (39 agencies-64 percent). The second largest group of agencies serve persons with physical disabilities (27 agencies-44percent) while almost one in ten are serving able-bodied seniors (24 agencies-39 percent) as the third largest group. Fourth ranked in terms of population served are agencies serving persons with behavioral disabilities (22 agencies-36 percent) which includes both the mental health and the developmental disabilities populations. Agencies serving those with sensory impairments, such as blindness or deafness were significant in number (14 agencies-23 percent). Another third of the organizations serve persons of low income (59 agencies-29 percent). Youth (under age 18) were reported as served by a small proportion of all respondents, just 15 percent (9 agencies). Those serving the general public were 10 percent (6 agencies), all public transit providers. Table 3-3 - 2007 Stakeholder Survey, Client Groups Served Private, Non- Primary Client Groups Served Private For Profit Profit Public Agency Faith Based Org n=61 7 % 27 % 25 % 2 % Seniors, able-bodied 24 39% 2 29% 9 33% 12 48% 1 50% Seniors, frail 21 34% 1 14% 14 52% 6 24% 0 0% Persons w/ physical disabliities 27 44% 3 43% 12 44% 12 48% 0 0% Persons w/ behavioral disabilities 22 36% 3 43% 11 41% 8 32% 0 0% Persons w/ sensory impairments 14 23% 2 29% 5 19% 7 28% 0 0% Persons of low income 39 64% 4 57% 17 63% 18 72% 0 0% Youth 9 15% 0 0% 3 11% 5 20% 1 50% General Public 6 10% 0 0% 1 4% 5 20% 0 0% Within the individual groups, the for-profit sector was most likely to be serving persons of lowincome or persons with physical or behavioral disabilities. The private-non profit respondents reported persons of low income or frail seniors as their dominant client population. Public agencies are predominately serving persons of low income (72 percent of responding agencies), followed by able-bodied seniors or persons with physical disabilities. The two responding faith-based organizations were serving able-bodied seniors or youth. Another way to understand the populations served by respondents is by service categories. These categories were assigned to the agencies during the data entry process, upon receipt of the completed survey. They provide some sense of the breadth of consumer groups and service types represented. Table 3-4 shows that of the 110,802 consumers reported, the 28 OCTOBER 2007
Page 1 and 2: COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES - PUBLIC
Page 3 and 4: SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED
Page 13 and 14: Gaps in service, continued SAN LUIS
Page 43: SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED
Page 51 and 52: 3.2.3 Coordination Interest and Exp
Page 95 and 96:
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION COORDINATED
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
GOAL 2.0: BUILD CAPACITY TO MEET IN
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
___________________________________
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Ride-On Interview at Ride-On office
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199:
show all

San Luis Obispo - Caltrans - State of California

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?