Docstoc
EXCLUSIVE OFFER FOR DOCSTOC USERS
Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.

Harris County Head Start Early Head Start Collaborative

Document Sample
Harris County Head Start Early Head Start Collaborative Powered By Docstoc
					Harris County Head Start / Early Head Start
  Collaborative Community Assessment
          Years 2006-2009, 2010

                 February 2011

                     Prepared by

        Harris County Department of Education
            Research and Evaluation Division
           Jeannette Truxillo, DrPH, Director
      Pamela Bonsu, MPH, Research Coordinator
      Likita Durden Holmes, Evaluation Associate
       Nancy Ferriman, Administrative Assistant
Executive Summary
Harris County Head Start/Early Head Start Community Assessment
Executive Summary

Every three years Head Start and Early Head Start grantees are required to conduct a
comprehensive community assessment that is used in decision making for program planning,
implementation, and evaluation. This assessment is designed to help the staff of the four grantees
in Harris County, TX and their Policy Councils to identify current trends in the communities they
serve, understand the needs of Head Start eligible children and their families, and become aware
of resources for families that are available as well as any gaps.

According to the Head Start Performance Standards, Harris County grantees will use this
Community Assessment information to:

   1. Help determine their philosophy and short & long-range program objectives
   2. Determine the type of component services that are most needed and the program option
      or options to be implemented
   3. Determine the recruitment area to be served
   4. Determine appropriate locations for centers and the areas to be served by home-based
      programs
   5. Set criteria that define the types of children and families who will be given priority for
      recruitment and selection

Four Head Start/Early Head Start (HS/EHS) grantee programs serve low income children eligible
for services living in different sections of Harris County, Texas. Three programs offer both HS
and EHS services and they include AVANCE, Gulf Coast Community Services Association, and
Neighborhood Centers, Inc. while Harris County Department of Education offers Head Start
services.

This Community Assessment of Harris County, TX and its Head Start grantee programs
primarily covers the period from 2006-2009 with enrollment information and results of surveys
and focus groups distributed during the 2009-2010 program year. The report contains
information collected on the six focus areas designated in the Head Start Performance Standards
following the outline recommended in “Five Steps to Community Assessment” (Office of Head
Start, 2008). The six focus areas include:

   1.   Community characteristics and need for Head Start/Early Head Start
   2.   Community assets – other child development and child care programs available
   3.   Children under age 5 with disabilities
   4.   Characteristics of Head Start/Early Head Start children and families
   5.   Perceptions of program parents, community service providers, and opinion leaders
   6.   Additional community resources for Head Start/Early Head Start families

A summary and highlights of findings for the focus areas follow, first we present information on
overall Harris County and then for each of the grantees and their children and families.
Community characteristics:

Harris County is the largest county in the state of Texas, situated in the southeast section near the
Gulf of Mexico. The region covers an area of 1,728 square miles and contains 19 municipalities,
including Houston which covers nearly three-quarters of the area. With its beginnings going back
more than 140 years, Harris County has grown to become the third largest county in the United
States. Significant in its growth of population are Ship Channel Navigation District in 1911, the
emergence of petroleum refineries in 1918, and the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in 1960.

In 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau projected a population of 4,070,989 which is an increase of
11.6% compared to the last community assessment (2005). The population density of the region
is 2,356 persons per square mile. More than one-quarter (28.9%) of the region consists of school-
aged children and 8.8% are under the age of five. this is larger than the state (8.3%) and national
(8.3%) averages. Over half (54.0%) of the population was between the ages of 25-64 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2000). One fourth of all children under the age of 5 are estimated to be living
below poverty in Harris County.

Since the completion of the last Head Start Community Assessment, the unemployment rate in
Harris County has increased, almost doubling from 4.8% to 8.2% since 2008 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2006-2009). The labor force in Harris County also expanded by 66,221 persons
between 2008 and 2009 with more than two-thirds (69.4%) of residents16 years and older in the
labor force. The top reported industries in the region include, Educational, health care, and social
services (17.3%), Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management
services (12.9%), Manufacturing (10.8%) and Construction (16.7%). Most residents in the labor
force commute to work by car, truck, or van (77.0%), with 3.3% using public transportation.

In 2009, Harris County Public Health & Environmental Services (HCPHES) released a report
prioritizing the leading causes of death and disability as a larger, older, and diverse population
faces the threat of chronic disease. Heart disease and cancer were the leading causes of mortality
for White, Blacks, and Latinos; however at different mortality rates. One in eleven adult
residents had diabetes in 2007, which ranks among the leading causes of mortality. Obesity,
often associated with diabetes, has also increased over time for adults and children in Harris
County. Forty three percent (43%) of fourth graders in Public Health Region 6-5S which includes
Harris County are either overweight or obese (University of Texas School of Public Health,
2005).

The prevalence of diabetes and obesity comes at a time when the uninsured rate has steadily
increased. In 2007, 30.7% of children in Harris County were estimated to be uninsured. Many
factors such as unlivable work earnings have created a gap for families who exceed the eligibility
requirements for public health insurance, yet are unable to meet their basic family needs.

Harris County is the third largest county in the U.S. and has the highest number of births in the
state of Texas. Among total births for 2006 (US Census Bureau, Quick Facts & Texas
Department of State Health Services, 2000, 2006), 8.7% were low birthweight babies and 39.8%
of mothers received late or no prenatal care. The maternal mortality rate in Harris County is 31.3
per 100,000 live births, higher than more than one quarter of the world’s countries and double
the rate of the United States (Harris County Hospital District, 2010).

The Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority of Harris County recently reported that
nearly 20,000 youth need services from the public mental health system, but 76% have not
received treatment services (Harris County Health Care Alliance, 2009). Among adults in Harris
County, 140,000 have a severe mental illness (Nichols, 2009). Results from the 2009 Houston
Area Survey showed that 49% of respondents reported knowing a family or friend with a mental
health problem.

Since 2002, immunization coverage in Houston has increased. Harris County Public Health and
Environmental Services (HCPHES) reported that in 2007, 81.2% of Houston-area children were
immunized at the age of two. However, health officials estimate that nearly one-third of
Houston’s children under 3 years of age are not vaccinated, which is a concern as prevalence
rates for infections such as Pertussis or “whooping cough” are increasing. In 2009, seasonal flu
and the spread of H1N1 increased mobilization efforts for mass vaccinations in Harris County.
HCPHES held eight vaccination clinics for five school districts, as well as in HCPHES WIC
centers and health clinics.

One quarter of Houston Area Survey respondents in 2009 (an increase of 19% since 2002) stated
that “buying the groceries to feed their family” was either a “very serious” or “somewhat
serious” problem for them during the past year, (Klineberg, 2009). In 2009, only approximately
45% of those eligible for SNAP (food stamp program) were receiving assistance, revealing an
access gap during a time when the need for food has grown in cities and suburbs (Deparle,
2010).

Urban sprawl impacts the quality of air, water, and urban development and promotes an
abundance of manufacturing plants and industries. Due to children’s body weight and
development, they may be at higher risk than adults affected by pollutants in the air and water. .
Harris County has 418 toxic release sites that are mandated to report the release or transfer of
toxic chemicals. Environmental waste and hazards can also infringe on a community’s well-
being. Superfund sites are abandoned hazardous waste sites that have national priority for federal
cleanup. Harris County has 15 Superfund sites.

Daily indoor activities, such as cooking and cleaning can also contribute to pollution. A number
of federal agencies and institutes are encouraging the use of environmentally safe construction in
buildings and cleaning agents in order to reduce the exposure of indoor pollutants. Some indoor
pollutants such as dust mites, mold, and ingredients in cleaning products have been found to
trigger Asthma. Asthma is among the leading chronic childhood diseases in the U.S.. Lead also
poses a risk to children both indoor and outdoors who are more at risk of poisoning, as they are
more likely to put their hands in their mouth and eat non-nutritional objects.

Within Harris County there are 1,200 public water systems (Harris County Public Health and
Environmental Services, 2008). The City of Houston is the state’s largest system serving
2,700,000 residents. As of 2009, Houston meets the EPA requirements for safe drinking water
(City of Houston, 2009).
Dilapidated structures also influence the health of the community. Harris County Public Health
and Environmental Services made neighborhood nuisances a priority for the agency with the
support of Texas Neighborhood Nuisances Abatement Act.

Child Care and Early Childhood Development Programs

In Harris County, there are 3,463 child care centers or homes licensed and monitored by DFPS
(2010). While child care services are readily available, rising costs are making it inaccessible. In
Texas, infant child care at a center averaged at $7,647 and for a four year-old $6,454. Child care
in Texas has become the largest expense for families (National Center for Children in Poverty,
2008). Workforce Solutions, a state and federally funded program that provides human resources
services, offers financial aid to approximately 12,000 working families in southeast Texas. In
2009, 14,634 slots of subsidized child care were available at 1,340 Neighborhood Centers Inc-
accepted child care providers. Eligible parents pay for child care based on their income and the
number of children. For a parent with one child, the monthly co-pay is 11% of his/her gross
monthly income, for two or more children, it is 13% of his/her gross monthly income
(Takahashi, personal communication, 2010).

Aside from Head Start, since 1985 Texas independent school districts have provided preschool
education services through the Texas Prekindergarten Program. (State of Preschool 2009
Rankings, Barnett, 2008). Texas ranks 7th in the nation for access to public school
prekindergarten for 4 year olds and 13th for 3 year olds, 82% of Texas school districts offer the
program, Texas ranks 25th in all reported prekindergarten spending. In 2009, Texas met only four
out ten possible quality standards.

Children under age 5 in the community with disabilities

According to the Census 2000, nearly one-fifth of the population in Harris County had a
disability of some form. Accounting for population growth, approximately 573,138 residents, 5
years and older had a disability in 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Data on children under the
age of five is difficult to capture as there is no centralized reporting system, nationally or locally
(Stapleton, D and Thornton, C, 2009). The Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Department
of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services (DARS) both assess children that may be in need of
disability services. In 2009-10, 7,118 children under the age of five received special education
services through Harris County 26 independent school districts. Early Childhood Intervention
Services (ECI) are coordinated by DARS. In 2009, ECI in Harris County assisted 3.7%
(n=10,265) of the total birth-to-3 population (Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative
Services, 2009). Eight local ECI institutions serve residents in Harris County.

Eligibility in ECI is based on whether a children under the age of 3 presents a developmental
delay, atypical development, or a medically diagnosed condition. Nearly three-quarters of
children served by ECI across the state had developmental delays (Department of Assistive and
Rehabilitative Services, ECI Consumer Profile, 2009). Such delays include of cognitive, motor,
communication, socio-emotional, or self-help skills. Children with atypical development
perform in their age range, but have different patterns of development from their peers.
Medically diagnosed conditions are based on the International Statistical Classification of
Diseases and Related Health Problems (Ninth Edition). During 2008-2009 for ECI Harris
County, common diagnoses included Down Syndrome (24.1%); Failure to Thrive (6.1%); and
Cleft Palates (4.6%, Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, ECI Consumer Profile,
2009). ECI diagnosed 11% with a medical diagnosis, 73% developmental delay, and 16% with
atypical development.

According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, one in five children, birth to 18, have a
diagnosable mental disorder and one in ten has serious mental health problems that are severe
enough to impair how they function in various environments (Stagman, S. and Cooper, J.L.,
2010).


Characteristics of Head Start/Early Head Start children and families

Eighty-four Early Head Start/Head Start centers are located throughout Harris County. From
Baytown to Spring to Katy, the program is situated in schools, community centers, and
independent sites. Seventy-three centers are concentrated within Houston and are confined
within the Outer-Beltway 8 Loop (See following map). See grantee summaries for more
information.




Grantee families overall have high education needs as 52% of EHS families and 39% of HS
families had a caregiver with less than a High School education. As seen in the combined grantee
2008-09 PIRs, only 42.3% of EHS single parents were employed (57.7% not working, though
not all were in the labor force) and 83.1% of two parent families had one parent employed and
11% had both employed (5.8% neither parent working). For Head Start, 66.3% of single parents
were employed (33.7% not working) and 80.7% of two parent families had one parent employed
and 10.9% had both employed (8.4% neither parent working).

Perceptions of program parents, community service providers, and opinion leaders

Perceptions of the strengths and needs of Harris County families eligible for Head Start and
Early Head Start services were collected from three different groups. These included the grantee
families, the family service workers who refer them for services, and the community partners
who provide those services in the community. Data was collected using three separate yet similar
surveys to each of these groups during the fall and early winter of 2009-2010 as well as focus
groups with policy council parents and community partners.

Surveys explored the needs of families for 56 (Family survey) & 57 (FSWs & community
partner survey) services grouped into seven categories; education, employment, social services,
health & nutrition, mental health, disabilities, and other public services. Surveys were received
from 3,354 families (50.2% of enrolled families; range from 23.9% - 75.5% across grantees), 11
FSPs, and 49 Community Partners. Comparisons were then made across the views of each
respondent group.

More than three-quarters (79%, n=2,565) of grantee caregivers reported they found it very
easy/somewhat easy to acquire services for their family (av. 3.32 on a 4 point scale). Grantee
families overall identified their strengths to mainly include:
        Educational and health needs of their children: affordable, quality early
            education; immunizations for children, assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid,
            and pediatric care.
        Education and health needs of adults and families: Fatherhood programs, ESL
            classes, and parenting education, prenatal care, immunizations for adults, dental
            care, and access to affordable fresh produce
        Social services for families: emergency food assistance & translation services
        Several public services in their community: emergency response, churches, trash
            collection & street maintenance, parks & recreation, stores & restaurants, public
            transportation, and regular & cultural community centers

Issue: While families reported strengths in the services provided, high unmet needs were
found in five out of the seven service categories. Families reported their highest unmet needs
for services for adults and the family overall. Unmet needs that stand out by category include the
following:
         Education: affordable before & after school child care, computer classes, personal
            finance programs, college enrollment, marriage education, GED/HS diploma, and
            literacy building programs.
         Employment: vocational trainings, job readiness, & job placement. Families
            identified Employment as their top unmet need.
         Social Services: access to trustworthy lawyers & immigration advice; safe,
            affordable housing; and rental assistance.
          Health education and Mental Health: stress & anger management classes,
           counseling services, and respite care services & treatment for drug & alcohol
           problems for those who need it.

Overall, FSWs shared at least two thirds of their perspectives with grantee families for met and
unmet needs while Community Partners shared much less. Out of 56 services aligned under
seven categories, grantee families identified 24 (42.9%) services as highly met and 21 (37.5%)
services as highly unmet. Of those services, FSWs agreed with 17 (70.8%) of the met and 14
(66.7%) of the unmet while Community Partners agreed with only 5 (20.8%) of the met and 8
(38.1%) of the unmet.

Additional community resources for Head Start Families

Harris County has an extensive network of social services, with more than 250 organizations
providing general health, dental, mental health, child safety, disability, drug and alcohol
recovery, food and clothing, housing, job and adult literacy and other services for Head Start
families. Many of these services, however, are located near the city of Houston and are not easily
accessible to residents in Baytown and other communities more than 10 miles from agencies
more centrally located. Transportation, costs of the services, and the documentation required to
qualify for many community based services present major obstacles to accessing these services.

Summary of Issues and Recommendations: Overall Harris County Grantees
The assessment proposes the following key issues for management decisions:

Issue: While grantee families identified 24 (42.9%) services as highly met they also identified 21
(37.5%) services as highly unmet. These high unmet needs could be found in five of the seven
service categories, focusing on services for adults and the family overall.

Issue: Grantee Families’ top three unmet needs were Employment, Education, and
Housing/Health. FSPs shared Employment as first, and Housing, though second while
Community Partners shared Employment and Health. Across the individual services a lack of
consensus for families’ unmet needs in particular, highlights the different perspectives across
respondent groups and the need for a more common understanding that could improve referral,
access, and follow up as well as advocacy for the overall well being of HCDE families.

Recommendation: Findings show a need for a shared understanding of needs between families,
FSWs, and Community Partners to improve referral, access, and follow through. Use survey
findings as a starting point of discussion between respondent groups on the services provided to
Early Head Start and Head Start families.

I.     Linking Services

As this assessment asks for increased knowledge and understanding of families’ unmet needs, it
also proposes reasons for why needs may be unmet.
Issue: Families may experience several barriers to meeting their needs for employment and
education (their top two unmet needs). High and rising unemployment is seen in the PIRs across
the three years, for both single and two parent families, highlighting the tenuous economic
support families are experiencing during the current recession.

Issue: An important barrier to getting a good job is lack of education as seen with HS and EHS
families. For instance, of the grantees combined, 52% of EHS families and 39% of HS families
had a caregiver with less than a high school diploma. Family Survey results further support this
need as parents indicated a high unmet need for educationally oriented programs such as GED
classes, enrolling and staying college, computer classes, ESL and Literacy programs.

Issue: Lack of affordable child care, especially before and after school may be one of the main
barriers for both employment and educational achievement. Families have access to only a
limited number of slots of subsidized child care, which is not enough at the current level to fulfill
HS/EHS eligible families’ child care needs, especially for before and after school. As families
identified affordable child care as a high unmet need, its lack may be a barrier for all family
types to securing a job as well as allowing them to take advantage of educational opportunities
needed to improve their qualifications. Families also need more opportunities to build vocational
and readiness skills and learn of jobs they qualify for now and in the future.

Recommendation: Help families find affordable before & after school child care so they can
obtain employment and attend educational opportunities. Continue to identify opportunities that
advance education, support job training and readiness (i.e. volunteering in centers in various
positions), and connect to jobs that are most aligned with their qualifications, family schedules,
and interests. Also, to encourage participation in classes, Community Partners suggest removing
barriers by providing reduced cost child care for all age groups while attending classes and hold
classes in convenient locations such as libraries. Community Partners also recommended that
providing incentives such as free meals may help to engage families in classes.

Issue: Grantee families identified Housing as their third highest unmet need. They display a
need for stability as they identified safe, affordable housing and rental assistance as among their
high unmet needs. Also, as more than 40% of families said the need for Neighborhood Watch
programs was unmet, they need to feel safe in the areas where they live.

Recommendation: Provide families with information on affordable housing options and connect
them to partners and resources that can help fulfill their need for stability and desire for a safe
and secure place for their family to live. Grantees may want to strengthen partnerships with local
community policing programs that serve the neighborhoods within their service area.

Issue: The cost of services and meeting the criteria for assistance are also major obstacles to
accessing services. Even though the health needs of children are highly met, health and dental
care for adult family members is more unmet for certain grantees, which may explain their
choice of Health as the third top unmet need (tied with Housing). FSWs are challenged to assist
families when they try to “connect families to insurance and other services who do not qualify.”
Issue: According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, family support services can
provide a nurturing environment, foster healthy development, and promote school readiness.
While grantee services help families receive material support (i.e. Help paying rent), families
point out they have a range of needs that require a comprehensive approach to effectively meet
them. In order to ensure that families feel supported, services provided by grantees and their
collaborative partners must be integrated to be comprehensive. However, Community Partners
are challenged to providing comprehensive services to HS/EHS eligible families.

Issues: Internal barriers to service may be cultural or specific to individuals. For instance,
Community Partners reported these factors may include immigration status, lack of appreciation
for the importance of services (especially psychiatric appointments), low motivation to
participate, view therapy as negative & a luxury, or “shop for cosmetic or glamour services and
neglect essential care.” Policy council parents said many parents do not attend classes because of
the “limited time they have after work to spend with their kids and the time it takes to drive over
to the center.” They do feel that “some parents are very dedicated to getting information while
other parents choose to go out on the weekends to the club or only show up to fun things or
where kids get gifts and leave soon after.”

Recommendation: Identify issues that prevent families from obtaining beneficial services, refer
and assist families to obtain appropriate services from collaborating partners, sharing appropriate
information with referrals so services can be comprehensive, and follow-up with families to
check on access and effectiveness of services.

Solutions: To increase families’ access to services, Community partners suggested they and
Head Start grantees could:
           Partner more with schools (i.e. families in transition, pregnant & parenting teens,
             Head Start & K-12)
        Arrange times and visits by agencies to present and offer relevant services (info on
             HCHD, vaccinations, importance of mental health, etc.)
        Be more involved with state and local programs that help HS/EHS families
        Keep information on needs and resources current
        Getting the word out about what’s offered through advertising across communities
             and in relevant languages.

Recommendation: Explore the suggestions from grantee FSWs (see Grantee sections) and
Community partners for improving access to services.

II.    Location of Centers

Issue: Eighty-four Early Head Start/Head Start centers are located throughout Harris County.
From Baytown to Spring to Katy, the program is situated in schools, community centers, and
independent sites. Seventy-three centers are concentrated within Houston and are confined
within the Outer-Beltway 8 Loop. Despite the numerous centers located within the Beltway 8
perimeter, this area still contains the most underserved zip codes across the four grantees.
Issue: While this may be an explanation for the selected location of centers, transportation for
those living beyond the city limits of Houston is a concern. In fact, transportation ranks fifth
behind housing/health in the greatest unmet needs identified by families.

Recommendation: Among the Office of Head Start’s Performance Standards and Other
Regulations is an article on transportation. The Office encourages Head Start grantees to
participate in the establishment of a local transportation coordinating council. The option is
appropriate if transportation cannot be coordinated between other service agencies or if
contracted transportation costs are high.

Issue: Harris County has 404 toxic release sites that are mostly concentrated within the Outer-
Beltway 8 Loop. Daily indoor activities can also contribute to pollution. An enclosed space
limits the flow of pollutants emitted in homes, schools, and offices. A number of federal agencies
and institutes are encouraging environmentally safe buildings in an effort to minimize the effects
of poor indoor air quality on school children. Agents used to clean buildings are especially
targeted as contributors to a safe environment.

Recommendation: Grantees could identify methods for minimizing the threat of poor air quality
by improving indoor air quality (i.e. use environmentally friendly cleaning agents). Also,
confirm procedures for receiving and responding to emergency environmental hazards alerts near
the centers.

III.   Selection Criteria and Recruitment

Each grantee manages their selection process; however, the Office of Head Start provides a
framework upon which criteria are based. The program must consider income of eligible
families, the age of the child, the availability of kindergarten or first grade to the child, and
ensure that at least 10% of the total enrollment (grantee and delegate) is made available to
children who meet the definition for children with disabilities.

Issue: Over the three year period in which the community was assessed, funded enrollment
remained static. In 2008-2009, Harris County had 23,395 children who were eligible and
available for Head Start. In total, Head Start grantees only served between 29.5-33.2% of the
county’s eligible and available children. Review of underserved zip codes revealed that
many areas, mostly situated within the city of Houston have extremely high rates of child
poverty (e.g. Kashmere Gardens, 53%). Not only is the need for services widespread, but
poverty is highly concentrated in areas were services are already available.

An overwhelming majority of EHS/HS families identified Affordable and Quality Early
Education as a highly met service need. However, approximately two-thirds of Harris County’s
children are eligible and available for Head Start but are not being served. More children and
families should be given the opportunity to benefit from such educational services as research
has shown the benefits of early childhood development programs, such as Early Head Start and
Head Start. Many grantee parents praised their program saying such comments as “Make more
children eligible for Head Start because the way I see things Head Start is not about babysitting,
but about teaching kids and getting them ready for school. My daughter has learned lots and lots
of things. I am very grateful.”

Recommendation: Given the widespread need for services, increase recruitment in regions with
greater levels of poverty. Also, grantees should request expansion of funded enrollment to be
able to serve more of the eligible and available children in service area

Issue: Results from the assessment also revealed the disproportional racial/ethnic make-up of
Early Head Start and Head Start participants to Harris County. Early Head Start and Head Start
families are over represented by Hispanic populations and under represented by Asian and White
population.
Recommendation: Increase efforts to reach out to Asian Community.

IV.    Program Options

Issue: Grantees operate Early Head Start and/or Head Start, nine to eleven months out of the
year, and services are offered as either center-based or home-based. According to the Family
Survey, the majority of Head Start families (52.7%) identified affordable child care as unmet
need. In 2008-2009, 51.5% of EHS participants and 99.6% of HS children enrolled in the 5 day
center-based program. During the same period, home-based services were used by 48.5% of EHS
participants and 0.4% of HS children.

Recommendation: Assist families in identifying affordable or subsidized child care services in
the community.
Executive Summary:
HCDE Head Start Program

Community Characteristics

The demographic make-up of Head Start Service Area I was reflective of Harris County. In year
2000, the region was the third largest populated Head Start area with 983,674 residents (U.S.
Census Bureau, Total Population, 2000). Approximately 8.2% of the population was in the Head
Start target age range (under the age of 5) and one fifth of the population was school aged (U.S.
Census, Sex by Age: Total Population, 2000).

The area contains sixteen independent school districts and a number of charter schools located in
central, northeast, and southeast Harris County. Between 2000-01 and 2008-09 school years,
Northeast Harris County had the greatest increase in student enrollment by an average of 42.7%.
Of the 16 districts 14 experienced growth in student enrollment ranging from LaPorte ISD to the
east with 2% to Sheldon ISD in the north with 53%. The remaining 2 districts showing declines
in student enrollment included Houston ISD with -5% (largest district in Harris County and
centrally located) and North Forest ISD with -33% (Harris County Management Services, 2010).
Student characteristics during the 2007-2008 academic year (HCDE School District Table, n.d.)
included:
        o six out of ten children in the area were economically disadvantaged
        o one out of four was limited English proficient
        o one out of eleven had a disability

Residents of zip codes in Area I, represent a majority-minority with racial and ethnic groups
making up 52.4% of the population. Latinos represented 29.5% of the population and the largest
minority group in Area I (U.S. Census Bureau, Race & Hispanic or Latino, 2000). Other
racial/ethnic groups included:
     19% Black or African American
     2.6% Asian
     1% Two or More Races
     0.2% American Indian and Alaska
        Native
     0.9% Some Other Race
     0.04% Native Hawaiian and Other
        Pacific Islander
     47.7% White, non-Hispanic
A majority (78.8%) of the foreign-born population was from Latin America, according to the
2000 Census. Other places of birth included Asia (15.5%), Europe (3.4%), and Africa (1.3%,
U.S. Census Bureau, Place of Birth, 2000). Languages primarily spoken in the home were
English (65%), Spanish (28.9%), Indo-European (2.9%), Asian and Pacific Islander (2.7%), and
Other (0.5%), (U.S. Census Bureau, Language, 2000)

In year 2000, Area I was comprised of 297,165 families with an average of three people per
familial unit (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Size, 2000). Two-person, married-couple families
with children under the age of 18 made up two-fifths of all family households (40.9%). Among
single parent households, 42.5% were female householders with children under the age of 18.

The median family income in 1999 was $49,084 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family Income,
2000). Married-couple families with children had a higher income than the median ($53,988)
while female householders’ median family income was $23,138. In 2000 were more likely to be
above the federal poverty level (44.9%) when compared to female-head households who
represented 38.7% of those living in poverty.

Unemployment in Harris County is increasing over time, going from 5.1% in 2006 to 8.2% in
2009 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006-2009).

In Area I, most housing units (93.1%) were occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, Occupancy, 2000).
Two-thirds of the residents (66.5%) owned their homes and one- third (33.50%) rented (U.S.
Census Bureau, Tenure, 2000). The median value of an owner-occupied housing unit was
$76,362 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Value, 2000) and the median rent contract was $489.58
U.S. Census Bureau, Median Contract Rate, 2000).

Service Area I contains one third (144) of the county’s toxic release sites (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2010). Area I has 60% (9 sites) of the county’s abandoned Superfund waste
sites in its region (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2010).

Other Child Development and child care programs available

In 2009 in Area I, 372 providers offered subsidized child care services (Child Care, 2009) and
independent school districts in the region operated 309 early childhood education programs (ISD
ECE Programs, 2009).

Children under age 5 with Disabilities

8.95% of the student population at local area schools has a disability. This is based on the
average percentage of students with disabilities according to HCDE-ISD Demographic Data
Table.

Characteristics of Head Start Children and Families

Since 1999, Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) has operated sixteen centers in
Area I. The program is situated in schools, community centers, and independent sites in the cities
of Baytown, Crosby, Deer Park, Houston, Humble, and La Porte. HCDE was funded for the


                                                                                               xiv
enrollment of 1,170 children in Head Start each year, though actual enrollment declined
somewhat since the 2006-07 program year, from 1,432 to 1,311 participants in 2008-09 (HCDE
HS Program Information Report, 2007- 2009).

Based on the 2009 Census projections for Area I, 19,097 children are proposed to be living
below poverty, and eligible for Head Start. After considering the number of children accessing
subsidized child care and prekindergarten centers (10,695 children), more than 8,402 children
were available for the HCDE Head Start program in 2008-2009 (Child Care & HCDE School
District Table Complete, 2009). In 2008-09, HCDE Head Start served 15.6% of the eligible and
available children in Area I and in 2009-2010, served 16.6% of the eligible and available
children based on an actual enrollment of 1,397 (HCDE HS PIR, 2007- 2010).

The ethno-racial make up of HCDE enrollees were as diverse as the service region. Latinos and
African Americans represented a large portion of participants during the three-year period
(HCDE HS Program Information Report, 2007, 2008, 2009). Ethno-racial make-up of
participants in HCDE Head Start in 2009-10:
     57.8% of Latino/Hispanic origin
     38.1% Black/African American
     0.4% Asian
     2.9% Bi- and Multi-racial
     0.08% American Indian or Alaska Native
     0.17% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
     5.1 % Other
     51% White (includes those of Hispanic or Latino origin)

From 2006 to 2009, the primary language of HCDE Head Start participants remained constant.
In 2009-10, English speakers continued to be the majority with 68.0% of participants. Spanish
was used by nearly one-third (31.2%) of the children enrolled.

Over the three-year period, the majority of families were supported by single parents increasing
from 69.7% in 2006-07 to 73.1% in 2008-09. At the same time the percent of two-parent families
declined, from 30.3% in 2006-07 to 26.9% in 2008-09.

The employment status of both family types revealed change over the course of the three-year
period. Many single parent households were employed from 2006 to 2009; however, a fair
number of families had a wage earner identified as “not currently working”. In 2008-09, 52.2%
of single parent families were employed; however, this was a decrease from 2007-08 and 2006-
07. Among two-parent families, the majority were supported on the income of one parent, from
2006-2009. The number of two-parent families with both parents not working doubled from
14.1% in 2006-07 to 31.8% in 2007-08, and increased to 34.2% in 2008-09.

The educational attainment of parents improved over the three-year period. Parents with less than
a high school education decreased from 32.8% in 2006-07 to 23.0% in 2008-09 and those that
obtained a high school diploma or GED slightly increased from 45.3% to 46%. Parents with
some college, vocational school or an Associates degree increased from 20.5% in 2006-07 to



                                                                                                xv
21% in 2008-09 as well as those with bachelor’s or advanced degrees, increasing from 1.4% in
2006-07 to 10.0% in 2008-09.

In 2008-09, one in twelve HCDE HS children was uninsured; 3.6% of children were diagnosed
with a disability at some point during the school year; less than 1% (n=10) of HCDE HS children
were being treated for asthma and none for high lead levels, and 79.3% of children were
immunized prior to enrollment in Head Start. Over the three-year period, the majority of children
enrolled in the HCDE Head Start program were current on all immunizations for their age
whether at the beginning of enrollment or at the end of enrollment (HCDE, HS Program
Information Report, 2009).

In 2008-09, 59% of HCDE HS families received WIC (HCDE, HS Program Information Report,
2009).

Perceptions of program parents, community service providers and opinion leaders

Perceptions of the strengths and needs of Harris County families eligible for Head Start and
Early Head Start services were collected from three different groups. These included the grantee
families, the family service workers who refer them for services, and the community partners
who provide those services in the community. Data was collected using three separate yet similar
surveys to each of these groups during the fall and early winter of 2009-2010 as well as focus
groups with policy council parents and community partners.

Surveys explored the needs of families for 56 (Family survey) & 57 (FSWs & community
partner survey) services grouped into seven categories; education, employment, social services,
health & nutrition, mental health, disabilities, and other public services. Surveys were received
from 695 Families (49.9% of enrolled families), 11 FSPs, and 29 Community Partners (those
who serve HCDE out of 49 total submitted). Comparisons were then made across the views of
each respondent group.

Findings from the Family Survey revealed that more than three-fourths (77%) of HCDE
parents/caregivers thought it was easy/somewhat easy to access services to meet their needs;
though overall “somewhat easy” based on average of 2.99 on a 4 point scale. Families identified
their strengths (met needs) to mainly include:
         Educational, health and disability needs of their children: affordable, quality
           early education; immunizations; pediatric care; and assistance with enrolling in CHIP
           & Medicaid, screening for early detection of disabilities.
         Education needs of adults: ESL classes, fatherhood programs, parenting education,
           and help with children’s homework
         Health needs of adults and families: affordable health insurance programs, prenatal
           care, immunizations for adults, dental care, nutrition & health education, and access
           to affordable fresh produce
         Social services: Emergency food assistance and services available in own language
         Public services in their community: churches, emergency response, parks &
           recreation, trash collection & maintenance, community centers, public transportation,
           and local businesses.


                                                                                               xvi
Issue: While families reported strengths in the services provided, high unmet needs were
found in all seven service categories, focusing on services for adults and the family overall.
Unmet needs that stand out by category include the following:
        Education: affordable before and after school child care; personal finance programs,
           literacy building & marriage education; computer classes; GED classes and college
           enrollment
        Employment: vocational trainings, job readiness, and job placement
        Social services: safe, affordable housing, rental assistance, and access to trustworthy
           lawyers & immigration advice (assistance for homeless families - need is limited to a
           third of respondents)
        Health & Mental health: affordable quality medical care, stress & anger
           management classes; counseling services, and specialized parenting education (help
           with domestic violence, help with drug & alcohol problems, and respite care for
           disabled members, and child abuse & neglect services- need is limited to less than
           40% of families)
        Disabilities: child care for children with disabilities, special education services from
           public schools, support for family members with disabilities
        Other public services: Neighborhood Watch programs, recycling programs, and
           cultural community centers

Family service providers (FSPs) shared about half of the perspectives with families for met and
unmet needs (mostly for health, mental health, social services, and public services) while
Community Partners shared much less. Out of 56 services aligned under seven categories, HCDE
families identified 25 (44.6%) services as highly met and 30 (53.6%) services as highly unmet.
Of those services, FSPs agreed with 18 (72%) of the met and 13 (43.3%) of the unmet while
Community Partners agreed with only 5 (20%) of the met and 8 (26.7%) of the unmet.

Additional community resources for Head Start Families

Harris County has an extensive network of social services, with more than 250 organizations
providing general health, dental, mental health, child safety, disability, drug and alcohol
recovery, food and clothing, housing, job and adult literacy and other services for Head Start
families. Many of these services, however, are located near the city of Houston and are not easily
accessible to residents in Baytown and other communities more than 10 miles from agencies
more centrally located. Transportation, costs of the services, and the documentation required to
qualify for many community based services present major obstacles to accessing these services.

Summary of Issues and Recommendations: Harris County Department Education
The assessment proposes the following key issues for management decisions:

I.     Services Provided

Issue: While HCDE families identified 25 (44.6%) services as highly met (strengths) they also
identified 30 (53.6%) services as highly unmet. These high unmet needs could be found in all
seven service categories, focusing on services for adults and the family overall.



                                                                                              xvii
Issue: HCDE Families’ top three unmet needs were Employment, Transportation, and
Education. FSPs shared only Transportation, though as #1, while Community Partners shared
Employment. Across the individual services a lack of consensus for families’ unmet needs in
particular, highlights the different perspectives across respondent groups and the need for a more
common understanding that could improve referral, access, and follow up as well as advocacy
for the overall well being of HCDE families.

Recommendation: Findings show a need for a shared understanding of needs between families,
FSPs, and Community Partners to improve referral, access, and follow through. Use survey
findings as a starting point of discussion between respondent groups on the services provided to
Head Start families.

II.    Linking Services

As this assessment asks for increased knowledge and understanding of families’ unmet needs, it
also proposes reasons for why needs may be unmet.

Issue: HCDE Families may experience several barriers to meeting their needs for Employment
and Education (their top and third top unmet needs). High and rising unemployment is seen in
the PIRs across the three years, for both single and two parent families, highlighting the tenuous
economic support families are experiencing during the current recession.

Issue: An important barrier to getting a good job is lack of education as seen for many HS
families. For instance, for HCDE families, nearly one-quarter (21.8%, n=265) of families had a
caregiver with less than a high school diploma. Furthermore, Families reported high unmet need
for educationally oriented programs such as GED classes, enrolling and staying college,
computer classes, and literacy programs. As GED classes and college selection, and job trainings
had low attendance during 08-09, HCDE HS needs to explore barriers that may exist for families
accessing these types of classes. Policy Council parents suggested that ‘time of day classes are
offered’ may be one of these barriers.
Issue: As families identified affordable child care as a high unmet need, its lack may be a barrier
for all family types to securing a job as well as allowing them to take advantage of educational
opportunities needed to improve their qualifications. Families also need more opportunities to
build vocational and readiness skills and learn of jobs they qualify for now and in the future.

Recommendation: Help families (especially those with children with disabilities) find
affordable before & after school child care so they can obtain employment and attend
educational opportunities. Continue to identify opportunities that advance education (i.e.
consider time of day when offering classes), support job training & readiness (i.e. volunteering in
centers in various positions), and connect to jobs that are most aligned with their qualifications,
family schedules, and interests. Also, to encourage participation in classes, Community Partners
suggest removing barriers by providing reduced cost child care for all age groups while attending
classes and hold classes in convenient locations such as libraries. Community Partners also
recommended that providing incentives such as free meals may help to engage families in
classes.




                                                                                              xviii
Issue: HCDE families identified Transportation as their second highest unmet need. However,
understanding of this issue is not as straightforward as other issues may be. The majority
(89.5%) of parent respondents reported it was easy/somewhat easy (av. =3.32 on a 4 point scale)
to bring their children to the HS centers everyday with 77% using their own cars. Also, more
than 77% reported it was somewhat easy to access services and more than half of respondent
parents (considered high) identified public transportation as a met need.

As HCDE’s service area covers 915 square miles, representing 52% of the county’s land area.
Maintaining cars and the price of gasoline may be hardships for families who are already
stretched. Public transportation is lacking by Metro and Harris County. FSPs identified
Transportation as HCDE families’ top unmet need saying that “centers were located convenient
to families” but families “lacked transportation and other services in service area.” Community
Partners also cited lack of transportation as a barrier for low income families to access their
services. Therefore, the lack of transportation especially to services outside of the HS centers
may be a barrier for families to getting their needs met.

Recommendation: Among the Office of Head Start’s Performance Standards and Other
Regulations is an article on transportation. The Office encourages Head Start grantees to
participate in the establishment of a local transportation coordinating council. The option is
appropriate if transportation cannot be coordinated between other service agencies or if
contracted transportation costs are high.

Issue: From the Family survey, 75% (considered high) of HCDE parent respondents identified
personal finance programs as an unmet need. As employment is also highly unmet, living on the
money that does come in may be a struggle. According to the 2000 census for the HCDE service
area, the median family income of female householders was $23,138 and married-couple
families with children had a median income of $53,988. As almost three-fourths (73%) of HCDE
families in 2008-2009 were headed by a single parent the likelihood of the majority of HCDE
families living below the poverty level is great. Several parents commented (in surveys) on their
need for assistance with basic needs such as rent, food stamps, and vouchers for clothing. Safe,
affordable housing and rental assistance were also high unmet needs for families.

Recommendation: Link families to money management training, budget counseling and other
programs that can help them manage the income they do have as well as access the resources
they qualify for.

Issue: The cost of services and meeting the criteria for assistance are also major obstacles to
accessing services. For instance, HCDE families identified affordable medical care as a high
unmet need. Insight to this issue is from HCDE’s FSPs who said that even though their program
was able to “provide or connect families to needed services”, their Head Start program “needed
to offer more services”, though they are challenged by trying to “connect families to insurance
and other services who do not qualify.”

Issue: In order to ensure that families feel supported, services provided by grantees and their
collaborative partners must be integrated to be comprehensive. However, Community Partners
expressed several challenges to providing comprehensive services to HS/EHS eligible families.



                                                                                                 xix
These included trying to meet the needs of different cultural groups, need for family
involvement, lack of funding, serving a transient population, low collaboration & follow through
among service providers, and the lack of capacity to serve the overwhelming number in need.

Recommendation: Identify issues that prevent families from obtaining beneficial services, refer
and assist families to obtain appropriate services from collaborating partners, sharing appropriate
information with referrals so services can be comprehensive, and follow-up with families to
check on access and effectiveness of services.

Solutions: HCDE FSPs and Community Partners offered the following suggestions to help
increase access and engage families in services. FSPs suggested:
     Bring services into the centers
     Partner with other social service agencies to identify eligible children and families

 Community Partners suggested that they and Head Start grantees could:
    Partner more with schools (i.e. families in transition, pregnant & parenting teens, Head
     Start & K-12)
    Arrange times and visits by agencies to present and offer relevant services (info on
     HCHD, vaccinations, importance of mental health, etc.)
    Be more involved with state and local programs that help HS/EHS families
    Keep information on needs and resources current
    Advertise what’s offered across communities in all relevant languages

Recommendation: Explore suggestions from FSPs and Community Partners for improving
access to services.

III.   Location of Centers

Families and FSPs/FDWs identified transportation among the unmet needs of families. The
HCDE region covers 915 square miles; this represents 52% of the county’s land area.

Issue: The commute made by families to centers, in some cases, may be greater than families
located in other Head Start service regions. During the three year period, HCDE did not provide
transportation services to enrolled families.

Recommendation: Among the Office of Head Start’s Performance Standards and Other
Regulations is an article on transportation. The Office encourages Head Start grantees to
participate in the establishment of a local transportation coordinating council. The option is
appropriate if transportation cannot be coordinated between other service agencies or if
contracted transportation costs are high.

Issue: Additionally, Area I is surrounded by multiple industrial complexes. This section of
Harris County contains one third of the county’s toxic release sites, and 60% of all Superfund
sites in the area.




                                                                                                 xx
Recommendation: HCDE could identify methods for minimizing the threat of poor air quality
by improving indoor air quality (i.e. use environmentally friendly cleaning agents). Also,
confirm procedures for receiving and responding to emergency environmental hazards alerts near
the centers.

IV.    Selection Criteria and Recruitment

Issue: In 2008-2009, Area I had 8,402 eligible and available children. HCDE reached between
13.9%-15.6%, well below the saturation level of 85%. Eleven zip codes served by HCDE have
very child poverty rates (i.e. 22.7% to 53.9%). Currently, HCDE is only serving from 0% to 13%
of the number of eligible & available children living in those zip codes. Three zipcodes are
shared with other Head Start grantees and serving them may need more collaboration.

Recommendation: Given the widespread need for services, increase recruitment in regions with
greater levels of poverty. HCDE should request expansion of funded enrollment to be able to
serve more of the eligible and available children in service area.

Issue: The ethno-racial make-up of HCDE HS children is similar to the cultural composition of
residents in Area I (high Hispanic representation), though, only 0.4% Asians were served in
2009.
Recommendation: As Area I is represented by 2.6% outreach efforts to Asian Community
should be increased.

V.     Program Options

Issues: HCDE Head Start centers provide full-day enrollment, five days a week from August to
May. Approximately 64% of caregivers noted their need for affordable child care.
Recommendation: Assist families in identifying affordable or subsidized child care services in
the community.




                                                                                            xxi
Executive Summary:
AVANCE Head Start Program

Community Characteristics

The demographic make-up of Head Start Service Area II was reflective of Harris County. In year
2000, the region was the second largest populated Head Start area with 1,272,884 residents (U.S.
Census Bureau, Total Population, 2000). Approximately 8.7% of the population was in the Head
Start target age range and one fifth of the population was school aged (U.S. Census, Sex by Age:
Total Population, 2000). The area contains eight independent school districts and a number of
charter schools located in northwest Harris County (Harris County Management Services, 2010).
Between 2000-01 and 2008-09 school years, several of the districts had increases in student
enrollment (Harris County Management Services, 2010). For instance, Cypress-Fairbanks,
Klein, Spring, and Tomball Independent School Districts all reported an average increase of
35.4% in student enrollment over the past ten years. If the trend in school enrollment continues,
Cypress-Fairbanks could become the largest school district in the county within a decade. During
the 2007-2008 academic year,
            o two out of three children in the area were economically disadvantaged
            o one in three was limited English proficient
            o and one out of fourteen had a disability

Area II residents represented a majority-minority with many diverse groups. Latinos were the
largest minority group in Area II (U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanic or Latino, 2000)
     37.5% of Hispanic or Latino origin
     13.9% Black or African American
     3.9% Asian
     1.1% Two or More Races
     0.1% Some Other Race
     0.04% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

In year 2000, Area II was comprised of 319,597 families with an average of three people per
familial unit (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Size, 2000). Two-person, married-couple families
with children under the age of 18 made up two-fifths of all family households (42.3%). Among
single parent households, 45.8% were female householders with children under the age of 18.

For Area II, the median family income in 1999 was $50,148 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median
Family Income, 2000). Married-couple families with children had a higher income than the
median ($55,708), while the median family income of single female householders was $23,889
with 36.7% of these families living in poverty. A significant percentage of married-couple
families, 38.6% were also living below the poverty level. The majority of families were married-
couple families with an employed husband in the labor force (58.0%). Of the single female head
of households, 60% were in the workforce,

In Area II, most housing units (93.6%) were occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, Occupancy, 2000).
Almost sixty percent of the residents owned their homes (U.S. Census Bureau, Tenure, 2000).
The median value of an owner-occupied housing unit was $86,441 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median


                                                                                               xxii
Value, 2000). Forty one percent of the residents rented (U.S. Census Bureau, Occupancy, 2000);
the median rent contract was $514.02 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Contract Rent, 2000). Two-
thirds of the population, 16 years and older were in the labor force. The top reported occupations
in the service area for males included, Manufacturing (16.8%); Construction (16.7%); and Retail
trade (11.0%). For females, the top three reported occupations were Educational, health, and
social services (27.4%); Retail trade (12.7%); and Professional, scientific, management,
administrative, and waste management services (11.3%, U.S. Census Bureau, Sex by
Occupation, 2000). Residents in the labor force commute to work by car, truck, or van (92.1%),
and 3.1% travel using public transportation (U.S. Census Bureau, Means of Transportation,
2000).

Service Area II contains one fourth (120) of the county’s toxic release sites (EPA, 2010).
Area II has 2 Superfund sites (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2010).

Child Care and Early Childhood Development Programs

In Harris County, there are 3,463 child care centers or homes licensed and monitored by DFPS
(2010). In 2009, 443 providers in Area II offered subsidized child care services (Child Care,
2009) through Workforce Solutions and Neighborhood Centers Inc. In Area II, there are 332
early childhood education programs operated out of independent school districts in the region
(ISD ECE Programs, 2009).

Children under age 5 with Disabilities

7.1% of the student population at local area schools has a disability. This is based on the average
percentage of students with disabilities according to the AVANCE-ISD Demographic Data
Table.

Characteristics of Head Start/Early Head Start children and families
Since 1999, AVANCE has operated seventeen centers in Area II. The program is situated in
schools and independent sites in the cities of Houston, Jersey Village, Pasadena, and Tomball.
AVANCE is currently funded for the enrollment of 108 participants in Early Head Start and
1,713 children in Head Start (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD Program Information Reports,
2009). The funded enrollment for AVANCE Head Start decreased in 2007 (AVANCE HS
Program Information Reports, 2007-2009. The actual enrollment for EHS increased since the
2006-07 program year, from 177 to 190 participants in 2008-09 (AVANCE EHS Program
Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009). In AVANCE Head Start, the actual enrollment
decreased slightly during the three year period by 3.6% (AVANCE HS PIR, 2007-2009).

Based on the projected numbers for 2009, 26,387 children are proposed to be living below
poverty, and are eligible for Head Start. Considering the number of children accessing subsidized
child care and prekindergarten centers (14,487 children), more than 11,900 children were
available for AVANCE Early Head Start and Head Start program in 2008-2009 (Child Care,
2009). During that year, AVANCE had a funded enrollment of 1,821 participants and served
2,096 infants, children and women. Therefore, in 2008-09 the agency served approximately
15.3% - 17.6% of its eligible and available population and in 2009-2010, the agency had an



                                                                                               xxiii
actual enrollment of 2,229 which is approximately 18.7% of eligible and available children for
that year.

The ethno-racial make up of AVANCE enrollees reveals a large representation from the
Latino/Hispanic community. In EHS, nearly all participants identified as of Latino or Hispanic
origin over the three year period. In 2010, 100% of the enrollees were of Latino or Hispanic
origin (AVANCE 2010demog, 2009). In Head Start, Latinos also consistently made up the
majority.

In 2010, 73% of children enrolled at AVANCE centers identified as Latino or Hispanic.
           o 24% Black or African American
           o 1.3% Bi-racial
           o 0.8% White
           o 0.5% Asian
           o 0.4% Other

In 2010, 61% of children enrolled with AVANCE Houston’s delegate, Aldine ISD were of
           Latino or Hispanic origin.
           o 31% Black/African American
           o 68% White (mostly of Hispanic or Latino origin)
           o 0.5% Asian
           o 0.7% Bi-racial

From 2006 to 2009, the majority of AVANCE EHS children primarily spoke Spanish in the
home. In 2009, 67.4% conversed at home in Spanish. For AVANCE HS, English and Spanish
were equally spoken. Over the three-year period, two parent families were the majority for
AVANCE EHS and Aldine ISD families; however there was a reduction in the percentage of two
parent families (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS PIR, 2007- 2009). From 2006 to 2009,
the percent of two-parent EHS families declined slightly, from 72.5% to 71.2%. At Aldine ISD,
two-parent families declined from 68.1% in 2006 to 62.9% in 2009. At AVANCE HS, two
parent families were not the majority, but there was an increase, from 40.7% in 2006-07 to
45.4% in 2008-09.

The employment status of two parent families over the course of the three-year period revealed
that the most common family structure was the employment of one of the two parents
(AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS PIR, 2007- 2009). In 2008-09, 90.4% of EHS families;
84.8% of HS families; and 82.5% of Aldine ISD families was supported by one employed parent.
The number of two-parent families where neither worked had some variation over the three year
period, but declines occurred by 2008-09. The percentage of two-parent households in AVANCE
EHS not working during 2008-09 was 1%. For AVANCE HS the percentage declined to 2.7%
and for Aldine ISD 5.4%. As aforementioned, AVANCE HS families were generally headed by
single parent families. In 2008-09, 54.6% of HS families were single headed households.
Although the majority, single parent households did decline over the three year period, from
59.3% in 2006 to 54.6% in 2009.




                                                                                            xxiv
The employment status among single parent families varied over time and between programs
(AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS PIR 2007- 2009). For AVANCE EHS, most single
parent households had not been currently employed. Additionally, the percentage of single
parents not working increased from 72.7% in 2006 to 76.2% in 2009. Among AVANCE HS
single parent families, the majority were employed, 71.6% by 2008-09. The percentage of single
parent families not working also decreased in that time, from 38.1% in 2006-07 to 28.4%. The
majority of Aldine ISD single parent families were employed; by 2008-09 74.9% were
employed. Single parent families that were not working, decreased; from 36.9% in 2006-07 to
25.1% in 2008-2009. Unemployment in Harris County increased during the same time period,
going from 5.1% in 2006 to 8.2% in 2009 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006- 2009).

The educational attainment of parents varied over the three-year period (AVANCE EHS, HS, &
Aldine ISD HS Program Information Reports, 2007- 2009). For AVANCE EHS Families: by
2008-09, the percentage of families with less than a high school education increased to 63% from
50.8% in 2006-07. The percentage of families with a caregiver that has obtained their high
school diploma or GED decreased, from 34.2% in 2006-07 to 27.4% in 2008-09. AVANCE HS
Families: families with a caregiver that received less than a high school education decreased
slightly from 38.7% in 2006-07 to 34.7% in 2008-09. High school graduates or GED recipients
declined from 43.7% in 2006-07 to 35.7% 2008-09. Caregivers with some college, vocational
school, or Associate degree showed growth over the three year period, rising from 15.3% in
2006-07 to 27.2% in 2008-09. For Aldine ISD Families: parents with less than a high school
education made up 39.3% in 2008-09, down from the prior program year (49.9%), but slightly
higher than 2006-07 (38.2%). The percentage of parents with a high school degree or GED
increased from 35.7% in 2006-07 to 38.5% in 2008-09

At the end of the 2008-09 enrollment year (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS PIRs, 2009),
2.9% of AVANCE EHS children were uninsured, 7.5% of AVANCE HS children were
uninsured, 18.2% of Aldine ISD children were uninsured.

During 2008-09 (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS PIR, 2009): 11.1% of children enrolled
in AVANCE EHS were diagnosed with a disability, 2.4% of children enrolled in AVANCE HS
were diagnosed with a disability, 11.6% of children enrolled at Aldine ISD Head Start centers
were diagnosed with a disability.

Over the three-year period, the majority of children enrolled in the AVANCE EHS, HS, and
Aldine ISD program were current on all immunizations for their age whether at the beginning of
enrollment or at the end of enrollment AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS Program
Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009). In 2008-09 (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS
Program Information Reports, 2009): The percent immunized by the end of the program year
were, 95.3% of EHS children, 97% of HS children, and 96% of Aldine ISD children.

In 2008-09 (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS PIRs, 2009): the percent of families
receiving WIC was 90.4% of AVANCE EHS families, 61.7% of AVANCE HS families ,and
40.1% of Aldine ISD families




                                                                                            xxv
Some indoor pollutants such as dust mites, mold, and ingredients in cleaning products have been
found to trigger Asthma. Asthma is among the leading chronic childhood diseases in the U.S.,
and has maintained a high prevalence since the 1990s. Lead also poses a risk to children both
indoor and outdoors. Children are at greater risk of lead poisoning, as they are more likely to eat
non-nutritional objects, especially in areas with exposure to lead paint chips from homes built
before the 1970’s. As seen in the 2008-09 PIR (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS Reports,
2009):
        o 1.6% of EHS children were being treated for asthma.
        o 5.7% of AVANCE HS children were being treated for asthma.
        o 5.1% of Aldine ISD children were being treated for asthma.
        o Three children enrolled at AVANCE HS were treated for high lead levels. Neither
            AVANCE EHS nor Aldine ISD centers had lead cases.

Perceptions of program parents, community service providers and opinion leaders

Perceptions of the strengths and needs of Harris County families eligible for Head Start and
Early Head Start services were collected from three different groups. These included the grantee
families, the family service workers who refer them for services, and the community partners
who provide those services in the community. Data was collected using three separate yet similar
surveys to each of these groups during the fall and early winter of 2009-2010 as well as focus
groups with policy council parents and community partners.

Surveys explored the needs of families for 56 (Family survey) & 57 (FSWs & community
partner survey) services grouped into seven categories; education, employment, social services,
health & nutrition, mental health, disabilities, and other public services. Surveys were received
from 589 Families (46% of enrolled families), 4 FDWs, and 28 Community Partners (those who
serve AVANCE out of 49 total submitted). Comparisons were then made across the views of
each respondent group.

Findings from the Family Survey revealed that most of AVANCE families (81.5%) thought it
was easy/somewhat easy (av. 3.13 on a 4- point scale) to access services overall to meet their
needs.

Families identified their strengths (met needs) to include:
        Education, health, and disability needs of children: Affordable, quality early
               education; immunizations; pediatric care; and assistance with enrolling in CHIP
               & Medicaid; identifying disabilities & special education through the public
               schools
        Education needs for adults: fatherhood programs, marriage education, ESL classes,
               and GED classes;
        Health needs for adults: affordable health insurance and quality medical care,
               prenatal care, immunizations, dental care, nutrition and health education, and
               access to affordable fresh produce
        Mental health and disabilities service needs for adults: stress and anger
               management classes, counseling, domestic violence, child abuse/neglect services,



                                                                                               xxvi
              drug & alcohol problems; family support and child care for members with
              disabilities
          Social service needs for families: translation services, assistance for homeless
              families, emergency food assistance, legal services, and immigration concerns
          Access to public services in their communities: emergency response, churches,
              public transportation, trash collection & street maintenance, community &
              cultural community centers, parks & recreation, local businesses, and
              neighborhood watch

Overall, AVANCE caregiver respondents felt the majority of their needs were met which they
may link to a caring staff. For instance, caregivers said “Needs are met. I really love the Head
Start family, very supportive” and “FDWs help me with almost everything.” These results
support AVANCE’s model of delivering services that “embraces systems integration and
connects caregivers and children to other community resources that strengthen families.”

Issue: While families reported strengths in the services provided, high unmet needs were
found in three out of the seven service categories. Unmet service needs focused on education,
employment, and social services for adults and the family overall. Unmet needs that stand out by
category include the following:
        Education: affordable child care, computer classes, and personal finance education
        Employment: job trainings, readiness, & placement
        Social services: safe, affordable housing

Family Development workers (FDWs) shared several perspectives with families for met and
unmet needs while community partners shared less. Out of 56 services aligned under seven
categories, AVANCE families identified 35 (62.5%) services as highly met and 7 (12.5%)
services as highly unmet. Of those services, FDWs agreed with 21 (60%) of the met and 5
(71.4%) of the unmet while Community Partners agreed with only 5 (14.3%) of the met and 3
(42.9%) of the unmet.

Additional community resources for Head Start Families
Harris County has an extensive network of social services, with more than 250 organizations
providing general health, dental, mental health, child safety, disability, drug and alcohol
recovery, food and clothing, housing, job and adult literacy and other services for Head Start
families. Many of these services, however, are located near the city of Houston and are not easily
accessible to residents in Baytown and other communities more than 10 miles from agencies
more centrally located. Transportation, costs of the services, and the documentation required to
qualify for many community based services present major obstacles to accessing these services.

Summary of Issues and Recommendations: AVANCE
The assessment proposes the following key issues for management decisions:




                                                                                              xxvii
I.     Services Provided

Issue: While AVANCE families identified 35 (62.5%) services as highly unmet (strengths) they
also identified 7 (12.5%) services as highly unmet. These high unmet needs could be found in
three service categories, focusing on services for adults and the family overall.

Issue: AVANCE Families’ top three unmet needs were Employment, Education, and Health.
FDWs shared Employment and Education while Community Partners shared Employment and
Health. Across the individual services a lack of consensus for families’ unmet needs in
particular, highlights the different perspectives across respondent groups and the need for a more
common understanding that could improve referral, access, and follow up as well as advocacy
for the overall well being of AVANCE families.

Recommendation: Findings show a need for a shared understanding of needs between families,
FDWs, and Community Partners to improve referral, access, and follow through. Use survey
findings as a starting point of discussion between respondent groups on the services provided to
Head Start families.

II.    Linking Services

As this assessment asks for increased knowledge and understanding of families’ unmet needs, it
also proposes reasons for why needs may be unmet.

Issue: Families may experience several barriers to meeting their needs for employment and
education (their top two unmet needs). AVANCE’s PIR (2008-2009) indicated that a high
number of single parents were unemployed (83% in EHS, 28% in HS, and 25% in Aldine HS).
Even though 90% of 2- parent families have one parent working, families may have difficulties
managing on one income. In addition, the fact that approximately 63% of EHS parents and 35%
of HS parents had less than a high school education shows the need for increased educational
attainment.

Issue: Lack of affordable child care, especially before and after school may be one of the main
barriers for both employment and educational achievement. AVANCE families and community
partners identified affordable before and after school care as a high unmet need for families.
Families have access to only a limited number of slots of subsidized child care (Child Care
Harris County, 2009), which is not enough at the current level to fulfill HS/EHS eligible
families’ child care needs, especially for before and after school. Child care in Texas has also
become the largest expense for families (National Center for Children’s Poverty, 2008). For
example, average costs of day care in Harris County range from $96- $158 a month depending
on the age of the child and type of care. As families identified affordable before & after school
child care as a high unmet need, its lack may be a barrier for all family types to securing a job as
well as allowing them to take advantage of educational opportunities needed to improve their
qualifications. Families also need more opportunities to build vocational and readiness skills and
learn of jobs they qualify for now and in the future.




                                                                                              xxviii
Recommendation: Help families find affordable before & after school child care so they can
obtain employment and attend educational opportunities. Continue to identify and partner with
opportunities that advance education, support job training & readiness (i.e. volunteering in
centers in various positions), and connect to jobs that are most aligned with their qualifications,
family schedules, and interests. Also, to encourage participation in classes, Community Partners
suggest removing barriers by providing reduced cost child care for all age groups while attending
classes and hold classes in convenient locations such as libraries. Community Partners also
recommended that providing incentives such as free meals may help to engage families in
classes.
Issue: Families identified Personal finance programs as a high unmet need. As employment is
also highly unmet (either have no job or only low paying jobs), living on the money that does
come in may be a struggle. One parent asked for “help fixing my credit score and solving all my
debt” and others asked for help with rent, utility bills, and legal advice.” A few also comment on
difficulties getting food stamps and Medicaid.

Recommendation: Link families to credit counseling and other programs that can help them
manage the income they do have as well as access the resources they qualify for.

Issue: Health is the third top unmet need for families. However, family survey respondents did
not identify any specific health services as highly unmet. On the other hand, FDWs identified
affordable health insurance as a high unmet need for families and remarked that “Families are
reluctant to participate in services because of health requirements, such as physicals, shots, and
dental care.” Families may understand how all these issues are related, though, as one said “Need
GED to start education to get employment that can provide good health/dental insurance.” An
issue to consider may be that even though FDWs have made referrals for health services families
qualify for, families may find or think the services are unacceptable to them and not use them.
FDWs find “following up with families to make sure they received services from referrals” is
one of their challenges for serving families. Therefore, families may struggle to meet the health
and dental care needs of mostly adult members due to lack of adequate insurance as well as the
possibility of unacceptable alternatives.

Recommendation: Identify and link families to acceptable services and programs that can meet
their health and dental care needs.

Issue: Over the course of the three year period, AVANCE Head Start has had two dominate
languages spoken in the home of participants, English and Spanish. By 2008-09, each language
was spoken by 50% of participants. The same languages spoken by children/families of EHS
also trended to less Spanish and more English. Aldine HS stayed in a general pattern that is close
and parallel to the 50% level. Even though the number of Hispanic/Latino families represented
100% of EHS families, 73% of HS families, and 61% of Aldine HS families, it is apparent that
alomost half speak English. Language can be a barrier to accessing services and despite finding
and using services that are available in one’s language, families may desire more help to speak,
write, and understand English. For instance, two parent respondents asked for classes in English
(one at EHS in Pasadena) and one asked for “classes in English composition at the center.”
FDWs also remarked they were challenged by “insufficient bilingual services” which can help
both languages speakers.



                                                                                              xxix
Recommendation: Offer more bilingual options at the HS and EHS centers and identify and link
families to more services that can serve AVANCE’S growing bilingual/English population.
Recommendation: Identify any additional issues that prevent families from obtaining beneficial
services, assist families to obtain appropriate services from collaborating partners, and follow-up
with families to check on access and effectiveness of services.

Solutions: To increase access to services, AVANCE’s FDWs suggested they participate in
“more community meetings to share their families’ needs and how agencies can help.”
       Community Partners suggested:
            Partner more with schools (i.e. families in transition, pregnant & parenting teens,
              Head Start & K-12)
            Arrange times and visits by agencies to present and offer relevant services (info
              on HCHD, vaccinations, importance of mental health, etc.)
            Be more involved with state and local programs that help HS/EHS families
            Keep information on needs and resources current
            Getting the word out about what’s offered through advertising across
              communities and in relevant languages.

Recommendation: Explore the suggestions from FSPs and Community Partners for improving
access to services.

III.   Location of Centers

Issue: The AVANCE region covers 683 square miles; this represents 40% of the county’s land
area. The service area is also sparsely populated in comparison to the county. The commute
made by families to centers, in some cases, can be as great as 23 miles. During the three year
period, Aldine Independent School District (ISD) was able to provide transportation services to
children receiving services through Aldine ISD. Area II is not as densely populated as other
Head Start regions, and public transit is also very limited. Some families may face considerable
commutes to a Head Start center or other health and social service agencies than families located
in other Head Start service regions.

Recommendation: Among the Office of Head Start’s Performance Standards and Other
Regulations is an article on transportation. The Office encourages Head Start grantees to
participate in the establishment of a local transportation coordinating council. The option is
appropriate if transportation cannot be coordinated between other service agencies or if
contracted transportation costs are high.

Issue: Spring is in Area II and over the past ten years has experienced a 39% increase in school
enrollment. However, no Head Start Centers are located in this emerging community.

Recommendation: Future expansion efforts might include Spring, TX.




                                                                                                 xxx
Issue: As with much of Harris County, a number of industrial complexes are located within Area
II. This section of Harris County contains over one fourth of the county’s toxic release sites, and
contains two abandoned areas designated as Superfund sites.

Recommendation: AVANCE could identify methods for minimizing the threat of poor air
quality by improving indoor air quality. Also, confirm procedures for receiving and responding
to emergency environmental hazard alerts near the centers.


IV.    Selection Criteria and Recruitment

Issue: In 2008-2009, Area II had 11,900 eligible and available children. AVANCE reached
between 17.6%-18.7%, well below the saturation level of 85%. Eleven zip codes served by
AVANCE have very high child poverty rates (i.e. 27.6% to 51.1%). Currently, AVANCE is only
serving from 0% to 27% of the number of eligible & available children living in those zip codes.
Three zipcodes are shared with other Head Start grantees and serving them may need more
collaboration. While poverty is widespread, many of the region’s underserved zip codes are
within the city of Houston. In Intercontinental Airport and Aldine, half of the children are living
in poverty.

Recommendation: Given the widespread need for services, increase recruitment in regions with
greater levels of poverty. AVANCE should request expansion of funded enrollment to be able to
serve more of the eligible and available children in service area

Issue: The ethno-racial make-up of AVANCE participants is similar to the cultural composition
of residents in Area I (high Hispanic representation), though Asians and whites are less
represented than other groups.

Recommendation: Increase efforts to reach out to Asian Community

V.     Program Options

Issue: AVANCE Houston Early Head Start offers a full-day center-based program for 10 months
and a home based program for 11 months per year. Head Start center-based participants can
receive full and extended day services at all centers, 10 months per year. An extended-day
summer program is available to 400 children at 4 centers, which operates for 1 ½ months. Aldine
ISD also offers full day services at all centers, 9 ½ months per year based on the schedule of
their school district. While a variety of program options are available to families, many
caregivers expressed a need for affordable child care.

Recommendation: Assist families in identifying affordable or subsidized child care services in
the community.




                                                                                              xxxi
Executive Summary:
Neighborhood Centers Inc. Head Start Program

Community Characteristics

The demographic make-up of Head Start Service Area III was reflective of Harris County. In
year 2000, the region was the largest populated Head Start area with 1,325,988 residents (U.S.
Census Bureau, Total Population, 2000). Approximately 7.8% of the population was in the Head
Start target age range and one fourth of the population was school aged U.S. Census, Sex by
Age: Total Population, 2000). The area contains five independent school districts and a number
of charter schools located in northwest Harris County (Harris County Management Services,
2010). According to a Harris County Management Services population study, communities
within the region such as Katy and Cypress-Fairbanks are the fastest growing areas. Student
enrollments at Katy and Cypress-Fairbanks have increased by approximately 50% from 2000-01
to 2008-09. If the trend in school enrollment continues, Cypress-Fairbanks could become the
largest school district in the county within a decade. During the 2007-08 academic year:
            o three out of five children in the area were economically disadvantaged
            o two out of five were limited English proficient
            o one out of eleven children had a disability

Area III residents are a majority-minority with many diverse groups. Latinos are the largest
minority group. The Asian community in Area III is the biggest among all Head Start areas. The
proportion of Asians in the western quadrant of Harris County is greater than county (5.1%),
state (2.7%), and nation (3.6%, U.S. Census Bureau, Race & Hispanic or Latino, 2000).

      27.9% of Latino or Hispanic origin
      17.4% Black or African American
       8.3% Asian
      1.6% Two or More Races
      0.18% American Indian and Alaska Native
      0.18% Some Other Race
      0.04% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
      44.4% White, Non-Hispanic

In year 2000, Area III was comprised of 320,598 families with an average of three people per
familial unit (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Size, 2000). Two-person, married-couple families
with children under the age of 18 made up two-fifths of all family households (40.5%). Among
single parent households, 46.3% were female householders with children under the age of 18.

The median family income in 1999 was $66,209 U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family Income,
2000). Married-couple families with children had a higher income than the median ($72,984) and
female householders had a median family income of $31,036 with 34.6% living in poverty. The
majority of families were married-couple families with an employed husband in the labor force
(59%), while 70% of female householders were in the labor force and employed.




                                                                                          xxxii
Service Area III contains one fifth (88) of the county’s toxic release sites. Area III has 2
Superfund sites (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2010).

Child Care and Early Childhood Development Programs

In Harris County, there are 3,463 child care centers or homes licensed and monitored by DFPS
(2010). In 2009, 433 providers in Area III offered subsidized child care services through
Workforce Solutions and Neighborhood Centers (Child Care, 2009). In Area III, there are 322
early childhood education programs operated out of independent school districts in the region
(ISD ECE Programs, 2009).

Children under the age of 5 in the community with disabilities

9.1% of the student population at local area schools has a disability. This is based on the average
percentage of students with disabilities according to the Neighborhood Centers-ISD
Demographic Data Table.

Characteristics of Head Start/Early Head Start children and families

Since 1999, Neighborhood Centers has operated twenty-four centers in Area III. The program is
situated in schools and independent sites in the cities of Bellaire and Houston. Neighborhood
Centers is currently funded for the enrollment of 72 participants in Early Head Start and 1,902
children in Head Start (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2009).
The funded enrollment for Head Start decreased in 2007, from 1,932 to its current level
(Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009). The actual
enrollment for EHS decreased since the 2006-07 program year, from 96 to 82 participants in
2008-09 (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS PIRs, 2007- 2009). In Head Start, the actual
enrollment slightly decreased during the three year period by 4.8% (Neighborhood Centers, EHS
& HS PIRs, 2007- 2009).

Based on the projected numbers to 2009, 23,844 eligible children are proposed to be living
below poverty, and are eligible for Head Start. Considering the number of children accessing
subsidized child care and prekindergarten centers (19,235 children), more than 4,609 children
were available for Neighborhood Centers’ Early Head Start and Head Start programs in 2008-
2009 (Child Care, 2009). According to the PIR for 08-09, Neighborhood Centers, Inc. had a
funded enrollment of 1,974 and actual enrollment of 2,178 infants, children (and women).
Therefore, the agency served approximately 43% - 47% of the eligible and available children
residing in the service area and is less than the saturation level of 85% (Buckley and Watkins,
2003). Additionally, based on updated numbers by zip code of those served for 2009-2010, the
agency had an actual enrollment of 2,584 which is approximately 56.1% of eligible and available
children for that year. Neighborhood Centers had the largest percent of served of the eligible and
available children when compared among the other Head Start agencies.

The ethno-racial make up of Neighborhood Centers’ enrollees reveals a large representation from
the Latino/Hispanic community over the three year period. In EHS during 2009-10
(Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS PIRs, 2009)



                                                                                               xxxiii
           o 87.6% of Hispanic or Latino origin
           o 11.2% Black or African American
           o 1.1% Asian
           o 87.6% White, of Hispanic or Latino origin
      In Head Start, during 2009-10 (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information
       Reports, 2009)
           o 68.3% identified as Hispanic or Latino;
           o 26.8% Black or African American
           o 0.4% Bi- or Multi-racial
           o 0.05% Asian
           o 70.2% White (including Hispanic/Latino persons)

From 2006 to 2009, the majority of participants conversed primarily in Spanish. In 2009-10,
77.5% of EHS participants the primary language spoken at home was Spanish. Nineteen percent
spoke English primarily; 1.1% Middle Eastern & South Asian Languages; and 2.2% conversed
in European and Slavic Languages. In HS, 62.2% often spoken Spanish in the home; 33.5%
primarily used English; 1.9% Middle Eastern & South Asian Languages; 0.1% Pacific Island
Languages; 0.4% European and Slavic Languages; 1.1% African Languages; 0.2% marked
“other” without specifying their primary language of choice (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS
PIRs, 2007- 2009).

Over the three-year period, the majority of families served by Neighborhood Centers EHS were
two parent households (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS PIRs, 2007- 2009). From 2006 to
2009, the percent of two-parent families declined as single parent families increased. The
percentage of two parent families went from 62.2% in 2006-07 to 43.1% in 2008-09. In single
parent families the percentage rose from 37.8% in 2006-07 to 56.9% in 2008-09.

For Neighborhood Centers EHS, the employment status of both family types varied over the
course of the three-year period (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS PIRs, 2007- 2009). Among
two-parent families in EHS, the majority were financially supported by one parent; however, in
2008-09, the percentage of at least one parent working decreased to 74.2% from 76.5%. At the
same time, the percentage of two parent families with neither employed, rose from 13.7% in
2006-07 to 16.1% in 2008-09. For single parent families enrolled in EHS, there was also a
decline in employed caregivers, from 61.3% in 2006-07 to 53.7% in 2008-09.

The majority of families in Neighborhood Centers HS were two-parent households from 2006 to
2008, but a significant percent, approximately two-fifths were single-parent families
(Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS PIR, 2007- 2009). In 2008-09, single parent families rose to
48.9%, almost equalizing the percentage of two parent and single parent families.

For Neighborhood Centers HS The employment status of both family types increased over the
course of the three-year period for HS (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS PIR, 2007- 2009). In
two parent families, the percentage of one employed parent increased from 87.1% in 2006 to
89.3% in 2009. For single parent families the percent employed also grew from 63.7% in 2006 to
69.6% in 2009. The percentage of two parent and single parent families not working decreased
for HS families. By 2008-09, 5% of two parent families were not working. For single parent



                                                                                          xxxiv
families, almost, one third were not working. Unemployment in Harris County increased during
the three year period, going from 5.1% in 2006 to 8.2% in June 2009 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2006- 2009).

The educational attainment of parents varied over the three-year period. Evident among both
EHS and HS caregivers was the significant amount of parents with less than a high school
education, when compared to Harris County. Gains were found at higher levels of educational
attainment (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS PIRs, 2007- 2009). For EHS parents in 2008-09,
34.7% had less than a high school education. It should be noted that this was a reduction from
42.7% in 2006-07. The percentage of high school graduates/GED recipients grew among EHS
parents, from 36.6% in 2006-07 to 40.3% in 2008-09. The proportion of caregivers who received
some college, vocational school or an Associate’s degree also increased from 13.4% in 2006-07
to 16.7% in 2008-09. Among HS parents, the percentage of parents with less than a high school
education was greater than EHS caregivers (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program
Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009). In 2008-09, 47.1% of HS families had less than a high
school education. Over the three year period, there was a reduction in parents who obtained a
high school diploma or GED, from 37.2% in 2006-07 to 27% in 2008-09. Gains occurred among
those receiving some college, vocational school or an Associate’s degree, from 14% in 2006-07
to 19.2% in 2008-09. Parents with Bachelor’s degree increased from 5.1% in 2006-07 to 6.7% in
2008-09.

In 2008-09, 5% of Neighborhood Centers EHS children and 16.1% of HS children were
uninsured (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2009).

Over the three-year period, the majority of children enrolled in the NCI EHS and HS program
were current on all immunizations for their age whether at the beginning of enrollment or at the
end of enrollment (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2009). In
2008-09, 87.5% of EHS children and 83.6% of HS children were immunized by the end of the
program year.

In 2008-09 (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2009), 59% of
EHS families and 53.5% of HS families received WIC.

As seen in the 2008-09 PIR (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports,
2009):
           o 4.9% (n=4) of EHS children were being treated for asthma.
           o 2.4% of HS children were being treated for asthma.
           o No high lead level cases were reported in either Neighborhood Centers EHS or
               HS centers.

Perceptions of program parents, community service providers and opinion leaders

Perceptions of the strengths and needs of Harris County families eligible for Head Start and
Early Head Start services were collected from three different groups. These included the grantee
families, the family service workers who refer them for services, and the community partners
who provide those services in the community. Data was collected using three separate yet similar



                                                                                            xxxv
surveys to each of these groups during the fall and early winter of 2009-2010 as well as focus
groups with policy council parents and community partners.

Surveys explored the needs of families for 56 (Family survey) & 57 (FSWs & community
partner survey) services grouped into seven categories; education, employment, social services,
health & nutrition, mental health, disabilities, and other public services. Surveys were received
from 486 Families (24% of enrolled families), 4 FDWs, and 36 Community Partners (those who
serve Neighborhood Centers out of 49 total submitted). Comparisons were then made across the
views of each respondent group.

Findings from the Family Survey revealed that most of NCI families (71%) thought it was
somewhat easy/easy (av. 3.06 on a 4 point scale) to access services overall to meet their needs.
Families identified their strengths (highly met needs) to include:
        Education and health needs of children: affordable, quality early education;
           immunizations; pediatric care; and assistance with enrolling in CHIP & Medicaid
        Education and health needs of adults: GED classes, parenting education,
           fatherhood & personal finance programs, classes on healthy eating & cooking,
        Access to public services in their communities: emergency response, public
           transportation

Issue: While families reported strengths in the services provided, high unmet needs were
found in six out of the seven service categories. Unmet service needs were focused on
education, employment, social services, health, mental health, and disabilities for adults and the
family overall. Unmet needs that stand out by category include the following:
        Education: affordable child care, computer classes, and enrolling/staying in college
        Employment: job trainings, readiness, & placement
        Social services: rental assistance; safe, affordable housing; access to trustworthy
           lawyers and immigration advice
        Health: Affordable health insurance affordable, quality medical care and dental care
        Mental Health: Anger and stress management classes, Drug & alcohol treatment,
           respite for family member, counseling services, and child abuse/neglect services
        Disabilities: Child care and respite for children and family members with disabilities

Family Development Workers (FDWs) shared several perspectives with families for met and
unmet needs while community partners shared less. Out of 56 services aligned under seven
categories, Neighborhood Centers’ families identified 12 (21.4%) services as highly met and 21
(37.5%) services as highly unmet. Of those services, FDWs agreed with 3 (25%) of the met and
13 (61.9%) of the unmet while Community Partners agreed with only 2 (16.7%) of the met and
10 (47.6%) of the unmet.

Additional community resources for Head Start Families

Harris County has an extensive network of social services, with more than 250 organizations
providing general health, dental, mental health, child safety, disability, drug and alcohol
recovery, food and clothing, housing, job and adult literacy and other services for Head Start
families. Many of these services, however, are located near the city of Houston and are not easily


                                                                                             xxxvi
accessible to residents in Baytown and other communities more than 10 miles from agencies
more centrally located. Transportation, costs of the services, and the documentation required to
qualify for many community based services present major obstacles to accessing these services.

Summary of Issues and Recommendations: Neighborhood Centers, Inc.
The assessment proposes the following key issues for management decisions:

I.     Services Provided

Issue: While Neighborhood Centers’ families identified 12 (21.4%) services as highly met they
also identified 21 (37.5%) services as highly unmet. These high unmet needs were in six out of
seven service categories, focusing on services for adults and the family overall.

Issue: Neighborhood Centers’ Families’ top three unmet needs were Employment, Education,
and Health. FDWs shared Employment and partially Health while Community Partners shared
Employment and Health. However, across the individual services a lack of consensus for
families’ unmet needs in particular, highlights the different perspectives across respondent
groups and the need for a more common understanding that could improve referral, access, and
follow up as well as advocacy for the overall well being of Neighborhood Centers’ families.

Recommendation: Findings show a need for a shared understanding of needs between families,
FDWs, and Community Partners to improve referral, access, and follow through. Use survey
findings as a starting point of discussion between respondent groups on the services provided to
Head Start families.

II.    Linking Services

As this assessment asks for increased knowledge and understanding of families’ unmet needs, it
also proposes reasons for why needs may be unmet.

Issue: Families may experience several barriers to meeting their needs for employment and
education (their top two unmet needs). NCI’s PIR (2008-2009) indicated that a high number of
single parents were unemployed (46.3% in EHS and 30.4% in HS). Also, even though neither
parent was working in only 5% of two parent families, parents commented on hardships due to
shifts in the breadwinner (spouse lost job and had to take part time work, etc). In addition, the
fact that approximately 35% of EHS parents and 47% of HS parents had less than a high school
diploma shows the need for increased educational attainment. The need for child care may be a
barrier for both employment and education as a parent described, “A family of six; only one
providing income, so need daycare services for children, to enable spouse to look for work and
assist.” As families identified affordable child care as a high unmet need, its lack may be a
barrier for all family types to securing a job as well as allowing them to take advantage of
educational opportunities needed to improve their qualifications. Families also need more
opportunities to build vocational and readiness skills




                                                                                            xxxvii
Recommendation: Help families find affordable before & after school child care so they can
obtain employment and attend educational opportunities. Continue to identify opportunities that
support job training and readiness (i.e. volunteering in centers in various positions).

Issue: NCI serves Area III which has a high immigration population that is very diverse. Many
different languages are spoken in the area and NCI’s most recent PIR indicated that up to 4% of
languages of HS/EHS families included French, Urdo, various Asian and African languages plus
American Sign Language. NCI’s FDWs commented on the difficulty families have accessing
services due to language barriers and 100% identified translation services as a high unmet need
for families. Community Partners agreed that insufficient bi-lingual providers is challenging
when serving immigrant populations, along with few resources for African and Arabic
populations and lack of residency status or green card.

Recommendation: Locate and advocate for available translation services and other resources to
better serve a diverse population

Issue: Throughout 2009, NCI actually served 204 more children than their funded enrollment
(served 2,178 vs. 1,974), but in 2010 they actually served 610 more children than their funded
enrollment (served 2,584 vs. 1,974). This is about 200 more than the other grantees experienced
in actual vs. funded enrollment during the last year. Considering a high immigration population
and high number of residents in Area III who rent (52% reported in 2000 census) it’s possible
that NCI’s families are more transient than other areas of Harris County. Families also identified
high unmet needs for safe, affordable housing and rental assistance, which may further highlight
families’ instability. Even though many reasons could explain the high turnover in enrollment,
high mobility should be explored as another barrier to getting needs met. Serving a transient
population was one of the challenges experienced by Community Partners. Even though FDWs
identified strengths for working with families of different cultures, they are challenged to serve
families when they are in crisis “before any rapport has been built.”

Issue: NCI’s families identified their need for several mental health services as highly unmet.
For instance, parents asked for psychological therapy for their children and themselves, help with
disciplining their children, and someone to talk to because they are “stressed out a lot.” In the yr.
08-09 PIR, 3.8% of Head Start families and 26.4% of Early Head Start families were referred for
Mental Health services, though none received Substance abuse prevention or treatment (53.8%
of survey respondents said this was an unmet need). Past research (Regier et al., 1993) has
shown that less than 30% with disorders seek treatment, while in 2009, the Houston Area Survey
showed that 49% of respondents knew someone with a mental health disorder (Klineberg, 2009).
Several reasons may exist for persons with disorder to not seek care or fail to participate once
treatment has begun. One of these barriers is the problem of stigma (i.e. public stigma or self-
stigma) (Corrigan, 2004). Lack of mental health parity for health insurance may be another
barrier to getting and staying in care resulting in unmet needs. FDWs identified “lack of parental
follow through” as one of their challenges to serve families.
Recommendation: Identify barriers (i.e. diverse languages, high mobility, stigma, and adequate
health insurance) that prevent families from obtaining beneficial services, assist families to
obtain appropriate services from collaborating partners, and follow-up with families to check on
access and effectiveness of services.



                                                                                             xxxviii
Solutions: To increase access to services NCI’s FDWs suggested:
            Focus on increasing families’ self- sufficiency
            Improve networking and collaborate more deliberately

Community Partners suggested:
         Partner more with schools (i.e. families in transition, pregnant & parenting teens,
            Head Start & K-12)
         Arrange times and visits by agencies to present and offer relevant services (info
            on HCHD, vaccinations, importance of mental health, etc.)
         Be more involved with state and local programs that help HS/EHS families
         Keep information on needs and resources current
         Getting the word out about what’s offered through advertising across
            communities and in relevant languages.

Recommendation: Explore the suggestions from FDWs and Community Partners for improving
access to services.

III.   Location of Centers

Issue: Head Start Area III covers 495 square miles of land area, a little more than half of the
Head Start area managed by Neighborhood Centers, yet the population of the western half of
Harris County is as populous as some of Texas’ largest cities (e.g. Austin, Fort Worth). Their
Head Start Centers are mostly located around Interstate 610 and State Highway Beltway 8 with
the exception of Katy and the Cypress-Fairbanks (Cy-Fair) communities which are also in Area
III. Katy and Cy-Fair experienced an average increase of 50% in student enrollment over the
past 10 years and are among the fastest growing areas in the county; however there are no Head
Start Centers in these emerging communities of Harris County.

Recommendation: Future expansion efforts should include the communities of Katy and
Cypress-Fairbanks.
Issue: Area III contains one fifth of the county’s toxic release sites and two Superfund sites.

Recommendation: Neighborhood Centers Inc. could identify methods for minimizing the threat
of poor air quality by improving indoor air quality (e.g. use environmentally friendly cleaning
agents). Also, confirm procedures for receiving and responding to emergency environmental
hazards alerts near the centers.

IV.    Selection Criteria and Recruitment

Issue: In 2008-2009, Area III had 4,609 eligible and available children. Neighborhood Centers
served between 47.2%-56.1%, the greatest reach to the Head Start families when compared
among the four grantees, yet below the 85% saturation level. Seven zip codes served by
Neighborhood Centers have very high child poverty rates (i.e. 26% to 49.4%). Currently, they
are only serving from 0% to 14% of the number of eligible & available children living in those
zip codes. One zipcode is shared with another Head Start grantee and serving them may need
more collaboration. While poverty is widespread, many of the region’s underserved zip codes


                                                                                              xxxix
are within the city of Houston. In the Greater Third Ward community nearly half of the children
are living in poverty.

Recommendation: Given the widespread need for services, increase recruitment in regions with
greater levels of poverty. Neighborhood Centers should request expansion of funded enrollment
to be able to serve more of the eligible and available children in service area.

Issue: The cultural and linguistic make-up of Head Start children is rather diverse in comparison
to other Head Start grantees; however Early Head Start participants are not as culturally varied as
children in Head Start. Families are mostly of Hispanic or Latino origin.
Recommendation: Efforts should be increased to reach out to more cultural and ethnic
communities for the Early Head Start program

V.     Program Options

Issue: Neighborhood Centers Early Head Start offers a 12-month, five-day center-based service
and a 12-month, weekly, home-based program for families. The Head Start center-based and
home-based program is provided five days a week, August through May. Approximately 55% of
caregivers noted their need for affordable child care.

Recommendation: Assist families in identifying affordable or subsidized child care services in
the community.




                                                                                                 xl
Executive Summary:
GCCSA Head Start Program

Community Characteristics

Head Start Service Area IV had a distinctive demographic make-up when compared to the other
program regions and Harris County in general. In year 2000, the region was the smallest
populated area with 563,122 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, Total Population, 2000).
Approximately 9.1% of the population was in the Head Start target age range and one fifth of the
population was school aged (U.S. Census, Sex by Age: Total Population, 2000). The area
contains two independent school districts and a number of charter schools located in northwest
Harris County (Harris County Management Services, 2010). Unlike many school districts in
Harris County which had great increases in student enrollment, Area IV, which had two school
districts, had one district which decreased in its student enrollment between 2000-01 and 2008-
09 school years (Harris County Management Services, 2010). Houston ISD had a 5% reduction
in student enrollment. On the other hand, Pasadena ISD, the other school district grew by 18% in
its student enrollment during the same period. During the 2007-2008 academic year (GCCSA,
Community Assessment Report, 2009):
             o three out of four children in the area were economically disadvantaged
             o one in four was limited English proficient
             o one in twelve had a disability.

Residents in Area IV make up a majority-minority with Latinos/Hispanics as the largest minority
group, and the largest percentage of Latinos when compared to other Head Start service areas.
Black or African Americans were the second largest minority group, also the largest among the
four Head Start service areas (U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanic or Latino, 2000).
     51.3% of Latino or Hispanic origin
     26.8% Black or African American
     19.1% White, Non-Hispanic
     1.8% Asian
     0.7% Two or More Races
     0.2% American Indian and Alaska Native
     0.1% Some Other Race

In year 2000, Area IV was comprised of 132,085 families with an average of four people per
familial unit (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Size, 2000). Two-person, married-couple families
with children under the age of 18 made up one-third of all family households (36.9%). Among
single parent households, 41.4% were female householders with children under the age of 18.

The median family income in 1999 was $40,491. The median family income level for Area IV is
far less when compared to the county ($49,084, U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family Income,
2000). Married-couple families with children had a lower income than the median ($37,170).
Two out of five families were supported on the income of the husband (42.5%). Approximately
one-fifth of families (21.1%) lived below the federal poverty level. The percentage of families
below the poverty level in Area IV is greater than the other Head Start service areas, which
average at about 11%. The median family income of female householders was $15,622 in 1999.


                                                                                              xli
The median family income for the same group, county wide was $21,552. Forty percent of single
parent families were head by female householders. Female-headed households represent 45.6%
of families below the federal poverty level. The majority of female householders were in the
labor force and employed in 2000 (52.6%); however 41.4% were not in the labor force.

Service Area IV contains one quarter (114) of the county’s toxic release sites (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2010). Harris County has 15 Superfund sites managed by either the EPA
and/or TCEQ. Area IV has 5 Superfund sites (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,
2010).

Child Care and Early Childhood Development Programs

In Harris County, there are 3,463 child care centers or homes licensed and monitored by DFPS
(2010). In 2009, 228 providers in Area IV offered subsidized child care services through
Workforce Solutions and Neighborhood Centers (Child Care, 2009). In Area IV, there are 213
early childhood education programs operated out of independent school districts in the region
(ISD ECE Programs, 2009).

Children under the age of 5 with Disabilities

8.33% of the student population at local area schools has a disability. This is based on the
average percentage of students with disabilities according to the GCCSA-ISD Demographic Data
Table.

Families with children, birth to three, with disabilities and developmental delays can seek
services through Early Childhood Intervention (ECI Served by County, 2009). In 2009, ECI in
Harris County assisted 3.7% (n=10,265) of the total birth-to-3 population. In 2009, the Office of
Head Start issued a policy requiring that 10% of children enrolled must have a diagnosed
disability. During 2008-09 (GCCSA, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2009), 10.7% of
EHS children and 5.5% of HS children were diagnosed at some point during the school year.

Characteristics of Head Start/Early head Start children and families

Since 1999, GCCSA has operated twenty six centers in Area IV. The program is situated in
schools and independent sites in the cities of Houston, Pasadena, and South Houston. GCCSA is
currently funded for the enrollment of 84 participants in Early Head Start and 1,864 children in
Head Start (GCCSA, EHS & HS PIR, 2009).An enrollment dip occurred in the 2007-08 EHS
program year, but returned to 130 participants in 2008-09 (GCCSA, EHS PIRs, 2007- 2009). In
Head Start, the actual enrollment decreased during the three year period by 15.1% (GCCSA,
EHS PIRs, 2007- 2009).

Based on the projected numbers for 2009, 20,359 eligible children under the age of five residing
in households with incomes below poverty, and are eligible for Head Start. Considering the
number of children accessing subsidized child care and prekindergarten centers (7,572 children),
approximately 12,787 children were available for GCCSA Early Head Start and Head Start
program in 2008-2009 (Child Care, 2009). During that year, GCCSA had a combined program



                                                                                                xlii
funded enrollment of 1,948 participants and served 2,194 infants, children and women.
Therefore, the agency served approximately 15.4% - 17.0% of the eligible and available children
residing in the service area and is less than the saturation level of 85% (Buckley and Watkins,
2003). Additionally, based on updated numbers by zip code of those served for 2009-2010, the
agency had an actual enrollment of 2,388 which is approximately 18.7% of eligible and available
children for that year.
The ethno-racial make up of GCCSA enrollees reveals a large representation from the
Latino/Hispanic community. In EHS, the majority of participants identified as of Latino or
Hispanic origin over the three year period.
            o In 2009-10 (GCCSA, EHS Program Information Report, 2010):
                     57.5% of Latino or Hispanic origin
                     37.2% Black/African American
                     2.6% White
                     2.6% Bi-or Multi-racial
In Head Start, Latinos also consistently made up the majority.
            o In 2009-10 (GCCSA, HS Program Information Report, 2010):
                     61.5% of Latino/Hispanic origin;
                     29.7% Black/African American
                     1.1% White
                     1.1% Bi-racial
                     0.4% Asian
                     0.05% American Indian or Alaska Native

Over the three year period there was a reverse in the language primarily spoken in the home of
EHS participants. In 2006-07 58.8% of GCCSA EHS children primarily spoke Spanish in the
home. By 2009-10, 52.2% of EHS participants primarily spoke in English at home, 46%
Spanish, and 1.8% did not specify their primary language. For GCCSA HS, 50.8% conversed
primarily in English, 48.5% Spanish, 0.2% East Asian languages, 0.05% African languages, and
0.4% were unspecified (GCCSA, EHS & HS PIRs, 2007-2009).

Over the three-year period, the majority of families served by GCCSA EHS and HS were single
parent households (GCCSA, EHS & HS PIRs, 2007- 2009). From 2006 to 2009, the percent of
single-parent EHS families increased, from 58.8% to 64.1%. In 2006-07, single parent families
represented 60.6% of HS families; in 2008-09 single headed households increased to 62%

The employment status of both family types revealed change over the course of the three-year
period (GCCSA, EHS & HS PIRs, 2007- 2009). In GCCSA EHS, most single parent households
had not been currently employed. The percentage of single parents not working decreased from
60% in 2006 to 53% in 2009. In 2006-07, all GCCSA EHS two-parent families had one parent
that was employed, but by 2008-09, 70% were financially supported by one caregiver. In
GCCSA HS, the majority of families were also supported by the income of one family member.
In 2009, 74% of two-parent families had one guardian employed. The percentage of parents not
working had a sharp increase in 2007-08, from 8.5% in 2006-07 to 14.6% in 2007-08; however,
in 2008-09 the percentage dropped to 7.9%. Unemployment in Harris County increased during
the same time, going from 5.1% in 2006 to 8.2% in 2009 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2006,2007,2008,2009).



                                                                                           xliii
The educational attainment of parents varied over the three-year period, but reductions occurred
for parents with less than a high school education (GCCSA, EHS & HS Program Information
Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009). GCCSA EHS Families in 2008-09, 40.8% of GCCSA EHS families
had a caregiver with less than a high school diploma, a decrease from 61.2% in 2006-07, 32% of
GCCSA EHS families had obtained a high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma
(GED), down from the two previous years, EHS families with some college, vocational school or
an Associate degree increased, from 1.2% in 2006-07 to 11.6% in 2008-09, EHS families with a
bachelor’s or advanced degree slightly declined from 2.3% in 2006-07 to 1% in 2008-09.

For GCCSA HS in 2008-09, there was a reduction in families with less than a high school
education, and increases among all other levels of educational attainment (GCCSA, HS Program
Information Report, 2009). 37% of GCCSA HS families had less than a high school education,
down from 70.8% in 2006-07, GCCSA HS families with a high school diploma or GED went up
from 23% in 2006-07 to 29% in 2008-09, GCCSA HS families with some college, vocational
school, or Associate’s degree increased from 23% in 2006-07 to 29% in 2008-09, GCCSA HS
families with a bachelor’s or advanced degree also increased from 0.9% in 2006-07 to 2.9% in
2008-09.

At the end of the 2008-09 enrollment year (GCCSA, EHS & HS Program Information Reports,
2009) 20.7% of GCCSA EHS children and 17.4% of HS children were uninsured
Over the three-year period, the majority of children enrolled in the GCCSA EHS and HS were
current on all immunizations for their age whether at the beginning of enrollment or at the end of
enrollment (GCCSA, EHS PIRs, 2007- 2009). In 2008-09, 74.6% of EHS children and 84.7% of
HS children were immunized by the end of the program year

In 2008-09, 76.7% of GCCSA EHS families and 50.3% of HS families received WIC.

As seen in the 2008-09 PIR, incidences of asthma were (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS
PIRs, 2009) no cases among EHS children and less than one percent HS children. One child
enrolled at GCCSA EHS was treated for high lead levels. No lead cases were reported for HS in
2008-09 (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS Program Information Reports, 2009).

Perceptions of program parents, community service providers and opinion leaders

Perceptions of the strengths and needs of Harris County families eligible for Head Start and
Early Head Start services were collected from three different groups. These included the grantee
families, the family service workers who refer them for services, and the community partners
who provide those services in the community. Data was collected using three separate yet similar
surveys to each of these groups during the fall and early winter of 2009-2010 as well as focus
groups with policy council parents and community partners.

Surveys explored the needs of families for 56 (Family survey) & 57 (FSWs & community
partner survey) services grouped into seven categories; education, employment, social services,
health & nutrition, mental health, disabilities, and other public services. Surveys were received
from 1,507 Families (75.5% of enrolled families), 3 FDWs, and 25 Community Partners (those




                                                                                               xliv
who serve GCCSA out of 49 total submitted). Comparisons were then made across the views of
each respondent group.

Findings from the Family Survey revealed that more than three-fourths (79%) of GCCSA
families thought it was somewhat easy (av. 3.09 on a 4 point scale) to access services overall to
meet their needs. While families for the most part are at ease in accessing services, Needs
Assessment surveys further explored whether their needs have been met according to the
families, FSAs, and Community Partners. Comparisons were then made across the views of each
respondent group.
       Families identified their strengths (highly met needs) to include:

           Educational and health needs of their children: affordable, quality early
            education; children’s immunizations; pediatric care; assistance with enrolling in
            CHIP & Medicaid; and special education services at public schools. Parents offered
            several comments that praise the work of GCCSA. For instance, “the Head Start
            program really made a difference in a positive way in our son” and “I love this
            school so much, I wish I could have sent her here sooner. She has learned so much
            and loves school.”
           Fatherhood programs, health, mental health, social service, and disability
            service needs of adults and families: fatherhood programs, prenatal care, adult
            immunizations, help with domestic violence and drug & alcohol problems, food
            assistance, services in own language, finding shelter, and support for family
            members with disabilities
           Public services in their community: emergency response, churches, trash
            collection & maintenance, regular and cultural community centers, local businesses,
            parks & recreation, public transportation, and recycling programs

Issue: While families reported strengths in the services provided, high unmet needs were
found in six out of the seven service categories. These unmet services were found in
education, employment, social services, health, mental health, and other public services for
adults and the family overall. Unmet needs that stand out by category include the following:
         Education: affordable before and after school care, computer classes, college
            enrollment, marriage and parenting education, personal finance programs, GED
            classes, literacy building programs, ESL classes, and ways to help children with
            homework
         Employment: job trainings, readiness, and placement
         Social services: safe, affordable housing; rental assistance; access to trustworthy
            lawyers, and immigration advice
         Health: Information or classes on staying healthy, exercising, etc.
         Mental health: stress and anger management classes, counseling services
         Other public services: Neighborhood Watch

Family Service Associates (FSAs) shared some perspectives with families for their met and
unmet needs (mostly for education and employment) while Community Partners shared less. Out
of 56 services aligned under seven categories, GCCSA families identified the need for 23
(41.1%) services as highly met and the need for 22 (39.3%) services as highly unmet. Of those


                                                                                                xlv
services, FSAs agreed with 7 (30.4%) of the met and 17 (72.7%) of the unmet while community
partners agreed with only 3 (13.0%) of the met and 7 (31.9%) of the unmet.

Additional community resources for Head Start Families
Harris County has an extensive network of social services, with more than 250 organizations
providing general health, dental, mental health, child safety, disability, drug and alcohol
recovery, food and clothing, housing, job and adult literacy and other services for Head Start
families. Many of these services, however, are located near the city of Houston and are not easily
accessible to residents in Baytown and other communities more than 10 miles from agencies
more centrally located. Transportation, costs of the services, and the documentation required to
qualify for many community based services present major obstacles to accessing these services.

Summary of Issues and Recommendations: Gulf Coast Community Services Association
The assessment proposes the following key issues for management decisions:

I.     Services Provided

Issue: While GCCSA’s families identified 23 (41.1%) services as highly met they also identified
for 22 (39.3%) services as highly unmet. These high unmet needs were in six out of seven
service categories, focusing on services for adults and the family overall.

Issue: GCCSA families’ top three unmet needs were Employment, Education, and Housing.
FSAs shared Employment and partially Housing while Community Partners shared Employment.
However, across the individual services a lack of consensus for families’ unmet needs in
particular, highlights the different perspectives across respondent groups and the need for a more
common understanding that could improve referral, access, and follow up as well as advocacy
for the overall well being of GCCSA families.

Recommendation: Findings show a need for a shared understanding of needs between families,
FSAs, and Community Partners to improve referral, access, and follow through. Use survey
findings as a starting point of discussion between respondent groups on the services provided to
Early Head Start and Head Start families.

II.    Linking Services

As this assessment asks for increased knowledge and understanding of families’ unmet needs, it
also proposes reasons for why needs may be unmet.

Issue: Families may experience several barriers to meeting their needs for employment and
education (their top two unmet needs). GCCSA’s PIR (2008-2009) indicated that a high number
of single parents were unemployed (53% in EHS and 31% in HS) and of 2- parent families, 70%
of EHS & 74% of HS had only 1 parent employed and 10% of EHS & 8% of HS had neither
parent employed. Parents commented on needing a job, for instance, for themselves (“to properly
support my family” and “pay the rent and other bills”), for both parents (“to get good
employment for my spouse and myself”), and for those with special needs (“Help a felon find a
job. Give them a second chance for family, children, community and self.”).



                                                                                              xlvi
Issue: An important barrier to getting a good job is lack of education. The 2009 PIR supports
GCCSA families’ need for education with approximately 35% of EHS parents and 47% of HS
parents having less than a high school diploma. Survey results show that parents are aware of
their need for educationally oriented programs - i.e. GED classes, enrolling and staying in
college, computer classes, ESL and Literacy programs - which they identified as highly unmet.
Examples of parent comments that support the need for education are “I am looking to better my
education” and (We need) “help with …employment and my own education.”

Issue: Lack of affordable child care, especially before and after school may be one of the main
barriers for both employment and educational achievement. For instance, parents said they
needed “Before and after school services”, “After school programs for working parent”, “only
after school programs will be needed”, and “I need help with finding daycare for my youngest
child while I attend college and my husband works.” As families identified affordable child care
as a high unmet need, its lack may be a barrier for all family types to securing a job as well as
allowing them to take advantage of educational opportunities needed to improve their
qualifications. Families also need more opportunities to build vocational and readiness skills and
learn of jobs they qualify for now and in the future.

Recommendation: Help families find affordable before & after school child care so they can
obtain employment and attend educational opportunities. Continue to identify opportunities that
advance education, support job training and readiness (i.e. volunteering in centers in various
positions), and connect to jobs that are most aligned with their qualifications, family schedules,
and interests.

Issue: GCCSA families identified Housing as their third highest unmet need. Families display a
need for stability as they identified safe, affordable housing and rental assistance as among their
high unmet needs. The need for housing is further supported by parent comments that focus on
access to public housing and home ownership.

Recommendation: Provide families with information on affordable housing options and connect
them to partners and resources that can help fulfill their need for stability and desire for a safe
and secure place for their family to live.

Issue: Families need financial support and identified personal finance programs as a high unmet
need. As employment is also highly unmet (either have no job or only low paying jobs), living
on the money that does come in may be a struggle. GCCSA families live in Head Start Area IV
where both single and 2-parent households have the lowest median family income compared to
the other areas served by Head Start/Early Head Start grantees. Several parents commented (in
surveys) on their “need for financial assistance”. For example, they said, “Need help with the
bills, rent for house, do not get paid enough for work to stretch” and “we are making ends meet
barely – living paycheck to paycheck- any assistance we can receive would be appreciated.”

Recommendation: Link families to money management training, budget counseling and other
programs that can help them manage the income they do have as well as access the resources
they qualify for.




                                                                                               xlvii
Issue: Barriers to accessing and/or participating in services may be internal to the individuals.
GCCSA Policy Council parents gave some insights to this issue when asked about parents’
unmet need for education and classes. For instance, they thought attending classes was a personal
choice because plenty of classes were offered and “you can find the time if you want during the
day or other time.” Also, the need for GED in their area is great but parents may be “too
embarrassed to say anything” or find them hard and get frustrated. They thought “Computer
classes are even better than GED if you are already working because they give a skill you use in
your job right away.” However, “some parents are very dedicated to getting information while
other parents choose to go out on the weekends to the club” or only show up for fun activities or
when their children are getting gifts. Both Family Service Associates and Community Partners
said one of their challenges to serving HS/EHS families is parents’ low motivation or
commitment to participate.

Issue: Families and Family service associates identified the need for parenting education/
specialized parenting education as highly unmet. Policy Council parents said this was especially
needed in the South Park and Sunnyside areas. Barriers to this service may be it is a “touchy
subject” that is hard to bring up without insulting the parents. Also, “they think the cycle of how
they were raised and how they will raise their children cannot be broken.” Further, Policy
Council parents felt that Head Start uses an indirect approach by talking to parents when the
child’s behavior at school draws attention to the issue. Families may have internal barriers to
accessing and/or participating in services. These may be due to embarrassment, personal choice,
low motivation, or “touchy subjects”.

Recommendation: Identify external (i.e. time, money) and internal barriers that prevent
families from obtaining beneficial services, assist families to obtain appropriate services from
collaborating partners, and follow-up with families to check on appropriateness, access, and
effectiveness of services. Also, to encourage participation in classes, Community Partners
suggest removing barriers by providing reduced cost child care for all age groups while attending
classes and hold classes in convenient locations such as libraries. Community Partners also
recommended that providing incentives such as free meals may help to engage families in
classes.

Solutions: To increase access to services GCCSA’s Family Service Associates suggested:
            Provide excellent service, staff, and Management
            Provide services that meet families’ emotional, social, and educational needs to
               help them to be independent.
            Provide resources and materials for the workers like good offices and desk
               supplies
            (Open) another Head Center in the area.
            (Open another) Early Head Center in the area.
            Have meetings with all service providers to discuss the needs not met and also
               meet families to share their concerns.

Community Partners suggested:
         Partner more with schools (i.e. families in transition, pregnant & parenting teens)



                                                                                              xlviii
              Arrange times and visits by agencies to present and offer relevant services (info
               on HCHD, vaccinations, importance of mental health, etc.)
              Be more involved with state and local programs that help HS/EHS families
              Keep information on needs and resources current

Recommendation: Explore the suggestions from FDWs and Community Partners for improving
access to services.

III.    Location of Centers
Issue: Head Start Area IV covers 167 square miles. With a population of 563,122 residents, the
density (3,453 persons per square mile) is comparable to the city of Houston (3,372 persons per
square mile). The locations of GCCSA Head Start Centers are placed in areas with the greatest
need; however, they cannot accommodate the level of need in Area IV. Family Service
Associates report insufficient classrooms & teachers and insufficient funding to expand available
locations challenge GCCSA’s ability to serve HS/EHS eligible families.

Recommendation: Open more centers in areas of need.

Issue: Area IV contains one quarter of the county’s toxic release sites and about a third of the
county’s Superfund sites.

Recommendation: GCCSA could identify methods for minimizing the threat of poor air quality
by improving indoor air quality (i.e. use environmentally friendly cleaning agents). Also,
confirm procedures for receiving and responding to emergency environmental hazards alerts near
the centers.

IV.     Selection Criteria and Recruitment
Issue: In 2008-2009, Area IV had 12,787 eligible and available children. GCCSA reached
between 17.0%-18.7%, well below the saturation level of 85%. Eighteen zip codes served by
GCCSA have very high child poverty rates (i.e. 22.2% to 53.9%). Currently, they are only
serving from 4% to 31% of the number of eligible & available children living in those zip codes.
Nine zip codes are shared with other Head Start grantees and serving them may need more
collaboration. While poverty is widespread, many of the region’s underserved zip codes are
within the city of Houston. In Kashmere Gardens and Minnetex, half of the children are living in
poverty.

Recommendation: Given the widespread need for services, increase recruitment in regions with
greater levels of poverty. GCCSA should request expansion of funded enrollment to be able to
serve more of the eligible and available children in service area.

Issue: The ethno-racial make-up of GCCSA participants is in some ways proportionally
comparable to the cultural composition of residents in Area IV (high Hispanic representation);
however Asians and Whites are noticeably less represented than other groups.

Recommendation: Increase efforts to reach out to Asian Community.




                                                                                               xlix
V.     Program Options

Issue: GCCSA Early Head Start (EHS) offers center-based and home-based services to pregnant
women and children. Head Start (HS) is a center-based program offered five days a week, from
August through July. Parents can enroll their child(ren) in extended day option or a part day
option known as a double session. The double session is offered at a Head Start, center location
twice a day from August to June. Approximately 51% of caregivers noted their need for
affordable child care.

Recommendation: Assist families in identifying affordable or subsidized child care services in
the community.




                                                                                                   l
                                       References

1. Ackerman, Todd (2008, January 24). Local hospital battles whooping cough surge.
           Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from
           http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/5484659.html
2. Barnett, W.S. et al. (2009). The state of preschool 2009. Retrieved from National Institute
           for Early Education Research website: http://nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/yearbook.pdf
3. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). Labor force data by county [Microsoft Excel data
           file]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables
4. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Labor force data by county [Microsoft Excel datafile].
           Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables
5. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Labor force data by county [Microsoft Excel data
           file]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables
6. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Labor force data by county [Microsoft Excel data
           file]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables
7. Child care Harris County enrolled (by ages zipcode) [Microsoft Excel data file].
           Retrieved from Neighborhood Centers Incorporated.
8. Deparle, Jason & Gebeloff, Robert. (2010, February 10). Once stigmatized, food stamps
           find acceptance. New York Times. Retrieved from
           http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/us/11foodstamps.html?ref=food_stamps
9. GCCSA community assessment report 2008-ISD spreadsheet [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           GCCSA Head Start.
10. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2007). GCCSA Head Start program
           information report.[Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
11. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2007). GCCSA Head Start program
           information report.[Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
12. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2008). GCCSA Early Head Start program
           information report.[Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
13. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2008). GCCSA Early Head Start program
           information report.[Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
14. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2009). GCCSA Early Head Start program
           information report.[Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
15. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2009). GCCSA Head Start program
           information report.[Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
16. Harris County Hospital District (2010).
17. Harris County Superfund Sites (n.d.). Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
           Retrieved September 10, 2010, from
           http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/remediation/superfund/county_maps/har
           is.html
18. HCPHES 2008 Annual Report. (2008). Houston: HCPHES.
19. ISD ECE Programs [Microsoft Excel data file]. Retrieved from Texas Education Agency
           <http://mansfield.tea.state.tx.us/tea.askted.web/Forms/Home.asp>
20. K.Takahashi, personal communication, September 9, 2010
21. Klineberg, Stephen (2009). The Houston area survey: central findings from year 28.
           Retrieved from has.rice.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=1974




                                                                                            li
22. Nichols, B. (Ed.). (2009). The state of health in Houston/Harris County 2009. Houston,
            TX.
23. Population study. Rep. Vol. 3. Houston: Harris County Management Services, 2010.
            Print.
24. Stagman, S., & Cooper, J. L. (2010, April). Children's mental health: what every
            policymaker should know. Retrieved from
            http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_929.html#4
25. Texas Department for Family and Protective Services. (2010). Search Texas child care
            [Microsoft Excel datafile]. Retrieved from
            http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Care/Search_Texas_Child_Care/
            ppFacilitySearchDayCare.asp
26. Texas Department of State Health Services. (2006). State health facts. Retrieved from
            http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/cfs/
27. The University of Texas School of Public Health. (2005). School Physical Activity and
            Nutrition III. Retrieved from
    http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/obesity/pdf/ChildRegion6and5S.pdf
28. TRI for communities (n.d.). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved September 10,
            2010, from http://www.epa.gov/tri/stakeholders/communities/index.htm#chem
29. U.S. Census Bureau (2000) QuickFacts: Texas. Retrieved from
            http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html
30. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Family size [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
            http://factfinder.census.gov
31. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Hispanic or Latino [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved
            from http://factfinder.census.gov
32. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median family income [Microsoft Excel Data file].
            Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
33. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Poverty in the United States: 2000. Retrieved from
            http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-214.pdf
34. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Sex by age: total population [Microsoft Excel Data file].
            Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
35. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Total population [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved
            from http://factfinder.census.gov




                                                                                         lii
          Grantee Partners and Assessment Team




AVANCE
Christiana Bekie, MS, Assistant Director of Planning & Compliance
Diane Patin, EdD, AVANCE Board Member/Policy Council Community
Representative-Community Partner

Gulf Coast Community Services Association
Aissa Zapata, Family Empowerment Coordinator
Delphine Decuir, Compliance Specialist

Harris County Department of Education
Toshiba Crayton, LMSW, Compliance Manager
Venetia Peacock, MBA, Director of Head Start

Neighborhood Centers Inc.
LaTonya Byrd-Price, Accountability Manager
Amanda Gorner, Past Director of Program Planning & Grant Development
Helen Murphrey, Past Compliance Director
Chris Pollet, MSW, Director of Research and Evaluation




                                                                       2
                                                          Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 7
Service Area Demographics ......................................................................................................... 12
   Harris County Service Area Demographics.............................................................................. 13
   Head Start Service Area I Demographics ................................................................................. 22
   Head Start Service Area II Demographics................................................................................ 29
   Head Start Service Area III Demographics .............................................................................. 35
   Head Start Service Area IV Demographics .............................................................................. 42
Health............................................................................................................................................ 48
   Physical Health ......................................................................................................................... 49
   Access to Health Insurance....................................................................................................... 50
   Maternal and Infant Health ....................................................................................................... 53
   Disabilities and Early Childhood Intervention ......................................................................... 54
   Mental Health............................................................................................................................ 56
   Immunizations........................................................................................................................... 57
   Food Access and Nutrition: ...................................................................................................... 58
Environmental Health ................................................................................................................... 63
   Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 64
   Water Quality............................................................................................................................ 66
   Watersheds................................................................................................................................ 66
   Neighborhood Nuisances:......................................................................................................... 67
   Toxic Release Inventory Sites .................................................................................................. 68
   Superfund Sites ......................................................................................................................... 73
State of the Grantees ..................................................................................................................... 80
   Harris County Department of Education .................................................................................. 81
   AVANCE Inc............................................................................................................................ 92
   Neighborhood Centers Inc. ..................................................................................................... 106
   Gulf Coast Community Services Association......................................................................... 118
Strengths and Needs: Family Survey.......................................................................................... 130
   Overall Harris County............................................................................................................. 131
   Harris County Department of Education ................................................................................ 151
   AVANCE................................................................................................................................ 170
   Neighborhood Centers, Inc. .................................................................................................... 188
   Gulf Coast Community Services Association......................................................................... 207
Strengths and Needs: Community Partners Survey .................................................................... 225
   Overall Harris County............................................................................................................. 226
   Harris County Department of Education ................................................................................ 240
   AVANCE................................................................................................................................ 246
   Neighborhood Centers, Inc. .................................................................................................... 253
   Gulf Coast Community Services Association......................................................................... 260
Strengths and Needs: Family Service Providers Survey............................................................. 266
   Overall Harris County............................................................................................................. 267
   Harris County Department of Education ................................................................................ 274
   AVANCE................................................................................................................................ 282


                                                                                                                                                   3
   Neighborhood Centers, Inc. .................................................................................................... 290
   Gulf Coast Community Services Association......................................................................... 298
Strengths and Needs: Comparison of Respondent Views........................................................... 305
   Harris County.......................................................................................................................... 306
   Harris County Department of Education ................................................................................ 312
   AVANCE................................................................................................................................ 317
   Neighborhood Centers Inc. ..................................................................................................... 322
   Gulf Coast Community Services Association......................................................................... 328
Overview of Community Resources........................................................................................... 333
Issues and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 341
   Overall Harris County............................................................................................................. 342
   Harris County Department Education..................................................................................... 350
   AVANCE................................................................................................................................ 357
   Neighborhood Centers, Inc. .................................................................................................... 363
   Gulf Coast Community Services Association......................................................................... 369




                                                                                                                                            4
Introduction




               5
Introduction


Four Head Start/Early Head Start (HS/EHS) grantee programs serve low income children eligible
for services living in different sections of Harris County, Texas. Three programs offer both HS
and EHS services and they include AVANCE, Gulf Coast Community Services Association, and
Neighborhood Centers, Inc. while Harris County Department of Education offers Head Start
services.

The following report presents the results of the triennial Community Assessment of the Harris
County grantees which primarily covers the period from 2006-2009. Additional information is
added that was collected from enrollment and surveys during the 2009-2010 program year. The
report contains information for the six focus areas designated in the Head Start Performance
Standards and is presented according to the subject outline recommended in “Five Steps to
Community Assessment” (Office of Head Start, 2008). Sections of the report include the
following:
   o Methodology- describes the approach, methods, and data sources used to collect and
     process the required information.
   o State of the Grantees- describes for each grantee their history, service area and map of
     centers, funding, program options, enrollment criteria and trends, eligible and available
     children served by zip code, and demographic characteristics of children and families.
   o Service Area Demographics- describes the populations who live in Harris County overall
     and each of the four areas served by the grantees
   o Health- includes community data and research of the population status of Harris
     County’s physical and mental health, disabilities, immunizations, and food access &
     nutrition
   o Environmental health- includes community data and research of Harris county’s air &
     water quality, neighborhood nuisances and toxic release and superfund sites
   o Strengths and Needs of Head Start/Early Head Start families- presents the results of the
     needs assessment surveys administered to the three respondent groups (families, family
     service workers, & community partners) combined across grantees and per each grantee.
     Results of each respondent group are then compared to each other, overall and per each
     grantee.
   o Overview of Community Resources- reviews the accessibility and gaps in service for
     HS/EHS families in nine categories of community resources (medical, dental, mental
     health, child safety, disabilities, drug & alcohol recovery, food & clothing, housing, and
     other miscellaneous services). Refers to the list of 266 community resources located in
     the Appendix
   o Issues and Recommendations – reviews major findings in five categories to be used for
     management decisions, include services provided, linking services, center locations,
     selection criteria and enrollment, and program options.
   o Appendix – contains Community resource list, tables with school district and disability
     data, copies of the three survey versions(family, family service worker, & community
     partners), and list of respondent comments.




                                                                                                6
Methodology




              7
Methodology

Planning for the Community Assessment
Planning for the comprehensive three year Community Assessment for the Harris County Head
Start/Early Head Start programs began April 2009 with a meeting of the Coordinating Council.
Representatives were selected from each grantee to form the Community Assessment Team who
would begin preparation for gathering information and make decisions on what to collect and in
what manner. Representatives initially included 2 from HCDE, 2 from GCCSA, 2 from
AVANCE, and 2 from NCI. Ultimately the team would change to include 2 more representatives
from NCI and a Board member of AVANCE who joined in November 2009. The Research
Institute of Texas of Harris County Department of Education was contracted in August 2009 and
joined the team as the consultant to guide the data collection process and prepare the report. The
team met monthly (bimonthly in September and October 2009) until January 2010. Another
meeting was held in May 2010 to review the progress on the report. Section updates were sent
out periodically to grantees for review and feedback until final completion beginning of February
2011.

Archival Data Review
A diverse set of resources were used to provide context to Harris County. Sources include the
U.S. Census Bureau, Texas KIDS COUNT Annual Data Book, the Houston Chronicle, Health
Resources and Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of Labor. Quantitative data
from sources like the Census were downloaded and analyzed descriptively to provide a
demographic perspective. Qualitative data on the community was used to support themes
identified by the quantifiable data sources. Two documents used to identify data elements for this
report included “Five Steps to Community Assessment” (Office of Head Start, 2008) and
“Developing & Utilizing the Community Assessment (Buckley & Watkins, 2003)”. Both
documents included techniques we used for collecting and describing information on regional
communities in which a Head Start program is situated.

Grantee Record Review and Analysis
Service Area and Center Locations
Maps of the grantee service areas and center locations were created using Microsoft MapPoint
software (2006).

Enrollment and PIR Trends
Information on enrollment and family characteristics from the Grantee Program Information
reports from 2006-2009 was included and graphed with Microsoft Excel (2003) showing trends
over time.

Eligible and Available Head Start Children
The percent of eligible and available children each grantee served in 2009 (and 2010) was
determined using information from several sources. Calculations began with data from Census


                                                                                                8
2000 on children under the age of five living below poverty in the service area at the zip code
level to illustrate the level of need in Harris County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). In order to
account for population growth, the population percent change (19.7%) from 2000 to 2009 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2009) was applied to give a projected number of children living below poverty
in the area and therefore, eligible for Head Start/Early Head Start in 2009. The number of
eligible and available children was calculated by subtracting the number of children that
accessed subsidized child care (Child Care, 2009) and prekindergarten centers (School district
data) from the projected population estimate of eligible children. The percent of eligible and
available children each grantee served in the year was then determined by comparing their
funded enrollment and number served with the number of eligible and available children for each
zip code. If the percent served is 85% or more than the area is considered saturated (Buckley and
Watkins, 2003).

Service Needs of EHS/HS Eligible Families
Protocol for collecting information
To gather information on the strengths and needs of Harris County families eligible for Head
Start and Early Head Start services, the Community Assessment Team wanted to collect the
perspectives of three different groups. These included the families enrolled by all four grantees,
the Family Service Workers who refer them for services, and the Community Partners who
provide those services in the community. Therefore, the Team decided to administer three
separate yet similar surveys to each of these groups during the fall and early winter of 2009-
2010.
Direct support staff of each grantee distributed hard copy/paper and pencil versions of the Family
survey to all families for completion when parents dropped off their children, during parent
meetings, or during other contact opportunities between October 2009 and February 2010. Head
Start staff were available to assist families if needed to complete the survey. During the same
time period, each grantee also distributed a hard copy version to their Family Service
Providers/Development Workers to complete during staff meetings. Finally, each grantee
distributed hard copy versions to Community partners during regular advisory meetings. In
addition, HCDE RIT staff emailed an online version of the Community Partners survey to
service organizations who had not attended grantee meetings during February- March 2010.
HCDE RIT staff also conducted two focus groups with parent members of HCDE and GCCSA
Policy Councils as well as a short group discussion with community partners who attended an
appreciation luncheon held on their behalf on February 19, 2010.

Instruments
Three separate yet similar Needs Assessment surveys were developed for each respondent group
in order to compare perspectives of families with those of their Family Service Workers (FSWs)
and Community Partners. One difference between them was that families could identify whether
a service was needed as well as the degree a service was met while the other surveys captured the
degree a service need was met if needed or note if not needed. Another difference is that the
Family survey and Family Service Worker survey asked about the needs of grantee HS/EHS
families while the Community Partners survey asked about the needs of HS/EHS eligible
families living in their service area. Family Service Workers and Community Partners also


                                                                                                     9
identified the grantee service areas they served which helped to further target the populations to
which the results referred.
The seven service categories that are essential to the wellbeing of children and families asked by
the survey included education, employment, social services, health and nutrition, mental health,
disabilities, and public services. The questions on the Family Survey were revised for more
family friendly language and made available in Spanish. The Family Survey was somewhat more
detailed than the others as, in addition to asking about the level of unmet need, it asked whether a
service was needed and who met it – the grantee, another agency or both. It also asked for their
zipcode, questions about transportation to their program, ease of accessing services, and
knowledge of children and other groups not receiving EHS/HS services. Finally, it asked them to
rank their families’ three greatest unmet needs with space for comments. The sections
designating the Head Start/Early Head Start grantee and type of program (Head Start or Early
Head Start) were pre-populated to ensure this information was captured. Data for the question
that asked “who met a particular service need” (the grantee, another agency or both) was
excluded from the report as answers were inconsistent and the reliability and validity of the data
was questioned.
The Family Service Workers and Community Partner survey versions also asked whether
respondents knew any EHS/HS eligible children not receiving services, and for any population
group not getting appropriate services. In addition these surveys also asked the respondent to
rank the top three greatest unmet needs of low income families in the community, ending with a
space for comments.

The surveys were designed in Cardiff TeleForm®, allowing them to be scanned and
electronically entered and exported into Microsoft Office Excel and the IBM acquired, Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The surveys for Community Partners were also
designed in online format (used MR Interview by SPSS Dimensions) and the link was emailed to
the targeted persons which, captured responses exported into the SPSS database for analysis.
Data management and analysis was conducted by staff of the Research Institute of Texas/
Research and Evaluation division of Harris County Department of Education.

Analysis
The majority of the quantitative data on all three surveys was analyzed for frequencies and
percents using SPSS. Survey comments and those from the focus groups were (transcribed from
a digital recorder) typed into Microsoft Word. They qualitative data was content analyzed for
themes as relevant to the topics in the separate reports.

Rank ordering of unmet needs: Each of the survey respondent groups (Community Partners,
HS/EHS families, and Family Service Workers of each grantee) was asked to rank their top 3
greatest unmet needs from among a list of ten different service categories. Some respondents
may have actually ranked up to all ten of the categories. Staff of HCDE RIT used the Borda
Count method to analyze the rank ordering of the top three unmet service needs from this list. It
is based on a traditional theory of social choice that uses a consensus based approach (considers
all values in a weighted scheme) for determining an ordering of preferences (McLean & Urkin,
1995; ask.metafilter.com/ analyzing-ranking-data, 2006; Wikipedia.org/Borda_count, 2010).


                                                                                                 10
The process involves first, calculating respondents’ Borda scores for each category (N-1, N-2,
etc; where N equals the total number of categories and the number subtracted is the actual
response). Next, for each category, the scores are summed and averaged with standard deviations
(SD). The categories are then ordered according to their sum in descending order. The average
scores (endorsement) should also appear in descending order unless individuals left some
responses blank. The standard deviations (SD) indicate the level of consistency across responses.
For example, Family SD are small (i.e. 0.05), indicating a more homogeneous response while
Community Partners SD are big (i.e. 2.2) indicating a more heterogeneous or disparate response.
The size of the SD may also affect the reliability of the value of the average endorsements and
the order in which the categories could be placed. Therefore, the summed scores are used to
rank order the “unmet needs” categories as they capture all values and may be more reliable.

Interpretation of survey results
The Family Surveys contained a sizeable amount of missing data which reduced the sample sizes
of responses for the different services and the number of responses for each category and
services may be less than the overall number of surveys received for each grantee. The range of
responses for each service is given that reflect the percent and number out of the surveys
submitted. Survey results for each service category are then displayed in tables with short
narratives that summarize service needs with the highest endorsement. Caregiver comments and
PIR data are included as relevant to support the findings.

The table for each service category first displays the number of families who chose whether the
service was a need, not needed, or did not know. The second part of the table follows with
additional information on whether the service items were met, somewhat met, or not met (unmet)
with associated percentages. Services that approximately 40% or more of respondent families
identified as most needed and either met or not met were selected as the highest met and unmet
needs. Highest met needs are designated as Strengths and the highest unmet needs are
highlighted and selected for further discussion especially under Issues and Recommendations.

Discussion of Key Issues
The section on Issues and Recommendation summarizes the issues that HS/EHS grantees might
target their decision making on over the next few years. These issues were identified by the
review of community indicator data, quantitative and qualitative survey results, and qualitative
focus group results from three respondent groups (grantee families, Family Service
Providers/Family Development Workers, and Community Partners).
Issues are organized under categories following the guidance for “Management Decisions” from
Buckley & Watkins’ guide to conducting a community assessment (pg. 4, 2003). These
categories include Services Provided, Linking Services, Location of Centers, Selection Criteria
and Recruitment, and Program Options.
Each category and associated issues are starting points for discussion between grantees and
community stakeholders. For instance, the highest met (Strengths) and unmet needs are
highlighted under Services Provided and issues for accessing those services are discussed under
Linking Services. Issues and recommendations are presented for overall Harris County and per
grantee.


                                                                                               11
Service Area Demographics




                            12
Harris County Service Area Demographics
Information is according to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey unless described
otherwise.
Area Location:
Harris County, the largest county in the state, is situated at the southeastern region of Texas, near
the Gulf of Mexico. The region covers an area of 1,728 square miles. The county contains 19
municipalities, of which the largest is the City of Houston. Nearly three-quarters of the area is
covered by the metropolitan city (Harris County & Handbook of Texas, 2010).

The 1867 edition of the Texas Almanac reported that Harris County would become a large
manufacturing town with railroads, timber, and water serving as its advantages to intrastate and
interstate trade. The almanac also revealed that in Houston, “near a dozen churches, [represent]
nearly all denominations, and the academies and schools are numerous, some of them giving a
complete education in all higher branches.” Prefigured over 140 years ago, Harris County has
grown to become the third largest county in the United States. Industrial and technological
advances, such as the Ship Channel Navigation District in 1911, the emergence of petroleum
refineries in 1918, and the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in 1960, lead to a rise in population
(Handbook of Texas, 2010).

Population and Age Distribution:
In 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau projected a population of 4,070,989. The population density of
the region is 2,356 persons per square mile (2000). According to Harris County Management
Services, if Harris County was a single incorporated city it would exceed the population of the
City of Los Angeles, the second largest city in the United States (Harris County Management
Services, 2010). More than one-quarter (28.9%) of the region consists of school-aged children.
The under-five population made up 8.8% of the area. The proportion of children under-five in
Harris County is larger than the state (8.3%) and national (8.3%) percentage rates. Over half
(54.0%) of the population was between the ages of 25-64 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).




                                                                                                  13
                                   Harris County Age Distribution




                                                 7%               8%
                           20%                                                 16%



                                                                                   5%
                                                                               10%
                                           34%




                          Under 5 years          5 to 14 years         15 to 17 years
                          18 to 24 years         25 to 44 years        45 to 64 years
                          65 years and over




School Demographics
Harris County is comprised of various primary and secondary schools. There are 26 independent
school districts. The county is within Region 4, an education service center designated by Texas
Education Agency. During the 2008-2009 school, a majority of students were economically
disadvantaged; one in five were limited English proficient; and less than one-tenth of students
received special education services (Texas Education Agency, 2009).

                    School Demographics -
                    Education Service Center Region 4: Houston (2008-2009)
                                                         Count Percent

                    Economically Disadvantaged                         593, 237         56.7%
                    Limited English Proficient (LEP)                   211, 515         20.2%
                    Special Education                                    86,809          8.3%




                                                                                                14
                                                          Ethno-racial Characteristics of
                                                                  TEA Region 4
                                                                   (2008-2009)


                                       100%
                                       90%
                                       80%
                                       70%
                 Percent of Students
                                                                                            African American
                                       60%                                                  Hispanic
                                       50%             45.2%                                White
                                       40%                                                  Native American
                                                               27.2%                        Asian/Pacific Islander
                                       30%
                                               21.2%
                                       20%
                                       10%                                      6.2%
                                                                       0.2%
                                        0%
                                                         Race and Ethncity




    Harris County School Districts
    Aldine                                    Deer Park                      Klein                     Spring
    Alief                                     Galena Park                    La Porte                  Spring Branch
    Channelview                               Goose Creek                    New Caney                 Stafford
    Clear Creek                               Houston                        North Forest              Tomball
    Crosby                                    Huffman                        Pasadena                  Waller
    Cypress-Fairbanks                         Humble                         Pearland
    Dayton                                    Katy                           Sheldon

Cultural and Linguistic Characteristics:
Harris County has been recognized as a diverse community comprising of a majority (63.4%) of
minority, ethno-racial groups. In 2008, 36.3% identified as White (non-Hispanic); 18.2% Black
or African American (non-Hispanic); 0.9% American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic);
3.6% Asian (non-Hispanic); 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic);
2.4% Some Other Race (non-Hispanic) and 0.8% Two or more races (non-Hispanic). Residents
of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 39.8% of the area. Nearly one quarter (24.5%) of Harris
County residents are foreign born, of which the largest majority (73.7%) are from Latin America.
Other areas include Asia (17.8%); Europe (4.0%); and Africa (3.3%). Of Languages spoken at
home, 40.6% of residents speak a language other than English. One third of Harris County
residents converse in Spanish. Other languages spoken in the home at less than 5% are Asian or
Pacific Islander languages (3.9%), Other Indo-European Languages (2.7%), and .2% for all other
languages such as Hebrew, African languages (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).




                                                                                                                       15
                                 Harris County Ethno-racial Characteristics (2006-2008)

                          40%
                                                                            White
                          35%
                                                                            Black or African American
                          30%
                                                                            American Indian and Alaska
                          25%                                               Native
                Percent


                                                                            Asian
                          20%
                                                                            Native Hawaiian and Other
                          15%                                               Pacific Islander
                                                                            Some Other Race
                          10%
                                                                            Two or more races
                          5%
                                                                            Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
                          0%
                                               Race




                                       Languages Spoken at Home
                                English                                          59.4%
                                Language other than English                      40.6%
                                Spanish                                          33.1%
                                Other Indo-European                               2.7%
                                Asian and Pacific Islander                        3.9%
                                Other                                             0.9%

Household and Income
Between the years 2006-2008, an estimated 932,324 families lived in Harris County, with an
average of 3.49 people per familial unit. One in three families (36.3%) were married-couple
households with children under the age of 18. One in eight single parent households (12.9%)
with children was headed by a woman (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The table below includes the
percentages of household/family types of the service area. For “Family household”, “Married-
couple family”, “Male householder”, and “Female householder”, the denominator is the
“Households: Total”; “Family households”; and “Other Family” respectively.




                                                                                                               16
                         Harris County Household Size by Household Type (2006-2008)

                                                                                                                    N       %
Households: Total                                                                                             1,360,297
Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households                                                       932,324 68.5%1
Households: 2-or-more-person household; Married-couple family; With own
children under 18 years                                                                                        655,899 48.2%2
Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households; Other family                                        276,425 29.6%3
Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households; Other family; Male
householder; no wife present; With own children under 18 years                                                  34,705 12.5%4
Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households; Other family;
Female householder; no husband present; With own children under 18 years                                       120,487 43.6%5
       1 “Households: Total” serves as the denominator
       2 “Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households” serves as the denominator
       3 “Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households” serves as the denominator
       4“Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households; Other family” serves as the denominator
       5“Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households; Other family” serves as the denominator



The median family income in Area II was $49,004 in 2000. While the median household income
is commonly used, the median family income was selected as it combines the incomes of all
members related to the householder. Median household income includes all persons, which may
include non-related persons. Married-couple families with children had a higher income than the
median ($55,668), and in 2000, were more likely to be at or above the federal poverty level than
single-headed households (43.3%, U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family Income, 2000). Over
half of families were married couple families (56.7%) and had an employed husband in the labor
force. Over one-third of married-couple families (35.7%) had both spouses employed. The
median family income of two-parent households with children was far greater than the income of
single female-headed households with children ($21,552). Over a third of families (37.5%)
below the poverty level in Harris County were run by single women. Among female
householders, 47.0% were in the labor force and employed (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Type,
2000). In Poverty in the United States: 2000, the piece reports that “individuals in female-
householder families with no workers had the highest poverty rate – two-thirds were poor (U.S.
Census Bureau, Poverty in the U.S., 2000).




                                                                                                                           17
                                            Harris County Median Family Income
                                                      by Family Type


                                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                                           1999 ; Other family ; Female
                                                                                           householder; no husband present ;
                                                                                           No own children under 18 years
                                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                                           1999 ; Other family ; Male
                                                                                           householder; no wife present ;
                                                                                           With own children under 18 years
               Family Type
                                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                                           1999 ; Married-couple family ;
                                                                                           With own children under 18 years

                                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                                           1999 ; Total




                         $-   $10,000   $20,000    $30,000   $40,000   $50,000   $60,000

                                        Median Family Income



Educational Attainment and Employment:

In 2007, the Census Bureau reported that of the fifty states and the District of Columbia, Texas
ranks 49th in the educational attainment of residents 25 years and older. Over three-quarters
(79.1%) of the population (25 years and older) had a high school diploma or more. The national
average is 84.5%. In Harris County, 77.1% of the population has more than a high school
education (U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts & Educational Attainment, 2000, 2007).
                                                            Harris County
                                                  Educational Attainment (2006-2008)


                                                                                                   Less than 9th grade
                                             9%                   12%
                                                                                                   9th to 12th grade, no
                                                                                                   diploma
                              18%                                           11%                    High school graduate
                                                                                                   (includes equivalency)
                                                                                                   Some college, no degree


                               6%                                                                  Associate's degree

                                                                           24%
                                                                                                   Bachelor's degree

                                        20%
                                                                                                   Graduate or professional
                                                                                                   degree




When educational attainment is examined by race and ethnicity, there is a stark contrast between
groups (Falkenberg, 2010). In the case of Latinos or Hispanics, the largest, fasting growing


                                                                                                                               18
minority group, there is a lag behind in educational achievement. Latinos are the least likely of
the major racial/ethnic groups to have a GED (Fry, 2010). Researchers predict that Texas is
developing a permanent underclass as educational attainment is associated with higher earnings
(Falkenberg, 2010). The National Center for Children in Poverty report that if parents education
levels are low, full-time employment does not protect their families from low earnings (Koball,
2006).

Since the completion of the last Head Start Community Assessment, the unemployment rate in
Harris County has increased. In fact, since 2008, the unemployment rate almost doubled from
4.8% to 8.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006,2007,2008,2009). The labor force in Harris
County also expanded by 66,221 persons between 2008 and 2009. The American Community
Survey in 2008 revealed that more than two-thirds (69.4%) of Harris County, 16 years and older
was in the labor force. The top three reported industries in the region included, Educational,
health care, and social services (17.3%), Professional, scientific, management, administrative,
and waste management services (12.9%), Manufacturing (10.8%); and Construction (16.7%).
Residents in the labor force overwhelming commute to work by car truck, or van (77.0%),
followed by 3.3% who traveled using public transportation. The mean travel time to work was
27.8 minutes (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

The Foundation for Child Development (FCD) recently released a Child and Youth Well-Being
Index. FCD has seven indicators of well-being, which include family economic well-being,
health, safe/risky behavior, educational attainment, community engagement, social relationships,
and emotional/spiritual well-being. The researchers of the FCD report found that from 1975 to
2009, the child well-being index lagged after the occurrence of a recession (2010).




                                                                                               19
                                     Local, State, and National
                              Unemployment Rates between 2006 - 2009
    10.0%
    9.0%
    8.0%                                                                  8.20%
    7.0%
    6.0%
                                                                                   Harris County
  % 5.0%           5.10%                                4.80%
                                    4.30%                                          Texas
    4.0%
                                                                                   United States
    3.0%
    2.0%
    1.0%
    0.0%
                2006             2007                2008              2009
                                            Year




In Harris County, most housing units (88.2%) were occupied. Almost sixty percent of the
residents owned their homes (58.7%). The median value of an owner-occupied housing unit was
$131,500 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Value, 2000). Forty one percent of the residents rented;
the median rent contract was $796.00 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Contract Rent, 2000).




                                                                                                   20
                                     References

1. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). Labor force data by county [Microsoft Excel data
           file]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Labor force data by county [Microsoft Excel data
           file]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables
3. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Labor force data by county [Microsoft Excel data
           file]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables
4. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Labor force data by county [Microsoft Excel data
           file]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables
5. Falkenberg, Lisa. (2010, May 19). Looking at culture, college. Houston Chronicle.
           Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/
           falkenberg/7013251.html
6. Fry, Richard. (2010). Hispanics, high school dropout and the GED. Washington, D.C.:
           Pew Hispanic Center.
7. Handbook of Texas Online. (2010). Retrieved from
           http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/hch7.html
8. Koball, Heather et al. (2006). Parents’ low education leads to low income, despite full
           time employment.
9. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty.
10. Population study. Rep. Vol. 3. Houston: Harris County Management Services, 2010.
           Print.
11. Texas Education Agency. (2009). 2008-09 Region performance report [HTML file].
           Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/broker
12. The Foundation for Child Development (2010). Child and youth well-being index.
           Retrieved from http://www.fcd-us.org/resources/2010-child-well-being-index-cwi
13. The Official Harris County, Texas Home Page. (2010). Retrieved from
           http://www.co.harris.tx.us/
14. U.S. Census Bureau (2000) QuickFacts: Harris County. Retrieved from
           http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states
15. U.S. Census Bureau (2007). Educational attainment by state [Microsoft Data file].
           Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/education/
           educational_attainment.html
16. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Family type by labor force status [Microsoft Excel Data
           file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
17. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median contract rent [Microsoft Excel Data file].
18. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median family income [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
19. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median value (dollars) for specified owner-occupied
           housing units [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
20. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Poverty in the United States: 2000. Retrieved from
           http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-214.pdf




                                                                                       21
Head Start Service Area I Demographics
Information is according to the 2000 Census unless described otherwise.
Area I Location
HCDE offers Head Start in the eastern half of Harris County. The service area includes the
communities in between Highway 59 (northbound), Interstate 10 (eastbound), and Interstate 45
(southbound). Area I includes the cities of Baytown, Crosby, Deer Park, Humble, Houston, and
La Porte. The region covers 915 square miles of land area (U.S Census Bureau, Density, 2000).
Population and Age Distribution
In 2000, 983,674 residents made up the Area I service region with approximately 1,075 persons
per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, 2000). The density of the area reflects a
sparsely yet urban setting. Under a quarter of the population was school-aged with 80,540
children (8.18%) in the Head Start target age range. The percentage of “under five” was slightly
under than the county (8.8%) and state (8.3%) rate, but larger than the national rate (6.9%). Sixty
percent of residents were between the ages of 25 and 64 years of age (U.S. Census Bureau, Sex
by Age: Total Population, 2000).


                                           Area I Age Distribution




                                                8%                 8%
                                                                                     17%
                         21%




                                                                                          5%
                                                                                  10%
                                         31%




                          Unde r 5 ye ars        5 to 14 ye ars         15 to 17 ye ars
                          18 to 24 ye ars        25 to 44 ye ars        45 to 64 ye ars
                          65 ye ars and ove r



School Demographics
Area I consists of sixteen school districts and a number of charter schools located in central,
northeast, and southeast Harris County. Some of these are shared by the other Head Start
agencies. During the 2007-2008 academic year, six out of ten children in the area were
economically disadvantaged; one out of four was limited English proficient; and one out of
eleven had a disability (HCDE School District Table, n.d.). Between 2000-01 and 2008-09
school years, the majority of the districts in this area had sizeable increases in enrollment.


                                                                                                  22
Northeast area school districts with Sheldon, New Caney, and Humble had the greatest increase
in enrollment by an average of 42.7%. East Central Harris County districts including
Channelview, Pasadena, Deer Park, and Galena Park had an average increase of 15.3%. La Porte
in the southeast area had only 2 % increase while Clear Creek had an average of 24.4% increase
in student enrollment. Over the same time period, Houston ISD and North Forest experienced a
decline in enrollment (Harris County Management Services, 2010).
The table includes a listing of districts where previous Head Start participants enrolled in
Kindergarten. School districts may be outside of the Head Start service area region as well as
outside of Harris County (HCDE School District Table, n.d.). The table displays the change in
student enrollment, at the school districts, from academic year 2000-2001 to 2008-2009 (Harris
County Management Services, 2010).

                     Percent Change in Student Enrollment from
                     2000-2001 to 2008-2009
                     School        Growth% School            Growth%
                     District                 District
                     Sheldon             53%   Huffman                16%
                     New Caney           41%   Aldine                 15%
                     Humble              34%   Goose Creek            13%
                     Clear Creek         24%   Deer Park              11%
                     Crosby              24%   Galena Park            10%
                     Channelview         22%   La Porte                2%
                     Friendswood         18%   Houston                -5%
                     Pasadena            18%   North Forest          -33%




                                                                                             23
Cultural and Linguistic Characteristics
Residents of zip codes in Area I, represent a majority-minority with racial and ethnic groups
making up 52.4% of the population. The racial make up of residents, not including whether an
individual is of Hispanic or Latino origin are 47.4% White, 19.0% Black or African American;
0.2% American Indian and Alaska Native; 2.6% Asian; 0.04% Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander; .09% Some other race; and 1.0% two or more races (U.S. Census Bureau, Race,
2000). Residents of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 29.5% of the area (U.S. Census Bureau,
Hispanic or Latino, 2000). A majority (78.8%) of the foreign-born population was from Latin
America, according to the 2000 Census. Other places of birth included Asia (15.5%), Europe
(3.4%), and Africa (1.3%, U.S. Census Bureau, Place of Birth, 2000). Languages primarily
spoken in the home were English (65%), Spanish (28.9%), Indo-European (2.9%), Asian and
Pacific Islander (2.7%), and Other (0.5%, U.S. Census Bureau, Language, 2000).

                                     Area I Ethno-racial Characteristics

                             50%
                                                                       White
                             45%

                             40%                                       Black or African American

                             35%                                       American Indian and
                                                                       Alaska Native
                             30%
                   Percent




                                                                       Asian
                             25%
                                                                       Native Hawaiian and Other
                             20%
                                                                       Pacific Islander
                             15%                                       Some Other Race

                             10%
                                                                       Two or more races
                             5%
                                                                       Hispanic or Latino (of any
                             0%
                                                                       race)
                                          Census




Household and Income

In 2000, Area I was comprised of 297,165 families with an average of three people per familial
unit (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Size, 2000). Two-person, married-couple families with
children under the age of 18 made up two-fifths of all family households (40.9%). Female-
headed households represented one out of ten family households (U.S. Census Bureau,
Household Type, 2000). The table below includes the percentages of household/family types of
the service area. The denominator for “Family households” is the “Households: Total”; “Family
households” was used for “Married-couple family” and “Other family”; and “Other Family” was
used for “Male householder” and “Female householder”.




                                                                                                    24
                                          Area I Household Size by Household Type
                                                                                                                                    N                %
  Households: Total                                                                                                           329,757
  Households: 2-or-more person household ; Family households                                                                  251,853           76.4%1
  Households: 2-or-more-person household; Married-couple family; With
  own children under 18 years                                                                                                 103,086           40.9% 2
  Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households;
  Other family                                                                                                                  62,485          23.6% 3
  Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households; Other
  family; Male householder; no wife present; With own children under 18
  years                                                                                                                           7,828         12.5% 4
  Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households; Other
  family; Female householder; no husband present; With own children under
  18 years                                                                                                                      26,553          42.5% 5
       1 “Households: Total” serves as the denominator2 “Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households” serves as the denominator
       3 “Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households” serves as the denominator
       4“Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households; Other family” serves as the denominator
       5“Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households; Other family” serves as the denominator




                                                                Area I Median Family Income




                                                                                                        Families: Median family income in
                                                                                                        1999 ; Other family ; Female
                                                                                                        householder; no husband present ;
                                                                                                        With own children under 18 years
                                                                                                        Families: Median family income in
                                                                                                        1999 ; Other family ; Male
                                                                                                        householder; no wife present ; With
                                                                                                        own children under 18 years
                  Family Type
                                                                                                        Families: Median family income in
                                                                                                        1999 ; Married-couple family ; With
                                                                                                        own children under 18 years

                                                                                                        Families: Median family income in
                                                                                                        1999 ; Total




                                  $0     $10,000   $20,000   $30,000    $40,000   $50,000   $60,000
                                                      Median Family Income




The median family income in 1999 was $49,084 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family Income,
2000). While the median household income is commonly used, the median family income was
selected as it combines the incomes of all members related to the householder. Median
household income includes all persons, which may include non-related persons. Approximately
12% of families lived below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family Income,
2000). Married-couple families with children had a higher income than the median ($53,988),
and in 2000 were more likely to be above the federal poverty level (44.9%) when compared to
female-head households (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty, 2000). A majority of families were
married-couple families with an employed husband in the labor force (56.6%, U.S. Census
Bureau, Family Type, 2000). There were more female headed households living in poverty,
when compared to married-couple families. Nearly two out of five families (38.7%) living in


                                                                                                                                                          25
poverty were of female-headed households (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family Income, 2000).
The median family income of female householders was $23,138 in 1999. Six out of ten female
householders were in the labor force and employed. One in three female-headed householders
however was not in the labor force during that same period (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty, 2000).
In Poverty in the United States: 2000, the piece reports that “individuals in female-householder
families with no workers had the highest poverty rate – two-thirds were poor (U.S. Census
Bureau, Poverty in the U.S., 2000).

In Area I, most housing units (93.1%) were occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, Occupancy, 2000).
Two-thirds of the residents (66.5%) owned their homes and one- third (33.50%) rented (U.S.
Census Bureau, Tenure, 2000). The median value of an owner-occupied housing unit was
$76,362 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Value, 2000). The median rent contract was $489.58 U.S.
Census Bureau, Median Contract Rate, 2000). Over 60% of the population, 16 years and older
were in the labor force. The top three reported occupations in the service area for males included,
Manufacturing (20.9%); Construction (15.7%); and Transportation and Warehousing, and
utilities (10.9%). For females, the top three reported occupations were Educational, health, and
social services (31.1%); Retail trade (12.3%); and Professional, scientific, management,
administrative, and waste management services (11.8%, U.S. Census Bureau, Sex by
Occupation, 2000). Residents in the labor force overwhelmingly commute to work by car truck,
or van (93.0%), and 2.43% travel using public transportation (U.S. Census Bureau, Means of
Transportation, 2000). Thirty to thirty-four minutes was the common commute time from home
to work (U.S. Census Bureau, Travel Time, 2000).




                                                                                                26
                                       References

1. HCDE school district table complete [Microsoft Excel Data file]. HCDE Head Start.
2. Population study. Rep. Vol. 3. Houston: Harris County Management Services,2010.
           Print.
3. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Density using land area for state, counties, metropolitan
           areas and places. [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/density.htm
4. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Families: median family income [Microsoft Excel Data
           file]. Retrieved fromhttp://factfinder.census.gov
5. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Family size [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
6. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Family type by labor force status [Microsoft Excel Data
           file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
7. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Hispanic or Latino [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
8. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Household Type [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved
           from http://factfinder.census.gov
9. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Language (spoken at home and ability to speak
           English) [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
10. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Means of transportation to work for workers 16+ years
           [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
11. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median contract rent [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
12. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median family income [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
13. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median value (dollars) for specified owner-occupied
           housing units [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
14. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Occupancy Status [Microsoft Excel Data file].Retrieved
           from http://factfinder.census.gov
15. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Place of birth for the foreign-born population [Microsoft
           Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
16. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Poverty in the United States: 2000. Retrieved from
           http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-214.pdf
17. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Poverty status in 1999 by age by household type
           [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved fromhttp://factfinder.census.gov
18. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Race [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
19. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Sex by age: total population [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
20. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Sex by occupation for the employed civilian population
           16+ years [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
21. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Tenure [Microsoft Excel Data file].Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov



                                                                                          27
22. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Total population [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved
           from http://factfinder.census.gov
23. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Travel time to work for workers 16+ years [Microsoft
           Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov




                                                                                          28
Head Start Service Area II Demographics
Information is according to the 2000 Census unless described otherwise.
Area II Location
AVANCE Inc. Houston operates the Early Head Start and Head Start program in two regions of
Harris County; one, northwest which is the larger of the two service areas and a section located
in the southeast. The region to the northwest is bounded by Interstate 10 on the south, Highway
290 on the west, and Highway 59 on the east. The southeast service area includes the
communities served by the Pasadena Independent School District and the City of Pasadena. The
region covers 683 square miles of land area (U.S Census Bureau, Density, 2000).

Population and Age Distribution
In 2000, 1,272,884 people resided in Area II. The population density of the region is 1,864
persons per square mile. Given the size of the land area, the population density is sparse when
compared to city of Houston. In 2000, Houston had 3,372 persons per square mile (U.S. Census
Bureau, QuickFacts, 2000). According to Harris County Management Services, a portion of the
region, north of Beltway 8 had the highest total population growth in the county. Since 1990,
over 215,000 new residents settled in northwest Harris County. With a population of 485,000,
this region is larger than the city of Arlington, the seventh largest city in Texas (Harris County
Management Services, 2010). Nearly a quarter of residents (275,017 children) were school aged,
and 8.7% are under the age of five. The number of children under the age of five was slightly
less than the county rate (8.8%), but larger than the state (8.3%) and national (6.9%) percentage
rates. Over half (52.3%) of the population is between the ages of 25-64 (U.S. Census Bureau,
Sex by Age: Total Population, 2000).


                                     Area II Age Distribution




                                            7%       9%
                               20%                              17%


                                                                  5%
                                                                10%
                                      32%

                           Under 5 years                5 to 14 years
                           15 to 17 years               18 to 24 years
                           25 to 44 years               45 to 64 years
                           65 years and over




                                                                                                29
School Demographics
Area II consists of a number of school districts and charter schools, some of which are shared by
the other Head Start agencies. Two out of three children in the area were economically
disadvantaged; one out of three was limited English proficient; and one out of fourteen had a
disability in the 2008-2009 academic year (AVANCE, School Info, 2009). Districts within the
service area are located in the west, central, and southeast regions of Harris County. Three school
districts, located in the western quadrant are among the largest school districts in the county.
West-side districts include Cypress-Fairbanks, Klein, Spring, Tomball, and Waller Independent
School Districts. All reported large increases in student enrollment over the past ten years. If the
trend in school enrollment continues, Cypress-Fairbanks could become the largest school district
in the county within a decade.
The table below includes a listing of districts where previous Head Start participants enrolled in
Kindergarten. School districts may be outside of the Head Start service area region as well as
outside of Harris County. The table displays the change in student enrollment, at the school
districts, from academic year 2000-2001 to 2008-2009 (Harris County Management Services,
2010).
                 Percent Change in Student Enrollment from 2000-2001 to 2008-2009
                 School District                                       Growth %
                 Cypress-Fairbanks                                            49%
                 Spring                                                       39%
                 Klein                                                        28%
                 Tomball                                                      27%
                 Pasadena                                                     18%
                 Waller                                                       18%
                 Aldine                                                       15%
                 Houston                                                      -5%

Cultural and Linguistic Characteristics
Residents of zip codes in Area II, represent a majority-minority with racial and ethnic groups
making up 56.8% of the population. The racial make up of residents, not including whether an
individual is of Hispanic or Latino origin are 43.2% White; 13.9% Black or African American;
0.2% American Indian and Alaska Native; 3.9% Asian; 0.04% Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander; 0.1% Some other race and 1.1% Two or more races. Residents of Hispanic or
Latino origin made up 37.5% of the area (U.S. Census Bureau, Race & Hispanic or Latino,
2000). One-fifth of Area II’s population was foreign born in 2000. Four out of five foreign-born
residents (80.3%) were from Latin America, other areas included Asia (15.2%); Europe (3.1%),
and Africa (1.3 %). Primary languages spoken in the home were English (63.4%), Spanish
(30.5%), Indo-European (2.8%), and Asian and Pacific Islander (2.8%); other languages (e.g.
Native North American, African, and Hebrew) made up 0.5% (U.S. Census Bureau, Place of
Birth & Language, 2000).




                                                                                                 30
                                                        Area II Ethno-racial Characteristics

                                        50%

                                        45%

                                                                                                       White
                                        40%
                                                                                                       Black or African American
                                        35%
                                                                                                       American Indian and Alaska
                                        30%                                                            Native
                                                                                                       Asian
                              Percent




                                        25%
                                                                                                       Native Hawaiian and O the r
                                                                                                       Pacific Islander
                                        20%                                                            Some othe r race

                                        15%                                                            Two or more races

                                        10%                                                            Hispanic or Latino


                                        5%

                                        0%
                                                          Race and Ethnicity




Household and Income
In 2000, Area II was comprised of 319,597 families, with an average of three people per familial
unit (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Size, 2000). Two out of five families (42.3%) were married-
couple households with children under the age of 18. One in nine households (11.3%) with
children was headed solely by a woman (U.S. Census Bureau, Household Type, 2000). The table
below includes the percentages of household/family types of the service area. The denominator
for “Family households” is the “Households: Total”; “Family households” was used for
“Married-couple family” and “Other family”; and “Other Family” was used for “Male
householder” and “Female householder”.
                                              Area II Household Size by Household Type
                                                                                                                                         N       %
Households: Total                                                                                                                    434,089
Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households                                                                            319,597 73.6%1

Households: 2-or-more-person household; Married-couple family; With own
children under 18 years                                                                                                              135,137 42.3%2
Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households; Other family                                                              79,185 24.8%3
Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households; Other family; Male
householder; no wife present; With own children under 18 years                                                                       10,800 13.6%4
Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households; Other family;
Female householder; no husband present; With own children under 18 years                                                             36,252 45.8%5
1 “Households: Total” serves as the denominator
2 “Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households” serves as the denominator
3 “Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households” serves as the denominator
4“Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households; Other family” serves as the denominator
5“Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households; Other family” serves as the denominator




                                                                                                                                                 31
                                               Area II Median Family Income by Family Type




                                                                                               Families: Median family income in
                                                                                               1999 ; Other family ; Female
                                                                                               householder; no husband present ;
                                                                                               With own children under 18 years
                                                                                               Families: Median family income in
                                                                                               1999 ; Other family ; Male
                                                                                               householder; no wife present ; With
                                                                                               own children under 18 years
                Family Type
                                                                                               Families: Median family income in
                                                                                               1999 ; Married-couple family ; With
                                                                                               own children under 18 years

                                                                                               Families: Median family income in
                                                                                               1999




                              $0   $10,000   $20,000   $30,000   $40,000   $50,000   $60,000
                                              Median Family Income



The median family income in Area II was $50,148 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family
Income, 2000). While the median household income is commonly used, the median family
income was selected as it combines the incomes of all members related to the householder.
Median household income includes all persons, which may include non-related persons.
Approximately 10% of families lived below the poverty level. Married-couple families with
children had a higher income than the median ($55,708), and in 2000, were more likely to be at
or above the federal poverty level (45%, U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty, 2000). The majority of
families were married-couple families with an employed husband in the labor force (58.0%).
The median family income for female-headed households was $23,889 (U.S. Census Bureau,
Median Family Income, 2000). Among families below the poverty level, more than one-third
(36.7%) were families headed by females. A group with a slightly higher percentage of families
below poverty, when compared to female householders was married-couple families with
children (38.6%). Among female householders, three out of five female householders were in the
labor force. One in four female-headed households was not in the in the labor force during the
same period (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Type, 2000). In Poverty in the United States: 2000,
the piece reports that “individuals in female-householder families with no workers had the
highest poverty rate – two-thirds were poor (U.S. Census, Poverty in the U.S., 2000).

In Area II, most housing units (93.6%) were occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, Occupancy, 2000).
Almost sixty percent of the residents owned their homes (59.0%, U.S. Census Bureau, Tenure,
2000). The median value of an owner-occupied housing unit was $86,441 (U.S. Census Bureau,
Median Value, 2000). Forty one percent of the residents rented (U.S. Census Bureau,
Occupancy, 2000); the median rent contract was $514.02 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Contract
Rent, 2000). Two-thirds of the population, 16 years and older were in the labor force. The top
three reported occupations in the service area for males included, Manufacturing (16.8%);
Construction (16.7%); and Retail trade (11.0%). For females, the top three reported occupations
were Educational, health, and social services (27.4%); Retail trade (12.7%); and Professional,
scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (11.3%, U.S. Census
Bureau, Sex by Occupation, 2000). Residents in the labor force overwhelmingly commute to


                                                                                                                                     32
work by car truck, or van (92.1%), and 3.1% travel using public transportation (U.S. Census
Bureau, Means of Transportation, 2000). Thirty to thirty-four minutes was the common commute
time from home to work (U.S. Census Bureau, Travel Time, 2000).




                                                                                         33
                                       References

1.    AVANCE Houston. (2009) AVANCE demographics by zip code. [Microsoft Excel Data
           file]. Retrieved from AVANCE Houston.
2.    AVANCE Houston. (2009) School info by zip codes template.[Microsoft Excel
           Data file]. Retrieved via email.
3.    Population study. Rep. Vol. 3. Houston: Harris County Management Services,
           2010. Print.
4.    U.S. Census Bureau (2000) QuickFacts: Texas. Retrieved from
           http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html
5.    U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Density using land area for state, counties,
           metropolitan areas and places. [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/density.html
6.    U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Family size [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved
           from http://factfinder.census.gov
7.    U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Family type by labor force status [Microsoft Excel
           Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
8.    U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Hispanic or Latino [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
9.    U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Household Type [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
10.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Means of transportation to work for workers 16+ years
           [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
11.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median contract rent [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
12.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median family income [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
13.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median value (dollars) for specified owner-occupied
           housing units [Microsoft Excel
14.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Occupancy Status [Microsoft Excel Data
           file].Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
15.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Place of birth for the foreign-born population
           [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
16.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Poverty in the United States: 2000. Retrieved from
           http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-214.pdf
17.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Race [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
18.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Sex by age: total population [Microsoft Excel Data
           file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
19.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Sex by occupation for the employed civilian
           population 16+ years [Microsoft Excel
20.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Tenure [Microsoft Excel Data file].Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
21.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Travel time to work for workers 16+ years [Microsoft
           Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov




                                                                                          34
Head Start Service Area III Demographics
Information is according to the 2000 Census unless described otherwise.
Area III Location
Neighborhood Centers provides Early Head Start and Head Start services in the western half of
Houston and Harris County. The service area contains the neighborhoods bordered by Highway
290 to the Northwest (i.e. Cypress-Fairbanks), Interstate 10 to the West (i.e. Katy), and Highway
288 to the Southwest. Area III contains the cities of Bellaire and Houston. The region covers 495
square miles of land area (U.S Census Bureau, Density, 2000).

Population and Age Distribution
In year 2000, 1,325,988 individuals resided in the Area III service region based on zip code data
(U.S. Census Bureau, Total Population, 2000). The population density of the region is 2,679
persons per square. Given the size of the land area, the area is densely populated. In 2000, the
city of Houston had 3,372 persons per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, 2000). This
region contains the largest population of the four Head Start service areas. Nearly three-quarters
of the residents were between the ages of 25 and 64 years of age and nearly a fifth of the
population was school-aged (U.S. Census Bureau, Total Population, 2000). Children “under
five” represented 7.8 % of the population, which was slightly less than the county (8.8%) and
state (8.3%), but larger than the national rate (6.9%, U.S. Census Bureau, Sex by Age: Total
Population, 2000).


                                           Area III Age Distribution




                                               7%              8%
                                                                           15%
                            20%
                                                                                 4%



                                                                              10%

                                            36%




                          Under 5 years        5 to 14 years        15 to 17 years
                          18 to 24 years       25 to 44 years       45 to 64 years
                          65 years and over




                                                                                               35
School Enrollment
Area III consists of a number of school districts and charter schools, some of which are shared by
the other Head Start agencies. Three out of five children in the area were economically
disadvantaged; nearly two out of five were limited English proficient; and one out of eleven
children had a disability in the 2008-2009 academic year (AVANCE, School info, 2009).
Schools in five of the 26 Harris County School Districts are located in the Head Start Area III
service area. According to a Harris County Management Services population study, communities
within the region such as Katy and Cypress-Fairbanks are the fastest growing areas within the
county where student enrollments increased by approximately 50% from 2000-2001 to 2008-
2009 (Harris County Management Services, 2010). Spring Branch and Houston Independent
School Districts show small decreases in enrollment over the same period (Harris County
Management Services, 2010).

The table includes a listing of districts, within Area III, where previous Head Start participants
enrolled in Kindergarten. The table displays the change in student enrollment, at the school
districts, from academic year 2000-2001 to 2008-2009 (Harris County Management Services,
2010).

                  Area III School Districts : Percent Change in Student
                  Enrollment 2000-2001 to 2008-2009
                  School District                                    Growth %
                  Katy                                                      51.4%
                  Cypress-Fairbanks                                         49.0%
                  Alief                                                      3.5%
                  Spring Branch                                             -0.5%
                  Houston                                                   -5.1%

Cultural and Linguistic Characteristics
Residents of zip codes in Area III, represent a majority-minority with racial and ethnic groups
making up 55.6% of the population. The racial make up of residents, not including whether an
individual was of Hispanic or Latino origin were 44.4% White, 17.4% Black or African
American; 0.2% American Indian and Alaska Native; 8.3% Asian; 0.04% Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander; 0.2% Some other race; and 1.7% two or more races ((U.S. Census
Bureau, Race, 2000). Residents of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 27.9% of the area (U.S.
Census Bureau, Hispanic, 2000). Compared to the other Head Start areas, Area III has the most
diverse population with almost 60% of the foreign-born population from Latin America, 27.6%,
from Asia, 6.7% from Europe, and 5.1% from Africa. In recognition of the growth of the Asian
community, Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital recently opened an Asian specialty care unit
to provide culturally appropriate care (U.S. Census Bureau, Place of Birth, 2000). Languages
primarily spoken in the home were English (64.3 %), Spanish (22.3 %), Indo-European (5.5 %),
Asian and Pacific Islander (3.7 %), and Other (2.02 %, U.S. Census Bureau, Language, 2000).
The ethno-racial distribution of the service area reveals a “minority-majority” population in 2000
and in 2004 Texas joined the list of states with a growing “minority-majority population
(Newsroom, 2010).”



                                                                                                     36
                                                     Area III Ethno-racial Characteristics

                                 50%
                                                                                                        White
                                 45%

                                 40%                                                                    Black or African American

                                 35%                                                                    American Indian or Alaska
                                                                                                        Native
                                 30%
                       Percent



                                                                                                        Asian
                                 25%
                                                                                                        Native Hawaiian and Other
                                 20%
                                                                                                        Pacific Islander
                                 15%                                                                    Some other race

                                 10%
                                                                                                        Two or more races
                                 5%
                                                                                                        Hispanic or Latino
                                 0%
                                                           Census 2000



Household and Income
In 2000, West Harris County was comprised of 320,598 family households. The average family
size was three persons (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Size, 2000). Two-person, married-couple
family households made up two-fifths of all family households (40.5%). Female-headed
households represented one out of nine family households in the service area (11.6%, U.S.
Census Bureau, Household Type, 2000). The table below includes the percentages of
household/family types of the service area. The denominator for “Family households” is the
“Households: Total”; “Family households” was used for “Married-couple family” and “Other
family”; and “Other Family” was used for “Male householder” and “Female householder”.

                                         Area III Household Size by Household Type
                                                                                                                      N                 %
       Households: Total Households                                                                             506,978
       Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households                                                320,598             63.2%1
       Households: 2-or-more-person household; Married-couple
       family; With own children under 18 years                                                                 130,000             40.5%2
       Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households;
       Other family                                                                                               80,034            25.0%3
       Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households;
       Other family; Male householder; no wife present; With own
       children under 18 years                                                                                     9,434            11.8%4
       Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households;
       Other family; Female householder; no husband present; With
       own children under 18 years                                                                                37,093            46.3%5
       1 “Households: Total” serves as the denominator
       2 “Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households” serves as the denominator
       3 “Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households” serves as the denominator
       4“Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households; Other family” serves as the denominator
       5“Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households; Other family” serves as the denominator




                                                                                                                                             37
                                 Area III Median Family Income by Family Type


                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                           1999 ; Other family ; Female
                                                                           householder; no husband present ;
                                                                           With own children under 18 years
                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                           1999 ; Other family ; Male
                                                                           householder; no wife present ;
                                                                           With own children under 18 years
             Family Type                                                   Families: Median family income in
                                                                           1999 ; Married-couple family ;
                                                                           With own children under 18 years


                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                           1999 ; Total




                           $0   $20,000    $40,000     $60,000   $80,000
                                     Median Family Income




The median family income for Area III in 1999 was $66,209 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median
Family Income, 2000). While the median household income is commonly used, the median
family income was selected as it combines the incomes of all members related to the
householder. Median household income includes all persons, which may include non-related
persons. Approximately 10% of families lived below the poverty level. Married-couple families
with children had a higher income than the median ($72,984), and in 2000, were more likely to
be at or above the federal poverty level (42.1%) when compared to female-head households
(U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty, 2000). A majority of families were married-couple families that
were employed husband in the labor force (59%). The median family income for female-headed
households was $31,036 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family Income, 2000). Among families
below the poverty level, more than one-third (34.6%) were families headed by females. Seven
out of ten female householders were in the labor force and employed U.S. Census Bureau,
Median Family Income, 2000). One in four female-headed households was not in the labor force
during the same period (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Type, 2000). In Poverty in the United
States: 2000, the piece reports that “individuals in female-householder families with no workers
had the highest poverty rate – two-thirds were poor (U.S. Census, Poverty in the U.S., 2000).

In Area III, most housing units (92.5%) were occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, Occupancy, 2000).
Nearly half of the residents (48 %) owned their homes and over half (52 %) rented (U.S. Census
Bureau, Tenure, 2000). The median value of an owner-occupied housing unit was $156,678
(U.S. Census Bureau, Median Value, 2000). The median rent contract was $643.98 (U.S. Census
Bureau, Median Contract Rent, 2000). Nearly 70% of the population, 16 years and older were in
the labor force. The top three reported occupations in the service area for males included
professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (17%);
Manufacturing (11.7%); and Retail trade (10.9%). For females, the top three reported
occupations were educational, health, and social services (29.5%); professional, scientific,
management, administrative and waste management services (14.2%), and retail trade (11.8%,
U.S. Census Bureau, Sex by Occupation, 2000)). Residents in the labor force overwhelmingly


                                                                                                               38
commute to work by car, truck, or van (88.7%), and 5.1% travel using public transportation (U.S.
Census Bureau, Means of Transportation, 2000). Thirty to thirty-four minutes was the most
common commute time from home to work (U.S. Census Bureau, Travel Time, 2000).




                                                                                             39
                                         References

1. Neighborhood Centers. (2009) School info by zip codes template. [Microsoft Excel Data
           file]. Retrieved via email.
2. George, Cindy (2009, December 19). Merging culture, health care hospital’s Asian unit
           caters to the needs of local community. Houston Chronicle, pp.
3. Newsroom: Population: Texas becomes nation's newest "majority-minority" state, Census
           Bureau announces.Census Bureau Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May
           2010.<http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/
           archives/population/cb05-118.html>.
4. Population study. Rep. Vol. 3. Houston: Harris County Management Services, 2010.
           Print
5. U.S. Census Bureau (2000) QuickFacts: Texas. Retrieved from
           http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html
6. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Density using land area for state, counties, metropolitan
           areas and places. [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/density.html
7. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Family Size [Microsoft Excel Data file].Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
8. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Family type by labor force status [Microsoft Excel Data
           file]. Retrieved fromhttp://factfinder.census.gov
9. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Hispanic or Latino [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
10. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Household type [Microsoft Excel Data file].Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
11. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Language (spoken at home and ability to speak
           English) [Microsoft Excel Data file].Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
12. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Means of transportation to work for workers 16+ years
           [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
13. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median contract rent [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
14. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median family income [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved fromhttp://factfinder.census.gov
15. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median value (dollars) for specified owner-occupied
           housing units [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
16. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Occupancy Status [Microsoft Excel Data file].Retrieved
           from http://factfinder.census.gov
17. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Place of birth for the foreign-born population [Microsoft
           Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
18. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Poverty in the United States: 2000. Retrieved from
           http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-214.pdf
19. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Race [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
20. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Race [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov



                                                                                        40
21. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Sex by age: total population [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved fromhttp://factfinder.census.gov
22. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Sex by occupation for the employed civilian population
           16+ years [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
23. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Tenure [Microsoft Excel Data file].Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
24. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Total population [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved
           from http://factfinder.census.gov
25. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Travel time to work for workers 16+ years [Microsoft Excel
           Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov




                                                                                        41
Head Start Service Area IV Demographics
Information is according to the 2000 Census unless described otherwise.
Area IV Location
GCCSA coordinates Early Head Start and Head Start services in Southeast Harris County. The
service area contains the neighborhoods bordered by Interstate 610 to the North, the Sam
Houston Tollway, also known as Beltway 8 to the South, Highway 288 to the West and Highway
225 to the East. Area IV includes the cities of Houston, Pasadena, and South Houston. The
region covers 167 square miles of land area (U.S Census Bureau, Density, 2000).
Population and Age Distribution
In 2000, 563,122 residents made up the Area IV service region. The population density of the
region is comparable to the city of Houston. The area had 3,453 persons per square mile in 2000.
The city of Houston had 3,372 persons per square mile during the same time period (U.S. Census
Bureau, QuickFacts, 2000). While heavily populated, the communities within the Inner (I-610)
and Outer Loop (Beltway 8) experienced a drop in growth from 15% in 1990 to 13% in 2009
(Harris County Management Services, 2010). Approximately one-fifth of the population was
school-aged (22%). Children under five represent 9.1% of the population (51,163 children). The
percentage of “under five” was slightly larger than the county (8.8%) state (8.3%), and national
rate (6.9%). Nearly half (47.7%) of Area IV residents were between the ages of 25 and 64 years
of age (U.S. Census Bureau, Sex by Age: Total Population, 2000).


                                      Area IV Age Distribution




                                          9%                9%
                      18%                                                  17%



                                                                             5%
                                                                       12%
                                30%




                      Under 5 years        5 to 14 years         15 to 17 years
                      18 to 24 years       25 to 44 years        45 to 64 years
                      65 years and over




                                                                                             42
School Demographics
Area IV consists of a number of school districts and charter schools, some of which are shared
by the other Head Start agencies. Nearly three out of four children in the area are considered
economically disadvantaged; one in four is limited English proficient; and one in twelve children
received special education services (GCCSA, Community Assessment Report, 2009). The school
districts within area IV are Houston (HISD) and Pasadena Independent School District (PISD).
HISD is the largest public school system in Texas and seventh-largest in the U.S. During the
2008-2009 school year, 199,584 students were enrolled (GCCSA, Community Assessment
Report, 2009).

The table includes a listing of districts where previous Head Start participants enrolled in
Kindergarten. Below is the change in student enrollment, at both school districts, from academic
year 2000-2001 to 2008-2009.Over the past decade, student enrollment decreased in HISD, but
increased in PISD (Harris County Management Services, 2010).

                          Percent Change in Student Enrollment from
                          2000-2001 to 2008-2009
                          School District                  Growth %
                          Pasadena                                18%
                          Houston                                 -5%

Cultural and Linguistic Characteristics
Residents of zip codes in Area I, represent a majority-minority with racial and ethnic groups
making up 80.9% of the population in 2000. The state joined the list of growing states in 2004
(Newsroom, 2010). The Latino/Hispanic community was the largest (51.3%) The racial make up
of residents, not including whether an individual was 19.1% White; 26.8 Black or African
American; 1.8% Asian; 0.03% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander; 0.1% marked Some
Other Race and 0.7% identified Two or more Races (U.S. Census Bureau, Race & .Hispanic or
Latino, 2000). Nearly one quarter of the population (24.1%) was foreign-born. An overwhelming
majority, 92.1% of the foreign-born population was from Latin America, according to the 2000
Census. Other places of birth included Asia (6.0%); Europe (0.9%); Africa (0.8%); and Oceania
(0.04%, e.g. Australia and New Zealand, U.S. Census Bureau, Place of Birth, 2000). Languages
primarily spoken in the home were English (54.7%), Spanish (41.7%), Indo-European (1.5%),
Asian and Pacific Islander (1.6%), and Other (0.4%, U.S. Census Bureau, Language, 2000). The
ethno-racial make-up of the service area reveals a “minority-majority” population in 2000.




                                                                                              43
                                                         Area IV Ethno-racial Characteristics

                                         60%

                                                                                                 White

                                         50%
                                                                                                 Black or African American

                                                                                                 American Indian or Alaska
                                         40%
                                                                                                 Native
                               Percent                                                           Asian

                                         30%
                                                                                                 Native Hawaiian and Other
                                                                                                 Pacific Islander
                                                                                                 S ome other race
                                         20%

                                                                                                 Two or more races
                                         10%
                                                                                                 Hispanic or Latino


                                         0%
                                                           Race and Ethnicity

                                                                                                                             60

Household and Income
In 2000, Southeast Harris County was comprised of 132,095 families with an average of four
people per familial unit (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Size, 2000). Two-person, married-couple
family households with children under the age of 18 made up one-third of all family households
(36.9%). Female-headed households represented one out seven family households in the service
area (14.3%,U.S. Census Bureau, Household Type, 2000). The table below includes the
percentages of household/family types of the service area. The denominator for “Family
households” is the “Households: Total”; “Family households” was used for “Married-couple
family” and “Other family”; and “Other Family” was used for “Male householder” and “Female
householder”.
                                               Area IV Household Size by Household Type
                                                                              N     %
         Households: Total                                              181,294
         Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households      132,095 72.9%1
         Households: 2-or-more-person household; Married-couple family;
         With own children under 18 years                                48,728 36.9%2
         Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households;
         Other family                                                    46,154 34.9%3
         Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households;
         Other family; Male householder; no wife present;
         With own children under 18 years                                 4,882 10.6%4
         Households: 2-or-more-person household; Family households;
         Other family; Female householder; no husband present;
         With own children under 18 years                                19,098 41.4%5
       1 “Households: Total” serves as the denominator
       2 “Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households” serves as the denominator
       3 “Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households” serves as the denominator
       4“Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households; Other family” serves as the denominator
       5“Households: 2-or-more person household; Family households; Other family” serves as the denominator




                                                                                                                                  44
                                         Area IV Median Family Income by Family Type




                                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                                           1999 ; Other family ; Female
                                                                                           householder; no husband present ;
                                                                                           With own children under 18 years
                                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                                           1999 ; Other family ; Male
                                                                                           householder; no wife present ; With
            Family Type                                                                    own children under 18 years
                                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                                           1999 ; Married-couple family ; With
                                                                                           own children under 18 years

                                                                                           Families: Median family income in
                                                                                           1999 ; Total




                          $-   $10,000       $20,000     $30,000     $40,000     $50,000
                                            Median Family Income




The median family income in 1999 was $40,491 (U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family Income,
2000). While the median household income is commonly used, the median family income was
selected as it combines the incomes of all members related to the householder. Median
household income includes all persons, which may include non-related persons. Approximately
one-fifth of families (21.1%) lived below the federal poverty level. The percentage of families
below the poverty level in Area IV is greater than the other Head Start service areas, which
average at about 11% (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty, 2000). Married-couple families with
children had a median family income of $37,170. The median family income level for Area IV is
far less when compared to the county ($49,084, U.S. Census Bureau, Median Family Income,
2000). Two out of five families were supported on the income of the husband (42.5%). Female
headed households were more likely to be living in poverty, when compared to married-couple
families. Female-headed households represent 45.6% of families below the federal poverty level.
The median family income of female householders was $15,622 in 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau,
Household Type, 2000). Forty percent of families were head by female householders. The
majority of female householders were in the labor force and employed in 2000 (52.6%); however
41.4% were not in the labor force (U.S. Census Bureau, Family Type, 2000). In Poverty in the
United States: 2000, the piece reports that “individuals in female-householder families with no
workers had the highest poverty rate – two-thirds were poor (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the
U.S., 2000).

In Area IV, most housing units (91.8%) were occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, Occupancy, 2000).
Half of the residents (51.0%) owned their homes and half (49.0%) rented (U.S. Census Bureau,
Tenure, 2000). The median value of an owner-occupied housing unit was $53,904 (U.S. Census
Bureau, Median Value, 2000). The median rent contract was $468.71 (U.S. Census Bureau,
Median Contract Rate, 2000). Over half (56.5%) of the population, over the age of 16 is in the
labor force. The top three reported occupations in the service area for males included,
Construction (22.6%); Manufacturing (16.7%); and Retail trade (9.2%). For females, the top
three reported occupations were Educational, health, and social services (31.3%); Retail trade
(12.7%); and Arts; entertainment; recreation; accommodation and food services (10.2%, U.S.
Census Bureau, Sex by Occupation, 2000). Residents in the labor force overwhelmingly


                                                                                                                                 45
commuted to work by car truck, or van (88.2%), and 5.9% traveled using public transportation
(U.S. Census Bureau, Means of Transportation, 2000). Thirty to thirty-four minutes was the
common commute time from home to work (U.S. Census Bureau, Travel Time, 2000).




                                                                                               46
                                      References

1. Gulf Coast Community Services Association. (2009) GCCSA community assessment
           report 2008-ISD spreadsheet [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved via email.
2. Newsroom: Population: Texas becomes nation's newest "majority-minority" state, Census
           Bureau announces." Census Bureau Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May 2010.
           <http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb05-118.html>.
3. Population study. Rep. Vol. 3. Houston: Harris County Management Services, 2010.
           Print.
4. U.S. Census Bureau (2000) QuickFacts: Texas. Retrieved from
           http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html
5. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Family size [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
6. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Family type by labor force status [Microsoft Excel Data
           file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
7. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Hispanic or Latino [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved
           from http://factfinder.census.gov
8. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Household Type [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved
           from http://factfinder.census.gov
9. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Language (spoken at home and ability to speak English)
           [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
10. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median contract rent [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved
           from http://factfinder.census.gov
11. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Median family income [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
12. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Occupancy Status [Microsoft Excel Data file].Retrieved
           from http://factfinder.census.gov
13. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Place of birth for the foreign-born population [Microsoft
           Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
14. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Poverty in the United States: 2000. Retrieved from
           http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-214.pdf
15. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Race [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
16. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Sex by age: total population [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
17. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Sex by occupation for the employed civilian population 16+
           years [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
18. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Tenure [Microsoft Excel Data file].Retrieved from
           http://factfinder.census.gov
19. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Travel time to work for workers 16+ years [Microsoft Excel
           Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
20. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Travel time to work for workers 16+ years [Microsoft Excel
           Data file]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov




                                                                                        47
Health




         48
Health
Physical Health
Vital Statistics
In 2009, Texas’ population grew by about one-fifth from 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). A
natural increase and net migration stimulated the rise in numbers. Researchers at Texas A&M
University predict a larger, older, and increasingly diverse population. Such projections indicate
that the state’s resources will be challenged (Murdock, 2002).
     On an Average Day In Texas (2007)
          The population increased by 678 persons. [The rate of natural increase (births - deaths)]
          1,116 resident births
                53 babies had no prenatal care
                94 low birth weight babies were born (less than 2,500 grams or less than 5 lbs. 9 oz.)
                54 babies were born to teenage mothers (less than 18 years of age)
                376 babies were delivered by C-section
          439 resident deaths
                108 of these deaths were due to heart disease
                96 of these deaths were due to cancer
                26 of these deaths were due to accidents
                7 of these were infant deaths
          483 marriages
          213 divorces

Harris County had a comparable population increase (19.7%) from to 2000 to 2009. In 2009,
Harris County Public Health & Environmental Services (HCPHES) released a report prioritizing
the leading causes of death and disability as a larger, older, and diverse population faces the
threat of chronic disease (2009). See the following table comparing the 2006 mortality rates of
Harris County to Texas overall.
         Leading Causes of Mortality, Harris County, 2006
                                                                 Age-Adjusted Mortality Rate* and (Rank)
         Cause of Death                                         White              Black         Hispanic
         All Causes                                              723.8             874.9            498.3
         Heart Disease                                        211.3 (1)         258.0 (1)        134.2 (1)
         Cancer                                               186.8 (2)         214.5 (2)        133.3 (2)
         Stroke                                                50.0 (4)          78.9 (3)         45.2 (3)
         Accidents                                             53.4 (3)          40.4 (5)         28.2 (5)
         Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease                     42.9 (5)          24.4 (9)         12.5 (9)
         Alzheimer's Disease                                   30.3 (6)         16.6 (12)        10.2 (11)
         Diabetes                                              18.0 (7)          41.5 (4)         29.7 (4)
         Septicemia                                            16.5 (9)          29.3 (6)         17.4 (7)
         Kidney Disease                                       14.9 (11)          29.3 (6)         18.6 (6)
         Influenza and Pneumonia                               17.5 (8)         17.6 (11)        11.6 (10)
         Homicide                                              4.6 (17)          26.3 (7)        10.1 (12)
         Chronic Lower Disease and Cirrhosis                  10.3 (12)          5.8 (14)         13.9 (8)
         Suicide                                              15.8 (10)          5.0 (16)         2.8 (17)
         HIV/AIDS                                              5.0 (15)          25.0 (8)         3.7 (14)




                                                                                                             49
As seen in the previous table, across the three major cultural groups, heart disease and cancer are
the first and second highest causes of death, with Black persons having the highest mortality rate
and Hispanic persons having the lowest. The third highest cause of death is stroke for Black and
Hispanic persons and accidents for White persons. Diabetes is the fourth highest cause of death
for Black and Hispanic persons and Stroke is fourth for White persons (Texas Department of
State Health Services, 2006).

Diabetes
An estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2007 revealed that 1 in 11
Harris County adult residents had diabetes (2010). Among children and adolescents, diabetes
comes second in chronic childhood diseases (Texas Diabetes Council, 2010). When diabetes data
is examined by race and ethnicity, it reveals a substantial effect on minority populations. The
Texas Diabetes Council (TDC) recently reported that more Texans with diabetes cannot see a
doctor due to cost than those who do not have the disease. Without guidance for self
management and prescription medication compliance, sufferers are at risk for complications that
include heart disease, blindness, and kidney failure. One-fifth of Medicaid fee-for-service and
primary care case management clients have diabetes. TDC has called on state legislators to
incorporate self-management training and prescription medications into all Medicaid and CHIP
plans. Additionally, TDC calls for an increase in prevention strategies. The benefit to the state
would be great, as Texas spends 153 times what it spends yearly on prevention on health care
and rehabilitative services (Texas Diabetes Council, 2010).

Obesity

Two-thirds of Texas’ adult population is either overweight or obese (Texas Department of State
Health Services, 2009). The prevalence of obesity has also increased over time for children and
adolescents. Forty three percent (43%) of fourth graders in Public Health Region 6-5S which
includes Harris County are either overweight or obese (The University of Texas School of Public
Health, 2005). The risk of obesity increases with factors such as race, ethnicity, and
socioeconomic status (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2009). With a gradual
increase in population and chronic disease, the county and state face a domino-like effect amid
the obesity epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes the American
society as obesogenic (Centers for Disease Control, 2010). The various environments in which
we reside have become increasingly unhealthy, not only impacting our physical well-being but
the productivity of entire societies.

Access to Health Insurance
According to the National Survey on Children’s Health in 2007, 78% of caregivers in Texas
reported their child to be in “excellent or very good” health (Nationwide: 84%, Child and
Adolescent Health, 2007). When examined by household income, the percentage drops to 60%
for families with incomes between 0 and 99% of the federal poverty level. While health care has
shown to be a significant factor in ensuring healthy outcomes, barriers to accessibility may
hinder the development of the state’s children (Child and Adolescent Health, 2007).




                                                                                                 50
Nearly one-quarter of Texas’ children are uninsured. For a decade, Texas has had the highest rate
of young people without insurance (Center for Public Policy Priorities, 2009). In Harris County,
the rate of uninsured surpasses the state, with nearly a third of Harris County’s kids without
health coverage. See following table of the insurance status of children up to age 18 for Harris
County compared to Texas (Center for Public Policy Priorities, 2009).

      Public Health Insurance
      Insured status                                                     Texas                   Harris County
      *average enrollment for yr. 2007
                                                                  Count            %           Count                %
      Children’s Medicaid*                                       1,850,714         27.2%        318,924            28.20%
      CHIP*                                                        300,262          4.4%         62,390             5.50%
      Uninsured (projected for 2010)                             1,584,276         24.1%        332,093            30.70%

 Harris County Head Start/Early Head Start grantees focus on helping their families enroll in a
 health insurance plan and find primary care physician or medical home. Based on information
 reported in the 2009 Program Information Reports from all Harris County Head Start/Early
 Head Start grantees, the majority of participants were enrolled in some type of insurance
 program. See the following figure (Grantee PIR Data, 2009).

                                       Harris County Head Start/Early Head Start
                                              Health Insurance Enrollment




                                                            87%
                                                                                    Head Start children enrolled

              Head Start                                                            Pregnant women in Early Head
                                              80%
              Programs                                                              Start enrolled
                                                                                    Early Head Start enrolled
                                                                       91%




                           70%   75%       80%       85%         90%         95%
                                       Percent of Participants



Federal and local initiatives such as Children’s Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance
Program (CHIP) are options available to families in need of coverage. To supplement this
coverage, the Harris County Hospital District offers their Gold Card which allows access to
services at county hospitals and health care centers at reduced rates. Despite these options,
families continue to face a number of challenges in ensuring access to continual care. Poverty
and issues for the “working poor” who are ineligible for assistance especially put demands on the
system.




                                                                                                                            51
Poverty
Since 2000, child poverty has increased by 19%. Roughly one-quarter of Harris County children
lived in poverty (Center for Public Policy Priorities, 2009). This creates a growing demand for
local and federal subsidies and programs. The National Center for Children in Poverty published
a report titled, “Who are America’s Poor Children?” In the document, it reports that a greater
number of poor children lack health insurance when compared against all children (Wright, V.R.,
Chau, M, and Aratani, Y., 2010). In Texas, the percentage of uninsured (24.1%) children
between the ages of 0-18 years is higher than the national rate (19.7%, Kaiser Family
Foundation, 2008).
Unlivable Work Earnings
In 2008, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) stated that nearly a third of American families, with
two parents and two children, were falling short of meeting their basic living costs ($48,778).
Three-quarters of single-headed households with two children also have incomes below EPI’s
calculated family budget. Budget costs include housing, food, child care, transportation, health
care, taxes, and other costs (e.g. clothing and entertainment, Allegretto, Sylvia, n.d.). CHIP is
available to families who make at least twice the poverty level, approximately $44,000. The
federal income guidelines used by CHIP/Children’s Medicaid reveal a gap for families who
exceed the eligibility requirements for public health insurance, yet are unable to meet their basic
family needs. In 2009, Texas lawmakers voted to not expand CHIP. Governor Rick Perry was
quoted as saying “[CHIP] was not what [he] considered to be a piece of legislation that has the
vast support of the people and the state of Texas (Ratciffe, 2009).”
Inadequate Medicaid Access
In 1993, Susan Zinn, filed a suit against the state of Texas. As the plaintiff’s counsel, Zinn
argued that the state failed to establish fair reimbursement rates for health care providers. Such
rates have led physicians and dentists to accept fewer children covered under Medicaid. A decree
was established between the two parties to improve children's access to and awareness of the
Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. The state
has yet to comply and the case continues to be fought in court. In 2005, Medicaid officials
released information stating that more than 1.4 million children did not receive a single medical
checkup (Guerra, C. & Stafford, E., 2009, 2007).
The following table and figure display the estimated income needed to meet expenses for basic
standard of living in the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area. Certain Head Start families may
be especially at risk for ineligibility for both Medicaid and CHIP and yet still not have access to
health insurance.
     Estimated Income for Basic Standard of Living (EPI)
     for families living in the Houston MS Area (2007)
                                                              Monthly Income      Yearly Income
     1-parent household, 2 kids                                        $3,272           $39,258
     2-parent household,
     2 kids                                                           $3,744            $44,928




                                                                                                  52
                                                     Basic Monthly Family Budget
                                                    Houston-Baytown-Sugarland, TX


                                      Taxes                  $184
                                                               212

                           Other Necessities                            $317
                                                                           359

                                 Healthcare                                  $350
                                                                                      450

             Basic Needs     Transportation                           $277
                                                                                401

                                  Childcare                                                                          $827
                                                                                                                     827

                                                                                       $465
                                       Food                                                          643

                                                                                                                      $852
                                    Housing                                                                           852

                                               $0   $100    $200     $300    $400     $500    $600    $700    $800     $900
                                                                             Monthly Costs

                                                        2-parent household, 2 kids     1-parent household, 2 kids


While the factors discussed contribute to the challenges of accessing care, they do not explain all
the reasons why families are unable to obtain care. The significance of each however, is the
influence of socially determined health inequalities. Social factors should be explored in depth to
address the growing issue of the uninsured and the state of the community’s health.

Researchers affiliated with Harvard Medical School examined the relationship between a lack of
health insurance and mortality. The study concluded a 25% higher risk of death among the
uninsured compared with adults with private health insurance. Nationwide, 44,789 deaths can be
attributed to a lack of health insurance. Texas (4,675) was behind California (5,302) in the
number of excess deaths (Wilper, 2009). Health care access is a considerable challenge to state
legislators, amidst an epidemic that is the underpinning of high health care costs.

Maternal and Infant Health

Harris County is the third largest county in the U.S. and has the highest number of births in the
state of Texas. Among total births for 2006, 39.8% of mothers received late or no prenatal care,
which is similar to the state overall (38%). Nearly a tenth of all babies in the county as well as in
the state were born with low birthweights. Texas also has the highest teen birth rate; Harris
County is slightly below the state at 12%. The following table displays basic statistics for the
state of maternal and infant health for Harris County compared to the rest of the state (Texas
Department of State Health Services, 2006).




                                                                                                                              53
       Maternal and Infant Health (2006)
                                                     Texas                  Harris County
                                            Count     % of all Births   Count      % of all Births
       All Births                          399,309                  -   70,175                   -
       Births to Teens                      53,954            13.5 %     8,658             12.3 %
       Infant Mortality                      2,476             6.2 %      411                  5.9
       Low Birthweight Babies (< 5 oz)      33,749             8.5 %     6,087              8.7 %
       Births to Women Who Received
       Inadequate Prenatal Care            151,500            37.9 %    27,921             39.8 %

According to the Harris County Hospital District, the rate of maternal mortality is 31.3 per
100,000 live births, higher than more than one quarter of the world’s countries and double the
rate of the United States.

Disabilities and Early Childhood Intervention
According to the Census 2000, nearly one-fifth of the population in Harris County had a
disability of some form. When population growth is accounted for, approximately 573,138
residents, 5 years and older had a disability in 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Data on
children under the age of five is difficult to capture as there is no centralized reporting system,
nationally or locally (Stapleton, D and Thornton, C, 2009). The Texas Education Agency (TEA)
and the Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services (DARS) both assess children that
may be in need of disability services. Agency reports were obtained in order to examine the
extent to which children in Harris County received services. In 2009-10, 7,118 children under the
age of five received special education services through one of Harris County 26 independent
school districts (see Appendix). Early Childhood Intervention Services (ECI) are coordinated by
DARS. In 2009, ECI in Harris County assisted 3.7% (n=10,265) of the total birth-to-3 population
(Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, 2009). Eight local ECI institutions serve
residents in Harris County and include:

        Brazoria County Association for
         Citizens with Handicaps
        Harris County Department of Education
         (Keep PACE)
        Katy Independent School District
        University of Texas Medical Branch-
         Galveston
        United Cerebral Palsy of Greater
         Houston
        Mental Health Mental Retardation
         Authority of Harris County
        Bay Area Rehabilitation Center
        Texana Center




                                                                                                     54
Eligibility in ECI is based on whether a children under the age of 3 presents a developmental
delay, atypical development, or a medically diagnosed condition. Nearly three-quarters of
children served by ECI across the state had developmental delays (Department of Assistive and
Rehabilitative Services, ECI Consumer Profile, 2009). Such delays include of cognitive, motor,
communication, socio-emotional, or self-help skills. Children with atypical development
perform in their age range, but have different patterns of development from their peers.
Medically diagnosed conditions are based on the International Statistical Classification of
Diseases and Related Health Problems (Ninth Edition). During 2008-2009 for ECI Harris
County, common diagnoses included Down Syndrome (24.1%); Failure to Thrive (6.1%); and
Cleft Palates (4.6%, Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, ECI Consumer Profile,
2009).

               ECI Services Received By Children Served in Harris County (2008-2009)
               Assistive Technology: Services & Devices      Psychology
               Audiology                                     Service Coordination
               Developmental Services                        Social Work
               Family Training/Counseling                    Speech/Language Therapy
               Nursing                                       Vision
               Nutrition                                     Other
               Occupational Therapy                          Behavioral
               Physical Therapy

                                           ECI Eligibility
                                            (Statewide)




                         16%                11%


                                                                     Medical diagnosis

                                                                     Developmental
                                                                     Delay
                                                                     Atypical
                                                                     Development


                                       73%




                                                                                            55
In 2009, the Office of Head Start issued a policy requiring that 10% of children enrolled must
have a diagnosed disability. Below is a table indicating the percentages of children with a
disability in each Head Start agency and delegate agency (Grantee PIR Data, 2009).

% of Head Start Children w/ Disabilities (2008-2009)
                       AVANCE              Aldine ISD      GCCSA             HCDE               NCI
Head Start                  2.4%                11.6%        8.8%             3.6%             7.2%

Mental Health
According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, one in five children, birth to 18, have a
diagnosable mental disorder and one in ten has serious mental health problems that are severe
enough to impair how they function in various environments (Stagman, S. and Cooper, J.L.,
2010). The Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority of Harris County recently reported
that nearly 20,000 youth need services from the public mental health system, but 76% have not
received treatment services (Harris County Health Care Alliance, 2009). Among adults in Harris
County, 140,000 have a severe mental illness (Nichols, 2009). The majority (66.7%) of adults
with mental illness are also parents. Additionally, the mental health problems of non-relative
caregivers like child care providers, may affect children as well (Stagman, S. and Cooper, J.L.,
2010).
Houston was reported to have a high stress index in 2009, which takes into account rates of
suicide, alcohol abuse, divorce and the rate of poor mental health (MSN Real Estate, 2009). The
stress of living in Harris County/Houston area was also seen in 2008, by a community survey
administered by the United Way. The findings revealed that 51% of respondents cited stress and
anxiety as their chief individual concern with 26% describing suffering at a high level.
Individuals identified economic concerns as the most significant cause of stress (United Way,
2008). Furthermore, the stressors of the recession compounded by the ravages of Hurricane Ike
in September of 2008 resulted in an unusually high number of local suicides increasing over the
first quarter of 2009 (O’Hare, 2009). Mental health services in Harris County lag drastically
behind need. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) reported that 22% of
Harris County area has a mental health provider shortage (2010). Texas ranks 49th in funding for
children’s outpatient mental health services, coverage is minimal (Children at Risk, 2009). In
2008, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act was passed in Congress to provide the
insured with mental health coverage in addition to their medical or surgical care. While Medicaid
ensures access to recipients, state governments set the limits for the level of coverage. Below is a
pie chart on the percentage of the Houston Area Survey respondents that has either friends or
family with a mental health problem or illness (Klineberg, 2009).




                                                                                                 56
                                       Harris County Residents With
                                   Friends/Family With a Mental Health
                                                 Problem


                                                      1%




                                       49%                              50%




                                       No    Yes   Refused/Don't Know

Immunizations
According to the 2009 Annual Report of Harris County Public Health and Environmental
Services, the Houston-Metropolitan Statistical Area (which includes the county) has seen gains
in the immunization of children (2009). The National Immunization Survey (2008) results
revealed that the Houston MSA had a 32% increase from 2004 and a 46% increase from 2002
(HCPHES 2009). A growing concern exists for families that opt-out of childhood
immunizations. Health officials estimate that nearly one-third of Houston’s children under 3
years of age are not vaccinated (Ackerman, 2008). At a time when childhood vaccinations have
become a dilemma for families and public health officials, prevalence rates for infections such as
Pertussis or “whooping cough” have increased. In 2009, seasonal flu and the spread of H1N1
increased mobilization efforts for mass vaccinations in Harris County. HCPHES held eight
vaccination clinics for five school districts, as well as in HCPHES WIC centers and health clinics
(2009.
Additionally, all public schools and accredited private schools report immunization data to the
Texas Department of State Health Services. Below is the percent of children who have
completed the vaccine categories necessary for school enrollment within Texas and Region 6
(including Harris County). The table is then followed by the percentage of children in Head Start
that are up-to-date on all the immunizations appropriate from their age (Texas Department on
State Health Services, 2009).
                    Percent of Kindergarten Students Completely Vaccinated,
                    School Year 2009-2010

                    Vaccine Category                              State       Region 6
                                                                     %              %
                    DTaP                                         97.7%          96.8%
                    Hepatitis B                                  98.6%          98.1%
                    MMR 2                                        98.1%          97.2%
                    Polio                                        98.1%          97.2%
                    Varicella 2                                  96.8%          95.0%
                    Hepatitis A                                  95.4%          94.4%



                                                                                               57
Immunization Services – Children (2008-2009)
% of children up-to-date on all immunizations appropriate for their age

                  All Head
                    Start           Area I -                                         Area III -        Area IV-
                  Grantees           HCDE             Area II - AVANCE                 NCI             GCCSA
                  %     % HS        %      %          %     % HS      %            % EHS % HS          %     % HS
                 EHS               EHS    HS         EHS            Aldine                            EHS
Begin of
Enrollment:       81.2     74.8             79.3       82.5    76.9         86.7     83.8     69.8     72.3       72.3

End of
Enrollment        88.7     85.9             75.5       95.3    97.5         96.0     87.5     83.6     74.6       84.7

Food Access and Nutrition
Among all U.S. states, Texas ranks second in food insecurity. At any given point over the course
of a year, one or more persons in a home were hungry due to their inability to afford enough food
(Mabli, 2010). In a published report prepared for the Houston Food Bank, the findings revealed
that 82% of households with children served by the food bank were food insecure (without
hunger, Mabli, 2010). More than one-quarter (29%) of clients had very low food insecurity (with
hunger). In addition, only 23% of client households receive the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, Deparle, J. and Gebeloff, R.,
2010). In 2009, federally-funded SNAP in Harris County, served 45% of target population for
the program. As highlighted in the report to the Houston Food Bank, an access gap exists during
a time in which the need for food has grown within cities and suburbs (Mabli, 2010).

    Harris County (2009)
          SNAP     Percent of Pop.         Pop Under     Percent of Pop Under        Ratio of Recipients to Pop
      Recipients         On SNAP           125% FPL                 125% FPL                  Under 125% FPL
        380,664                9%         844,000                         21.80%                          0.45
        *Retrieved from Food Research and Action Council (2010)

Limited food access is known to pose developmental effects for children in their first three years
of life (National Public Radio, 2009). Access to nutritious food is also an issue of concern in
Harris County. For every pound of fruit and vegetables consumed (149 lbs.), two pounds of
prepared, often processed foods are consumed per capita (281 lbs, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 2010). What may explain the proportion of fruit and vegetable consumption to
prepared foods is the prevalence of certain types of food places. Approximately two-thirds of
food places in Harris County are restaurants (Error! Bookmark not defined.). In 2009, the
CDC estimated that one in six preschoolers residing in households with incomes less than 200%
of the poverty threshold are obese in Harris County (Error! Bookmark not defined.).
Malnutrition, defined as nutrient deficiency or undernutrition and inadequate intake of dietary
energy, are two factors which will continue to challenge the well-being of families and
communities if left unresolved (Deparle, J. and Gebeloff, R. & Shetty, P., 2010, 2003).

In addition to SNAP, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of USDA distributes grants for the
Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC), National School Lunch Program, and the


                                                                                                                  58
Summer Food Service Program. WIC provides food assistance and nutrition education to
pregnant women, new mothers, and young children. In Harris County, there was an average of
62,000 WIC clients each month of 2009. Harris County Public Health and Environmental
Services (HCPHES) currently manages 13 WIC centers. HCPHES recently expanded its program
to include High Risk Individual Counseling by a Registered Dietician and improved upon the
WIC food package (according to Texas standards) in 2009. The food package led to an increase
in the amount of food for families (HCPHES 2009). Through the National School Lunch
Program, FNS assists participating schools with cash subsidies and supports for each nutritious
meal served. The financial support from USDA allows schools to maintain free and reduced-
price lunches for children (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National School Lunch Program,
n.d.). FNS also provides funding through the Summer Food Program. The program offers
nutritious meals at no charge to all children age 18 and younger (Texas Department of
Agriculture, 2010). In Harris County, 912 sites operate a Summer Food Program. The following
figure shows the number of children in Harris County approved, enrolled, or participating in food
assistance programs in 2007/2009 (Center for Public Policy Priorities, 2009).

                                            Childhood Nutrition Programs
                                                  in Harris County




                                                             474,887

  Food Assistance
                                 128,469
     Programs

                                     183,839




                      0           200,000          400,000        600,000      800,000        1,000,000
                                                        Number of Children

                                Children Approved for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
                                Children (0-4) Enrolled in WIC
                                Children Receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

*SNAP and WIC data as of 2007 and Free or reduced-price lunch data as of 2009 (Center for Public Policy
Priorities, 2009)




                                                   References



                                                                                                          59
1. Ackerman, Todd (2008, January 24). Local hospital battles whooping cough surge.
           Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from
           http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/5484659.html
2. Allegretto, Sylvia A. Basic family budgets: working families’ incomes often fail to meet
           living expenses around the U.S. (Briefing Paper #165). Washington, DC:
           Economic Policy Institute
3. Center for Public Policy Priorities. (2009). The state of Texas children. Retrieved from
           http://www.cppp.org/
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Diabetes Data & Trends. Retrieved
           from http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DDT_STRS2/County
           PrevalenceData.aspx?StateId=48
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Diabetes public health resource.
           Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/projects/cda2.htm
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Overweight and Obesity. Retrieved
           from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/index.html
7. Children at Risk, (2009). Growing up in Houston. Houston, TX.
8. Deparle, Jason & Gebeloff, Robert. (2010, February 10). Once stigmatized, food stamps
           find acceptance. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from
           http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/us/11foodstamps.html?ref=food_stamps
9. Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services. ECI consumer profile: fiscal year
           2009 [Microsoft Excel data file]. Retrieved from
           http://www.dars.state.tx.us/ecis/reports/ECI_Consumer_FY2009.xlsx
10. Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services. ECI served by county: fiscal year
           2009 [Microsoft Excel data file]. Retrieved from
           http://www.dars.state.tx.us/ecis/reports/ECI_County_FY2009.xls
11. Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services. Harris County fiscal year 2009
           [Microsoft Excel data file]. Retrieved from DARS Systems Analyst
12. Economic Policy Institute. (2007) Basic family budget calculator [Microsoft Excel data
           file]. Retrieved from http://epi.3cdn.net/87d8e284fb7e1e5b5e_5am6b9yth.xls
13. Food Research and Action Center. (2010). Hunger Data. Retrieved from
           http://frac.org/reports-and resources/hunger-data/
14. Grantee PIR Data (2009) [Microsoft Excel data file]. Retrieved by Harris County
           Department of Education.
15. Guerra, Carlos. (2009, March 19). Attorney not about to stop her fight for Texas’ poor
           kids. My San Antonio News. Retrieved from
           http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/carlos_guerra/Attorney_not_ab
           ut_to_stop_her_fight_for_Texas_poor_kids.html?showFullArticle=y
16. Harris County Health Care Alliance.The State of Health: Houston and Harris County,
           Texas. Retrieved from http://www.houstonstateofhealth.org/soh_doc.php
17. Harris County Public Health & Environmental Services. (2009). Annual report. Retrieved
           from http://www.hcphes.org/2009annual.pdf
18. Health Resources and Services Administration. HRSA geospatial data warehouse.
           Retrieved from http://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/hpsadetail.aspx
19. Klineberg, Stephen (2009). The Houston area survey: central findings from year 28.
           Retrieved from has.rice.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=1974




                                                                                        60
20. Mabli, J. et al. (2010). Hunger in America 2010: local report prepared for the Houston
            Food Bank. Retrieved from http://www.houstonfoodbank.org/uploadedFiles/
            HoustonFoodBank/FINAL%20EPORT%20Hunger%20Study.pdf
21. MSN real estate most-livable bargin markets. (2009). MSN Real Estate. Retrieved from
            http://realestate.msn.com/slideshow.aspx?cpdocumentid=22334217#1#q=2009%
            0MSN%20Real%20Estate%20MostLivable%20Bargain%20Markets%3A%20S
            perStock%29
22. Murdock, Steve H., et al. (2002). A summary of the Texas challenge in the twenty-first
            century: implications of population change for the future of Texas. Retrieved from
            Texas A&M University, The Center for Demographic and Socioeconomic
            Research and Education
23. National Public Radio. (2009). All Things Considered: Food insecurity, hunger, and
            children’s health [Radio Show]. Retrieved from
            http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5025295&sc=emaf
24. Nichols, B. (Ed.). (2009). The state of health in Houston/Harris County 2009. Houston,
            TX.
25. O’Hare, Peggy (2009, July 18). Area suicides show heavy toll of recession. Houston
            Chronicle.
26. Ratcliffe, R.G. (2009, May 29). CHIP bill no longer on the table. Houston Chronicle.
            Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6446391.html
27. Shetty, Prakash. (2003) Malnutrition and Undernutrition. Medicine. 31 (4), 18-22
28. Stafford, Erin P.(2007 March). Frew vs. Hawkins: the Medicaid battle continues. Texas
            Medical Association. Retrieved from K:\Projects\new projects 2009\Proj 0904
            0720 HS Community Assess\datacollection\Community indicators\Frew vs_
            Hawkins The Medicaid Battle Continues.mht
29. Stagman, S., & Cooper, J. L. (2010, April). Children's mental health: what every
            policymaker should know. Retrieved from
            http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_929.html#4
30. Stapleton, David C. & Thornton, Craig. (2009). Is it time to establish a national disability
            data system? Retrieved from Employment Research
            http://disabilitycompendium.org/
31. Texas Department of Agriculture. (2010) Summer Food Program. Retrieved from
            http://netx.squaremeals.com/SNP/summerfood/index.html
32. Texas Department of State Health Services. (2006). State health facts. Retrieved from
            http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/cfs/
33. Texas Department of State Health Services. (2007). On an average day in Texas 2007.
            Retrieved from http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/VSTAT/latest/aveday.shtm
34. Texas Department of State Health Services. (2009). Annual Report on Immunization
            Status. Retrieved from http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/
            coverage/schools.shtm
35. Texas Department of State Health Services. (2009). Texas overweight and obesity
            statistics. Retrieved from http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/obesity/pdf/DataFacts.pdf
36. Texas Diabetes Council. (2010). Diabetes: a comprehensive approach, a plan to prevent
            and control diabetes in Texas, 2010-2011. Retrieved from
            http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/diabetes/tdcplan.shtm




                                                                                             61
37. The Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. (2007). National survey of
            children’s health. Retrieved from http://www.nschdata.org/content/Default.aspx
38. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foudnation. (2008). Children’s health fact sheets: Texas &
            United States. Retrieved from http://www.statehealthfacts.org/
39. The University of Texas School of Public Health. (2005). School Physical Activity and
            Nutrition III. Retrieved from
    http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/obesity/pdf/ChildRegion6and5S.pdf
40. U.S. Census Bureau (2000) QuickFacts: Texas. Retrieved from
            http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states /48/4835000.html
41. United States Census Bureau. (2000). Disability status: 2000. Retrieved from
            http://www.census.gov/ prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-17.pdf
42. United States Department of Agriculture. (2010). Food Environment Atlas. Retrieved
            from http://www.ers.usda.gov/foodatlas/
43. United States Department of Agriculture. National School Lunch Program. Retrieved
            from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/
44. United Way of Greater Houston, (2008). “2008 Community assessment”. Houston, TX.
45. Wilper, Andrew P., et al. (2009). Health insurance and mortality in US adults. American
            Journal of Public Health, 99 (12), 1-8.
46. Wright, Vanessa R., Chau, M, & Aratani, Y. (2010). Who are America’s poor children?
            The official story. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty




                                                                                         62
Environmental Health




                       63
Environmental Health:
Urban sprawl has transformed the city of Houston and Harris County since the beginning of the
twentieth century (Henson 2010). With growing unincorporated areas, more residents are
opening up to the idea of zoning regulation, uncharacteristic of both the city and county. The
2007 Houston Area Survey revealed that more than two-thirds (70%) of Harris County residents
were in support of better land use planning to guide the region’s growth (Houston Area Survey,
n.d.). Respondents also recognized a need for the redevelopment of the county’s older areas, in
order to accommodate growth during the next 20 years (Houston Area Survey, n.d). A growing
body of research in public health has sought out to examine the relationship between the built
environment, how we design and build our communities, and our health (Designing and Building
Healthy Places & Urban Sprawl and Public Health). It has been argued that children, especially
under the age of five, are incredibly vulnerable to environmental agents as their nervous system
has yet to fully develop. Researchers have reported that children drink more water, eat more, and
breathe more air pound-for-pound of body weight compared with adults. The effects of the
county’s rapid expansion are explored through the quality of air, water, and, urban development.
Air Quality
Outdoor Air Quality
According to the American Housing Survey for the Houston Metropolitan Area: 2007 (2007), the
average distance from one’s home to work is 15 miles; the travel time is approximately 25
minutes. As individuals drive further and longer distances to commute from home, work, or
school, motor vehicles and traffic have become significant factors in air pollution. A number of
pollutants are released into the air causing respiratory problems for adults and children alike.
Pollutants have become so pervasive that even the smallest and routine activities of the day carry
a bit of risk. For example, when an automobile has a faulty start, carbon monoxide emits from
the tailpipe and produces a compound which can hamper the blood’s capacity to carry oxygen to
organs and tissues (Automobiles, 1993).

In Harris County and areas alike, residents are not only impacted by motor vehicle emissions, but
also by the abundance of manufacturing plants and industries. In Harris County, 418 facilities are
mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to report the release of any of the 650
toxic chemicals that are manufactured, treated, transported, or released into the environment
(Toxic Release Inventory, n.d.). Within the Head Start service area there are 404 facilities.

The largest chemical release, in the county, that occurs on-site of a facility is Methanol. As a
toxicant, Methanol has been suspected of a number of human health hazards. The EPA reported
chronic inhalation of the toxicant to result in headache, dizziness, giddiness, insomnia, nausea, gastric
disturbances, conjunctivitis, visual disturbances (blurred vision), and blindness (Technology Transfer,
n.d.).

Indoor Air Quality
Researchers have found that people spend about 90% of their time indoors (Kinney, 2005). Daily
indoor activities can also contribute to pollution. An enclosed space limits the flow of pollutants
emitted in homes, schools, and offices. Indoor activities include the use of kitchen gas stoves



                                                                                                          64
(combustion of fuels), dry cleaned clothing (evaporation from materials), and vacuuming (re-
suspension of settled particles, Kinney 2005). A number of federal agencies and institutes are
encouraging environmentally safe buildings through initiatives such as the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s “The Healthy Homes Program” and EPA’s “Healthy School
Environment Assessment Tool” (n.d.). Recently, The Environmental Working Group tested over
twenty cleaners used in schools in California and found hundreds of contaminants not listed as
ingredients by manufacturers. Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser made by Procter and Gamble
was found to contain 146 air contaminants; only six ingredients were disclosed by the
manufacturer (Air Pollution, 2010). One of the chemicals, formaldehyde, has been known to
trigger asthma attacks (Akinbami, 2006).
Asthma
Asthma is among the leading chronic childhood diseases in the U.S., and has maintained a high
prevalence since the 1990s (Asthma Health Facts, 2008). Asthma is also the leading cause of
missed school days due to a chronic illness (Akinbami, 2006). In Texas Health Service Region 6,
which contains Harris County, 7% of children under the age of four had asthma in 2008 (Asthma
Health Facts, 2008). Texas Children’s Hospital reports that it sees 1% of the nation’s children
with asthma through its emergency department. Due to the overuse of the department, the
hospital has established an asthma surveillance partnership with local hospitals to reduce visits
and hospitalizations. Texas Emergency Department Asthma Surveillance provides physicians,
patients, and families with the tools necessary to diagnose, treat, and manage asthma (Asthma –
DASH/HealthyYouth, n.d.). While the cause of asthma is unknown, indoor and outdoor air
pollutants have been identified for setting off asthma attacks (Asthma & Lead, n.d.).

                                                Asthma Triggers
    Secondhand Smoke:        A mixture of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the
                             smoke exhaled by the smoker

    Dust Mites:              Tiny insects invisible to the naked eye, every home has dust mites
    Mold:                    Microscopic fungi that live on plant and animal matter. Molds can be found almost
                             anywhere; they grow on virtually any substance when moisture is present


    Cockroaches and          Droppings or body parts of cockroaches and other pests can trigger asthma
    other pests:

    Warm-blooded pets:       An animal’s dead skin flakes, urine, feces, saliva and hair can trigger asthma


    Nitrogen Dioxide:        A reddish-brown, irritating odor gas that can be a byproduct of indoor fuel-burning
                             appliances, such as gas stoves, gas or oil furnaces, fireplaces, wood stoves and
                             unvented kerosene or gas space heaters
Taken from CDC’s Healthy Schools, Healthy Youth! (n.d.)

Lead
On average, all housing structures built in the Houston metropolitan area were constructed in the
eighties. A slight difference exist between owner-occupied (1983) and renter-occupied (1978)
dwellings. Many homes and apartments built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint. In


                                                                                                                   65
Harris County, approximately 55,000 lead-based homes exist in the area; however, this does not
include the cities of Baytown, Houston, Pasadena, and Pearland (Texas Children Tested, 2009).
Lead can be inhaled as dust, ingested as paint chips, or swallowed by water flowing through
lead-based plumbing. Children are at greater risk of lead poisoning, as they are more likely to eat
non-nutritional objects. Children can also suffer long term health effects as their brain and
nervous system has yet to fully develop. In 2009, 16% (66,951) of Harris County’s under-six
population was tested for lead poisoning. Less than half of a percent (0.5%, n=324) were found
to have an elevated blood lead level (HCPHES, 2008).
Water Quality
Drinking Water
Within Harris County there are 1,200 public water systems (Duhigg, n.d.). The City of Houston
is the state’s largest system serving 2,700,000 residents. Each water system must adhere to the
guidelines established by Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The law was established in
1974 and amended twice, in1986 and 1996. Recently EPA announced an effort to enforce stricter
regulations as the law has struggled to keep up with the pace of emitted pollutants into water
systems and scientific technologies. Stricter regulations will be placed on lead, copper, arsenic,
and atrazine, a herbicide (Duhigg & City of Houston, n.d., 2009).
      Regulated Contaminants: City of Houston
                                                                      MCL*                           Average
      Lead (ppm)**                                             90% below 15                     90% below 3.4
      Copper (ppm)                                             90% below 1.3                    90% below 0.9
      Arsenic (ppb)***                                                  10.0                              3.4
      Atrazine (ppb)                                                     3.0                              0.1

      *Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking
      water.
      **Parts Per Million (ppm) per milligrams per liter (mg/L)
      ***Parts Per Billion (ppb) per micrograms per liter (mg/L)
Taken from Drinking Water Quality Report 2009 (2009)

Watersheds
Watersheds are land areas that drain rainfall. The water is collected from storm sewers and
remains untreated before reaching a waterway. Harris County has 22 major watersheds and 22
major waterways which include Buffalo Bayou and Galveston Bay. Each is within one of four
types of floodplains unique to Harris County.
Harris County Floodplains

Valley:                 Located in the northwest region of the county, "ground is more defined with creek valleys"
Major River:            Located in the northeast region, near the San Jacinto River, "the plain is deep and swift"
Shallow:                Exists throughout much of Harris County
Coastal:                Located in the southeast region, closer towards the Gulf of Mexico where a high tide can
                        cause flooding
Ponding:                Can happen anywhere where intense rainfall exceeds storm sewer or roadside ditch capacity
Taken from Harris County Flood District (n.d.)




                                                                                                                 66
Ponding has not been identified as an insured floodplain. Ponding was most significant during
and after Hurricane Ike. The Federal Emergency Management Agency published a report in 2009
on the storm’s impact. Over two-thirds of all child care centers and family child care homes were
damaged in some form by the hurricane. Twelve percent of these centers suffered damage so
severe that reopening the center was unlikely (Hurricane Ike, 2008).

Neighborhood Nuisances:
Researchers have documented the negative impacts of urban blight, which include alienation,
social disorder and vandalism (Semenza, 2003). The consequences of dilapidated structures also
have an influence on the health of the community. Harris County Public Health and
Environmental Services has made neighborhood nuisances a priority. With the support of Texas
Neighborhood Nuisances Abatement Act, citizens and local authorities can take the appropriate
steps to hold property owners accountable for violations that may bring harm to individuals and
communities at large.

Environmental waste and hazards can also infringe on a community’s well-being. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in collaboration with the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) oversees the releases and transfers of toxic chemicals through
the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and the cleanup of abandoned hazardous waste sites, known
as Superfund Sites. In Harris County, there are currently twelve federal sites and three state sites
that are actively being cleaned up. These sites released contaminants into the air, water, and soil
surrounding the community.

The graphs below illustrate the proximity of toxic release sites and Superfund sites to Head Start
centers.




                                                                                                  67
                                Toxic Release Inventory Sites
                                        Harris County




Harris County has 404 toxic release sites mostly concentrated within the outer loop, Beltway 8.
Facilities that report toxic releases are industries in manufacturing, metal and coal, mining,
electric utilities, commercial hazardous waste treatment, petroleum terminals, chemical
distributors, and solvent recovery services. Data on each facility is available through the EPA
and TCEQ as commitment to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (TRI
for Communities, n.d.).




                                                                                             68
                                            GCCSA




Service Area IV, which is managed by GCCSA, has 114 toxic release sites. Several of the TRI
sites are within the Interstate 610 eastbound loop. Facilities in the area include Baker Hughes
Oilfield Operations Inc (77011)., which reports the release or transfer of chromium and nickel,
and the Clorox Products Manufacturing Company (77020), which releases or transfers chlorine
(TRI for Communities, n.d).

                       Number of Toxic Release Sites by Zip Code- GCCSA

 Zip Code      Sites     Zip Code      Sites     Zip Code       Sites     Zip Code      Sites
  77011         14        77012         11         77023          6        77501          4
  77020         14        77026          8         77001          5        77021          3
  77506         13        77503          8         77033          4        77010          1
  77003         11        77017          7         77087          4        77502          1
                                      Total TRI Sites: 114




                                                                                                69
                                           AVANCE




Service Area II, which is managed by AVANCE, has 120 toxic release sites. Several of the TRI
sites are within the northwestern quadrant of Beltway 8. Facilities in the area include Airgas
Southwest (77040), which reports the release or transfer of propylene, and AES Deepwater Inc.
(77506), which releases or transfers ammonia, nickel compounds, sulfuric acid, and vanadium
compounds (TRI for Communities, n.d).

                        Number of Toxic Release Sites by Zip Code- AVANCE

  Zip Code      Sites       Zip Code     Sites      Zip Code     Sites      Zip Code     Sites
   77040         13          77039         7          77037        4         77038         1
   77506         13          77073         7          77091        4         77065         1
   77008         10          77086         7          77070        3         77076         1
   77092         10          77022         6          77093        3         77088         1
   77064          8          77032         5          77066        2         77502         1
   77503          8          77009         4          77018        1
                                       Total TRI Sites: 120




                                                                                             70
                                            HCDE




Service Area I, which is managed by HCDE, has 144 toxic release sites. Several of the TRI sites
are along Interstate 10 (eastbound). Facilities in the area include Anheuser-Bush Inc. (77029),
which reports the release or transfer of ammonia, and the American Plating Company (77015),
which releases or transfers nitric acid (TRI for Communities, n.d).

                       Number of Toxic Release Sites by Zip Code- HCDE

  Zip Code         Sites            Zip Code              Sites       Zip Code         Sites
   77029            22               77026                  8          77536             4
   77015            21               77503                  8          77044             3
   77020            14               77530                  8          77093             3
   77028            13               77039                  7          77016             2
   77049            10               77013                  6          77050             1
   77547             9               77396                  4          77078             1
                                     Total TRI Sites: 144




                                                                                               71
                                    Neighborhood Centers




Service Area III, which is managed by Neighborhood Centers, has 88 toxic release sites. Several
of the TRI sites are mostly located within the western half of Beltway 8. Facilities in the area
include American Spring Wire Corporation (77041), which reports the release or transfer of
nitrate compounds, and Halliburton Energy Service (77007), which releases or transfers
chromium (TRI for Communities, n.d).
               Number of Toxic Release Sites by Zip Code- Neighborhood Centers

  Zip Code          Sites          Zip Code           Sites         Zip Code           Sites
   77041             40             77054               3            77042               1
   77007              7             77080               2            77074               1
   77055              7             77081               2            77077               1
   77043              6             77082               2            77083               1
   77019              4             77095               2            77098               1
   77002              3             77005               1
   77036              3             77024               1
                                       Total TRI Sites: 88



                                                                                               72
                                       Superfund Sites

                                   Harris County Overall




Harris County has 15 Superfund sites managed by either the EPA and/or TCEQ. Superfund sites
are abandoned hazardous waste sites. EPA Superfund sites have been placed on the National
Priorities List, which ensures federal cleanup enforcement. The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality has its own process for determining Superfund sites to be managed at the
state level. Data on each site is also available to the public (Superfund, 2010).




                                                                                            73
                                          GCCSA




Geneva Industries (77017), one-mile of Interstate Highway 45 and two miles from Hobby
Airport, is an abandoned refinery within Area IV. According to the EPA, the site produced
several organic compounds. One in particular polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) can be carried by
wind blown dust or surface runoff. Pollutants were found in the soil and shallow ground water
before remediation by the EPA (Harris County Superfund Sites, n.d.).

                                  Superfund Sites- GCCSA
                             Agency      Zip Code No. of Sites
                             EPA            77017            1
                             EPA            77020            2
                             TCEQ           77026            1
                             TCEQ           77034            1
                                          Total: 5




                                                                                            74
                                         AVANCE




Bell Dry Cleaners (77070), formerly located at 11600 Jones Road is the contamination site in
Area II. According to the EPA, the site contained a manufactured chemical for dry cleaning,
tetrachloroethylene (PCE). The chemical plume was documented in 2003, as it entered into
groundwater. Both the EPA and TCEQ have made collaborative efforts to re-build the waterline
in the surrounding area (Harris County Superfund Sites, n.d).

                                Superfund Sites- AVANCE
                           Agency     Zip Code      No. of Sites
                           EPA           77070                 2
                                        Total: 2




                                                                                          75
                                             HCDE




Area I has the most Superfund sites of each of the service areas. Patrick Bayou (77536), a small
bayou of the Houston Ship Channel, located in Deer Park is a contamination site. Deer Park,
known as a petrochemical area contains numerous industries. The EPA collected samples of the
sediment in Patrick Bayou to determine waste and volume. Several chemicals were present
including, chromium, copper, lead, and mercury (Harris County Superfund Sites, n.d).

                                    Superfund Sites- HCDE
                             Agency      Zip Code      No. of Sites
                             EPA            77020                 2
                             TCEQ           77026                 1
                             TCEQ           77029                 1
                             EPA            77530                 1
                             EPA            77532                 2
                             EPA            77536                 1
                             EPA            77562                 1
                                           Total: 9


                                                                                               76
                                  Neighborhood Centers, Inc.




In Area III, one Superfund site located at 10965 Westpark Drive, near Beltway 8, was found to
contain arsenic in the soil. Identified as the Crystal Chemical Company site, the area contained
an arsenic-based herbicide not only in the soil, but also into the ground. The contamination posed
a threat the water source of 20,000 people who live within a one-mile radius of the site. Arsenic
has been associated with the risk of skin and lung cancer by direct contact, ingestion, and
inhalation. The site has been cleaned, and continues to be monitored by EPA (TRI for
Communities, n.d.).

                                       Superfund Sites- NCI
                              Agency       Zip Code      No. of Sites
                              EPA             77042                 1
                              EPA             77054                 1
                                             Total: 2




                                                                                               77
                                       References

1. Air pollution caused by Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser (Regular). Environmental
           Working Group. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from
           http://www.ewg.org/schoolcleaningsupplies/cleaningsuppliesoverview?id=200
2. Akinbami, L. (2006, December 12). The state of childhood asthma, United States, 1980
           2005. Advance data from vital and health statistics, 381, 1-24.
3. Asthma - DASH/HealthyYouth. (n.d.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
           Retrieved July 29, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyYouth
4. Asthma health facts 2008: Texas health service region 6. (2008). Austin: Texas
           Department of State Health
5. Asthma. (n.d.). US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from
           http://www.epa.gov/asthma/
6. CDC - Designing and building healthy places - home. (n.d.). Centers for Disease Control
           and Prevention. Retrieved July 27, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces
7. City of Houston Department of Public Works and Engineering: Drinking water quality
           report. (2009). Houston: City of Houston.
8. Duhigg, C. (n.d.). E.P.A. moves to tighten drinking water standard . The New York
           Times. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/0
9. Duhigg, C. (n.d.). Millions drink tap water that is legal, but maybe not healthy . The New
           York Times Multimedia. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from
           http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/us/17water.html?pagewanted=1
10. Emergency departments: Texas Emergency Department Asthma Surveillance (TEDAS),
           Houston, TX. (n.d.). PediatricAsthma.org: . Retrieved July 30, 2010, from
           http://www.pediatricasthma.org/emergency
11. Formaldehyde. (2010, April 23). An introduction to indoor air quality. Retrieved July 29,
           2010, from www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html#Health Effects
12. Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports, 117, 201
           217.
13. Harris County Flood Control District. (n.d.). Harris County Flood Control District.
           Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.hcfcd.org/index.asp
14. Harris County Superfund Sites (n.d.). Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
           Retrieved September 10, 2010, from http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/
           assets/public/remediation/superfund/county_maps/harris.html
15. HCPHES 2008 Annual Report. (2008). Houston: HCPHES.
16. Henson, M. (n.d.). Index of /handbook/online/articles/HH. Texas State Historical
           Association - Home – Digital Gateway to Texas History. Retrieved July 27, 2010,
           from http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/
17. Hurricane Ike impact report. (2008). Austin: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
18. Kinney, P. (2005, September 27). Opening the window: indoor air quailty and human
           health. Environmental Health Sciences. Lecture conducted from Columbia
           University, New York.
19. Lead. (n.d.). Harris County Community Services Department. Retrieved July 30, 2010,
           from http://www.csd.hctx.net/pheslead.aspx
20. Rice University Houston Area Survey. (n.d.). Rice University Houston Area Survey.
           Retrieved July 27, 2010, fromhttp://has.rice.edu/content.aspx?id=


                                                                                           78
           1748&ekmensel=c580fa7b_8_0_
21. Semenza, J. (2003). The intersection of urban planning, art, and public health: the
           sunnyside piazza. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1439-1441.
22. Superfund (n.d.). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from
           http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
23. Technology transfer network air toxics web site | US EPA. (n.d.). US Environmental
           Protection Agency. Retrieved July 28, 2010, from
           http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef
24. Texas children tested for lead poisoning prevention program, 2009 [Data file], Austin,
           TX: Texas Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.
25. The inside story: a guide to indoor air quality. US Environmental Protection Agency.
           Retrieved July 29, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/insidest.html#Intro.
26. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program | US EPA. (n.d.). US Environmental Protection
           Agency. Retrieved July 28, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/tri/
27. TRI for communities (n.d.). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved September 10,
           2010, from http://www.epa.gov/tri/stakeholders/communities/index.htm#chem
28. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Healthy homes program (n.d.)
           Retrieved July 29,2010, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/hhi/index.cfm
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (January 1993). Automobiles and carbon
           monoxide. Retrieved July 27, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/03
           co.pdf




                                                                                       79
State of the Grantees




                        80
Harris County Department of Education (HCDE)

Harris County Department of Education is a nonprofit, public agency dedicated to the
equalization of educational opportunity and to the advancement of public schools. HCDE
provides support to business managers, educators, students, and the community at large. The
agency consists of 26 divisions and operates 15 programs and services focused on enriching
communities and educational institutions throughout the Houston metropolitan area (History of
HCDE, 2008).

The following Programs and Services are offered:

      Administrators and Business Managers - Purchasing Cooperatives
      Educators - Instructional Support Services, Principal and Teacher Certification, Records
       Management, Texas Center for Grants Development, Research Institute of Texas, Virtual
       School Network, Digital Learning and Instructional Technology
      Students - Adult Education, CASE After-School Services, Early Childhood Intervention,
       Head Start, ABC and Highpoint Alternative Schools

History
In 1866, the Texas Constitution authorized the formation of a Board of School Examiners for
each county. A decade later, HCDE employed teachers, established educational policies and
procedures, purchased educational materials, and contracted for buildings and furnishings. By
the beginning of the twentieth century, population growth led to consolidation, annexation, and
the development of independent school districts. In 1930, an equalization tax promoted uniform
educational opportunity across all districts, ultimately shaping HCDE’s direction and mission for
nearly 80 years (History of HCDE, 2008).

Mission
HCDE’s mission is: Advancing Excellence in Partnership with the Educational Community.
HCDE Head Start’s mission seeks to improve school readiness for children, families, and the
community (About Us, 2008).

Head Start
Service Area
Since 1999, HCDE has operated 16, Area I Head Start programs in the eastern half of Houston
and Harris County. The program is situated in schools, community centers, and independent sites
in the cities of Baytown, Crosby, Deer Park, Houston, Humble, and La Porte. See the following
map of the service area and center locations identified by “push pins”. A table with center
addresses follows the map (HCDE Head Start Area I, 2008).




                                                                                              81
HCDE Service Area Map (HS-EHS Centers):




    HCDE Center                         Street Address
    Barrett Station                     808 1/2 Magnolia, Crosby
    Baytown                             1725 Pruett, Baytown
    Burnett                             11825 Teaneck
    Compton                             9720 Spaulding
    Coolwood                            767 Coolwood Drive
    Dogan                               4202 1/2 Liberty Road
    Fifth Ward                          4014 Market
    Humble                              110 Isaacks Rd, Humble
    J.D. Walker                         7613A Wade Road, LaPorte
    Kashmere Gardens                    4901 Lockwood
    La Porte                            927 S. 1st
    Pugh                                1042 Henke St.
    R.P. Harris                         1262 Mae Drive
    Scott                               3300 Russell
    Sheffield                           1300 Sheffield
    Tidwell                             12410 Tidwell

Program Options

HCDE Head Start centers provide full-day enrollment, five days a week from August to May.



                                                                                            82
Eligibility Criteria
The minimum eligibility requirements for HCDE Head Start are: (1) the child is between the
ages of 3 or 4 years old at the beginning of the program year; (2) the child resides within the
boundaries of Area I; and (3) the family’s income meets or is below the current federal poverty
guidelines. If the child is waitlisted, HCDE has established a point-based system with criteria
that includes whether the child is homeless, receives public assistance, and/or has an identified
disability (Head Start Selection, 2009).

Enrollment
HCDE is funded for the enrollment of 1,170 children in Head Start (HCDE Head Start Pre
Enrollment, 2009). Since August 2009, the program has served 1,477 children with all 16 Head
Start sites operating at capacity (Genesis Earth, n.d.). Overall, 399 children are on the waiting
list, resulting in approximately one child on the waiting list for every three enrolled in the
program.

Three Year Enrollment Trend

                            HCDE Head Start Actual Enrollment
                                       2006-2009
                         Year       Funded             Actual
                       2006-2007     1,170             1,432
                       2007-2008     1,170             1,350
                       2008-2009     1,170             1,311


                                                      HCDE Head Start Enrollment
                                              1600
                         Number of Children




                                              1400
                                              1200
                                              1000
                                               800
                                               600
                                               400
                                                        2006-2007        2007-2008     2008-2009
                                                                           Year

                                                     Funded Enrollment        Actual Enrollment



The actual enrollment of Head Start children at HCDE has declined somewhat, while funded
enrollment remained constant over the three year period. Actual enrollment fell from 1,432 in
2006 to 1,311 participants in 2008 (HCDE HS Program Information Report, 2007, 2008, 2009).




                                                                                                   83
Eligible and Available Head Start Children
The Center for Public Policy Priorities reported in 2008 that almost one-fourth of children in
Harris County are living in poverty (2009). Census 2000 data on children living below poverty
was collected at the zip code level to illustrate the level of need in the eastern quadrant of Harris
County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). In order to account for population growth, the population
percent change (19.7%) from 2000 to 2009 was applied to the data on children living below
poverty in the area. Based on the projected numbers to 2009, 19,097 children are proposed to
be living below poverty, and are therefore eligible for Head Start. The projected population
estimate of eligible children was then used to determine the number of available children.
Subtracting the number of children accessing subsidized child care and prekindergarten centers
(10,695 children), more than 8,402 children were available for the HCDE Head Start
program in 2008-2009 (Child Care & HCDE School District Table Complete, 2009). During
the program year, HCDE was funded for 1,170 children, representing approximately 13.9% of
children under the age of five, living below poverty in Area I. By the program year’s end 1,311
children were served, consisting of 15.6% of the service area’s available children. The agency
reached between 13.9%-15.6% of its eligible and available population and is less than the
saturation level of 85% (Buckley and Watkins, 2003). Additionally, based on updated numbers
by zip code of those served for 2009-2010, the agency had an actual enrollment of 1,397
which is approximately 14.6% of eligible and available children for that year.
The following table displays the numbers of projected eligible and available children served by
HCDE between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. More detailed information for 2009-2010 by zip
code follows.

HCDE % of Eligible and Available Children Served

                    Served by                               % Eligible/                   % Eligible/
                         Pre-K                                Available                     Available
                       (07-08)                                  children                      children
                        and/or    Eligible/                  served (for                   served (for
Eligible children   Child Care   Available       Funded          Funded        Actual          Actual
(projected 2009)     (9/2009)     Children    Enrollment    Enrollment)    Enrollment     Enrollment)
2008-2009
          19,097       10,695        8,402        1,170          13.9%         1,311           15.6%
2009-2010
          19,097       10,695        8,402        1,170          13.9%         1,397           16.6%




                                                                                                   84
HCDE Eligible and Available Children Served (2009-2010)
                               Below
                             poverty                                                         Number of         # Of
                                level;              Ages 0-   Ages 4-        Adjusted         available    Children   % Of Eligible/Available
                  Total      Under 5          # Of    3 Sub    5 Sub    below poverty     children (not   Served by   Children Below Poverty
   Zip     population:          years    Children     Child    Child    level, Under 5   including Pre-    HS/EHS            Served in Harris
  Code Under 5 years           (2000)    in Pre-K      Care     Care      years (2009)              K)      2009-10                  County*

  77013           1946           546         120        55        24              654              575         102                      18%
  77015           4792          1087         623       145        86             1301             1070          65                       6%
  77016           2070           804          66       100        59              962              803          62                       8%
  77020           2585          1024         659        37        25             1226             1164         194                      17%
  77026           2301          1241         227        71        36             1485             1378         173                      13%
  77028           1114           460         124        92        51              551              408          49                      12%
  77029           1522           385         275        45        19              461              397          26                       7%
77032**                                                                                              0           1
  77034           2406           461            0       84        49              552              419           1                       0%
  77039           2622           724            0       52        29              867              786           0                       0%
77043**                                                                                              0           3
  77044           1188           245         272        64        32              293              197          71                      36%
  77047            849           154           0        82        37              184               65           0                       0%
  77048           1221           609           0       111        49              729              569           0                       0%
  77049           1429           249         191        71        48              298              179          37                      21%
  77050            443           154         724        12         6              184              166           2                       1%
  77058            764            61           0        25        11               73               37           0                       0%
  77059           1383            21          40         4         1               25               20           0                       0%
  77062           1965           120         107        17         9              144              118           0                       0%
77069**                                                                                                          1
  77075           2217           427            0       94        58              511              359           0                       0%
77076**                                                                                              0           2
  77078           1337           636         177        77        38              761              646          45                       7%
  77089           2620           147         248        84        40              176               52          79                     152%
  77093           4541          1457         408        82        39             1744             1623           3                       0%
  77336            583            17          78        18        19               20              -17           0                       0%
  77338           1647           263         252       161        84              315               70          15                      21%
  77339           2087            51         116        33        19               61                9           9                     100%
  77345           1494            32          57        13         6               38               19           0                       0%
  77346           2215            29         149        78        45               35              -88          18                     -20%


                                                                                                                                          85
  77357            1487            271            0        13        10             324              301              0                       0%
  77365            1361            138            0        10        13             165              142              0                       0%
  77396            1773            201          344       125       103             241               13             19                     146%
  77503            2066            459          371        66        27             549              456              0                       0%
  77505            1670            192            0        32        21             230              177              2                       1%
  77507               0              0            0         2         0               0               -2              0                       0%
  77520            3978            761          193        64        34             911              813             82                      10%
  77521            3149            680           40        74        38             814              702            110                      16%
77523**                                                                                                0              2
  77530            2605            475          453        55         29            569              485             73                       15%
  77532            1393            243          120        22         10            291              259             38                       15%
  77536            1823            131            0        25         15            157              117              7                        6%
  77546            2866             65          157         7         13             78               58              0                        0%
  77547             908            284          157        12          9            340              319              8                        3%
  77562             710             84            0        19          8            101               74             10                       14%
  77571            2604            217          167        40         20            260              200             86                       43%
  77586            1173             77           62         7          5             92               80              0                        0%
  77598            1633            272           93        45         26            326              255            102                       18%

    Total         80,540        15,954        7,070     2,325      1,300         19,097           15,472          1,397                     16.6%

1
 This table should be used with caution. The early childhood education data was limited to Pre-Kindergarten Enrollment reports obtained from the
Texas Education Agency and Workforce Solutions/ Neighborhood Centers Inc. subsidized child care program.
2
 The number of children in Pre-K captures zip code level data by schools and not children served. While children may be enrolled at a school
within the Head Start service area, children may not necessarily live in the school’s zip code. The Pre-K data was obtained from Texas Education
Agency’s Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS).

*Percent of eligible/available Children Served: In order to arrive at a percent of children served at the zip code level, the number of children
enrolled in Pre-K could not be included. As mentioned, children served by the Pre-K program may live outside the zip code. Some zip codes have
more than one Pre-K center with large enrollment numbers. When the percent of eligible/available children served is calculated, what results is a
negative percent or the appearance of an oversaturation of eligible children within a given zip code.

**Zip codes shaded in gray represent areas outside of the service region.




                                                                                                                                               86
HCDE Centers Proximal to Service Areas with Eligible Children




                                                                87
Underserved Zip Codes
                                                           % Of
                                               Eligible/Available
                                                 Children Below
                                               Poverty Served in    Child Poverty
Zip Code             Neighborhood /Area          Harris County*             Rate
77026*                   Kashmere Gardens                    13%           53.9%
77048*                            Minnetex                    0%           49.9%
77078                         East Houston                    6%           47.6%
77028                              Settegast                 12%           41.3%
              East Little York/ Homestead/
77016                          North Forest                  8%            38.8%
              East Little York/ Homestead/
77050                          North Forest                   1%           34.8%
77093                        Eastex-Jensen                  0.2%           32.1%
77547                          Galena Park                    3%           31.3%
77039**                              Aldine                   0%           27.6%
77029                           Plesantville                  7%           25.3%
77015                          North Shore                    6%           22.7%
*Shared by GCCSA    **Shared by AVANCE




                                                                                    88
Cultural and Linguistic Characteristics
As of September 2009, the ethno-racial make-up of participants in HCDE Head Start was 57.8%
of Latino/Hispanic origin; .08% American Indian or Alaska Native; 0.4% Asian; 38.1%
Black/African American; 0.17% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; 51% White; 2.9%
Bi-racial, and 5.1 % Other . The most common primary languages used in the homes of
participants are English and Spanish (Genesis Earth, n.d.). Approximately 64.1% of participants
reported English as the primary language spoken in the home. Spanish, over the course of the
same period, was 35.3%.

Three Year Primary Language Trend
From 2006 to 2009, the primary language of HCDE Head Start participants remained constant.
In 2006, more than two-thirds (70.2%) of children spoke English and 29.2% primarily conversed
in Spanish at home. In 2009, English was the majority again, with 68.0% of participants and
Spanish was used by nearly one-third (31.2%) of the children enrolled (HCDE HS Program
Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

                                                HCDE Head Start Primary Language

                                              80%
                        Percent of Children




                                              60%
                                              40%
                                              20%
                                              0%
                                                    2006-2007      2007-2008         2008-2009
                                                                     Year

                                                                English        S panish


Family Structure, Employment, and Educational Attainment
During 2008-2009, the HCDE Head Start program served 1,151 families. The majority of
families were single parent run (73%). A slight majority, 52.2% was of employed single parent
households. The other share of single parent families, 48% was not working. Among two-parent
families, the most common household structure was one parent working (59%, n= 182). Of equal
importance was the percentage of families with neither parent working. One-third of two-parent
run households (n= 106) had neither parent working (HCDE HS Program Information Reports,
2007, 2008, 2009).

The eligibility criteria of Head Start, during the 2008-2009 program year, revealed that 90% of
participants were enrolled based on income and 8.6% received public assistance. Less than one
percent was foster children (0.6%); had an income between 100% and 130% of the federal
poverty line (0.6%); and were over income and ineligible for public assistance (0.15%).




                                                                                                 89
In regards to the educational attainment of parents, two-fifths (n=529) had received their high
school diploma or a General Equivalency Diploma. Nearly one-quarter of families (n=265) had a
caregiver with less than a high school education. The table below details the employment status
of single parent and two-parent households. Additionally, a pie chart captures the education
levels reported by parents during the 2008-2009 program year (HCDE HS Program Information
Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

               Employment Status of Families Served
               2008-2009
               Total Number of Head Start Families                              1151

               Total Number of Two-Parent Families                             310
                                                                          (26.9%)
               Of Two-Parent Families
               Both parents/guardians are employed                              7.1%
               One parent/guardian is employed                                 58.7%
               Both parents/guardians are not working                          34.2%

               Total Number of Single Parent Families                          841
                                                                          (73.1%)
               Of Single Parent Families
               Single parent/guardian is employed                              52.2%
               Single parent/guardian is not working                           47.8%

                          HCDE HS Parental Education Attainment
                                      (2008-2009)


                                          10%
                                                             23%


                                  21%




                                                       46%



                        Less than high school
                        High School grad or GED
                        Some college, vocational school, or Associate degree
                        Bachelor's or advanced degree




                                                                                            90
                                     References

1. Application Link Incorporated. Genesis Earth [Online database]. Retrieved from
            http://www.genesisearth.com/index.cfm
2. Child care Harris County enrolled (by ages zipcode) [Microsoft Excel Data file].
            Retrieved from Neighborhood Centers Incorporated.
3. Harris County Department of Education Head Start (2007). 2006-2007 Head Start
            Program Information Report. Houston, TX: HCDE.
4. Harris County Department of Education Head Start (2008). 2007-2008 Head Start
            Program Information Report. Houston, TX: HCDE.
5. Harris County Department of Education Head Start (2009). 2008-2009 Head Start
            Program Information Report. Houston, TX: HCDE.
6. Harris County Department of Education Head Start (2009). HCDE Head Start pre
            enrollment report summary. Houston, TX: HCDE.
7. Harris County Department of Education Head Start. (2008). HCDE Head Start Area I.
            Houston, TX: HCDE.
8. Harris County Department of Education. (2008). About us. Retrieved from
            http://www.hcdetexas.org/default.aspx?name=AboutHCDE
9. Harris County Department of Education. (2008). History of HCDE. Retrieved from
            http://hcdetexas.org/default.aspx?name=HCDEhistory
10. Harris County QuickFacts (2009). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
            http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48201.html
11. HCDE school district table complete [Microsoft Excel Data file]. HCDE Head Start.
12. Head Start Saturation Theory derived from: Buckley, Janet & Watkins, J.C. (2003).
            Developing & utilizing the community assessment: the origins of planning.
            Bowling Green, Kentucky: Western Kentucky University Research Foundation.
13. HS-EHS Centers [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved by HCDE Division of
            Research and Evaluation. Harris County Department of Education. (2009). Head
    Start selection prioritization criteria. Retrieved from HCDE Head Start.
14. Texas (2005). In KIDS COUNT data center. Retrieved from
            http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/
            stateprofile.aspx?state=TX&group=Featured&loc=45#3065
15. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Poverty status in 1999 by age [Microsoft Excel Data
            file].Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov




                                                                                       91
AVANCE Inc.

AVANCE Inc. is a nationally renowned non-profit, community-based organization established in
California, New Mexico, and Texas. It was conceptualized as a parent-child education program
that facilitates positive family well-being. In addition to early childhood education, local chapters
serve their community by offering parenting education, home visitation, adult education,
transportation, and support services. The AVANCE model embraces systems integration and
connecting caregivers and children to other community resources that strengthen families
(AVANCE’s History, 2010).

AVANCE Houston offers programs on (Programs, 2007):

      Early Childhood Education and Development - Early Head Start, Head Start, and Family
               Support and Education Services
      Building and maintaining healthy marriages - Healthy Family Program
      Fatherhood
      Adult literacy
      Fostering healthy families - Healthy Family Program
      Domestic abuse prevention - The Brutal Truth Project

History
AVANCE, which translates into “advance” or “progress” in Spanish, was conceived by graduate
students at Cornell University under the auspices of Dr. Urie Bronfenbrenner, a renowned
scholar in human development and co-founder of Head Start (Preschool Matters, 2006). Through
the Zale Foundation, a program was launched in Dallas, Texas in 1972. A year later, a San
Antonio chapter was developed and flourished under Dr. Gloria G. Rodriguez, who later became
the Chief Executive of the national office for AVANCE. In 1995, the Texas State Legislature
appropriated $1,000,000 for the expansion and replication of the AVANCE, Inc. Family Support
and Education Program to four communities: Dallas, El Paso, Laredo, and Corpus Christi, and
since then, AVANCE has grown to 11 chapters. By 1988, a Houston chapter was formed under
the direction of Sylvia G. Garcia, who later became President and CEO of the national structure.
Rick Noriega currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the national headquarters in San
Antonio (AVANCE’s History, 2010).

Mission
AVANCE unlocks America's potential by strengthening families in at risk communities through
the most effective parenting education and support programs. “We do this by enhancing
parenting skills, promoting family literacy and providing early childhood development programs
(AVANCE’s History, 2010).”

The AVANCE Houston Head Start and Early Head Start programs nurture the optimal
development of children by focusing on their educational success, and fostering the personal and
economic success of their families (Programs, 2007).




                                                                                                  92
Early Head Start and Head Start:
Service Area
In 1998, the agency was awarded the Head Start grant along with HCDE and Neighborhood
Centers. Seventeen Early Head Start and Head Start sites are collectively managed by AVANCE
Houston with Aldine Independent School District serving as a delegate. AVANCE’s service area
is Harris County region Area II and includes Northwest Houston cities of Houston, Jersey
Village, and Tomball. AVANCE also provides services in the City of Pasadena, located
southeast of Houston. See the following map of the service area and center locations identified
by “push pins”. A table with center addresses follows the map.
 AVANCE Service Map (2010):




     AVANCE Center                             Street Address
     Acres Home                                6719 W. Montgomery
     Browning                                  607 Northwood
     Golden Forest                             5750 Golden Forest
     Golf                                      5115 Golf
     Hardy                                     3701 Hardy
     Holbrook                                  6402 Langfield Rd
     Jefferson                                 5000 Sharman
     Jensen Drive                              2702 Aldine-Westfield
     Ketelsen                                  600 Quitman
     Mt. Houston                               11703 Eastex Freeway
     Oakwood                                   7211 Oakwood Glen, Spring
     Early HS - Dacoma II                      4301 Dacoma
     Early HS - Pasadena                       400 Park Lane
     Even Start HS                             2223 North Main



                                                                                             93
Program Options:

AVANCE Houston Early Head Start offers a full-day center-based program for 10 months and a
home based program for 11 months per year (AVANCE EHS Program Information Report,
2009). Head Start center-based participants can receive full and extended day services at all
centers, 10 months per year (AVANCE HS Program Information Report, 2009). An extended-
day summer program is available to 400 children at 4 centers, which operates for 1 ½ months.
Aldine ISD also offers full day services at all centers, 9 ½ months per year based on the schedule
of their school district (Aldine ISD HS Program Information Report, 2009).

Eligibility Criteria
In addition to age and pregnancy status (children birth to 3 years and pregnant women are
eligible for Early Head Start and children between the ages of 3-5 years are eligible for Head
Start), families are eligible for services if the family income is at or below 100% of federal
poverty line. If a family’s income is above 100% of the federal poverty line, a point-based
system is used for ranking all applicants. A child/family is ranked according to their income
level, age, household demographics, and factors related to the welfare of the child and family.
This selection process confers priority for admission to the children and families that are most in
need (AVANCE Ranking Sheet, 2009).

Enrollment
Over the past three years, the Early Head Start program was funded for 98 children and 11
pregnant women each year. At the start of the 2009-2010 program year, the number of pregnant
women, infants, and toddlers met their funded enrollment with sixteen children receiving center-
based services and 82 receiving home-based services. The center-based option was at capacity
with 16 children and 85 children were put on the waiting list. For every child enrolled in the
center-based program, 5 children were waiting for participation into the program (AVANCE
EHS Program Information Reports & Monthly Attendance, 2007, 2008, 2009).

Over the past three years, the Head Start program was funded for a total enrollment of 1,713
children which includes the regular programming plus that of the delegate. The cumulative
enrollment decreased by 6% between program years, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 (AVANCE EHS
Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009). At the start of the 2009-2010 program year,
AVANCE Head Start had enrolled 1,178 children and all Head Start sites were operating at
capacity. Across the twelve center sites, 2,322 children were on the waiting list, indicating a 1-
to-2 ratio between enrolled children and children waitlisted. Aldine ISD, as a delegate, was
funded for 540 children. The total enrollment at the start of the 2009-2010 year was 596 children
(Aldine ISD HS Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).




                                                                                                 94
Three Year Enrollment Trend:
                                                                                                                                                    Aldine
AVANCE                                                                  Early Head Start                                  Head Start             Head Start
                                                                               Pregnant
                                                                   Children      women
Year                               Funded       Actual              enrolled    enrolled                           Funded      Actual Funded Actual
                                                                    N     %     N     %
2006-07                               108         177             158 89.3     19 10.7                                1253         1377         540         600
2007-08                               108         191             166 86.9     25 13.1                                1173         1351         540         570
2008-09                               108         190             171     90   19     10                              1173         1303         540         603


                                                                  AVANCE Early Head Start
                                                                       Enrollment

                                                                  250
                                                    Individuals
                                                    Number of




                                                                  200
                                                                  150
                                                                  100
                                                                   50
                                                                    0
                                                                          2006-2007   2007-2008                    2008-2009
                                                                                        Year

                                                             Funded Enrollment                        Actual Enrollment




                            AVANCE Head Start Enrollment                                                     Aldine ISD Head Start Enrollment

                            1400                                                                             620
                                                                                        Number of Children
       Number of Children




                                                                                                             600
                            1300
                                                                                                             580
                            1200                                                                             560
                                                                                                             540
                            1100
                                                                                                             520
                            1000                                                                             500
                                    2006-2007     2007-2008             2008-2009                                  2006-2007      2007-2008   2008-2009
                                                    Year                                                                            Year

                            Funded Enrollment             Actual Enrollment                                   Funded Enrollment         Actual Enrollment



Over the three year period, AVANCE Early Head Start program increased in actual enrollment
while funded enrollment remained constant at 108 participants. The funded enrollment for
AVANCE Head Start decreased, in the 2007-2008 program year, by 6% from 1,250 to 1,173
participants. The actual enrollment also decreased over the three year period from 1,377 in 2006
to 1,303 children in 2008. Aldine ISD had a steady funded enrollment of 540. In 2007,
enrollment fell slightly from 600 to 570, but by 2008 the enrollment increased to 603 children
(AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).



                                                                                                                                                              95
Eligible and Available Head Start Children

The Center for Public Policy Priorities reported in 2008 that almost a fourth of children in Harris
County are living in poverty (2009). Census 2000 data on children living below poverty was
collected at the zip code level to illustrate the level of need in Northwest and Southeast Harris
County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). In order to account for population growth, the population
percent change (19.7%) from 2000 to 2009 was applied to the data on children living below
poverty in the area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Based on the projected numbers for 2009,
26,387 children are proposed to be living below poverty, and are therefore eligible for Head
Start. The projected population estimate of eligible children was then used to determine the
number of available children. Subtracting the number of children accessing subsidized child care
and prekindergarten centers (14,487 children), more than 11,900 children were available for
AVANCE Early Head Start and Head Start program in 2008-2009 (Child Care, 2009).
During that year, AVANCE had a funded enrollment of 1,821 participants and served 2,096
infants, children and women. Therefore, the agency served approximately 15.3% - 17.6% of
its eligible and available population and is less than the saturation level of 85% (Buckley
and Watkins, 2003). Additionally, based on updated numbers by zip code of those served for
2009-2010, the agency had an actual enrollment of 2,229 which is approximately 18.7% of
eligible and available children for that year.

The following table displays the numbers of projected eligible and available children served by
AVANCE between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. More detailed information for 2009-2010 by zip
code follows.

AVANCE % of Eligible and Available Children Served
               Served by                                                               % Eligible/
                    Pre-K                               % Eligible/                      Available
      Eligible    (07-08)                                Available                         children
      children     and/or   Eligible/              children served                      served (for
    (projected Child Care  Available       Funded      (for Funded            Actual        Actual
        2009)   (9/2009)    Children Enrollment       Enrollment)         Enrollment   Enrollment)
2008-2009
       26,387      14,487     11,900         1,821           15.3%             2,096         17.6%
2009-2010
       26,387      14,487     11,900         1,821           15.3%             2,229         18.7%




                                                                                                96
AVANCE Eligible and Available Children Served (2009-2010)1
                        Below                                     Adjusted
                      poverty                                         below                             # Of               % Of
              Total      level;       # Of Ages 0- Ages 4-          poverty           Number of     Children   Eligible/Available
        population: Under 5 Children         3 Sub     5 Sub   level, Under    Eligible/Available    Served      Children Below
   Zip     Under 5       years     in Pre-   Child     Child         5 years        children (not         by   Poverty Served in
  Code        years    (2000)           K2    Care      Care          (2009)    including Pre-K)    HS/EHS       Harris County*

77007**                                                                                                   4
  77008         1832       423        278       19       17            506                   470          5                  1%
  77009         3374      1055        611       45       23           1263                  1195        322                 27%
  77014         2030       199        430      140       96            238                     2         15                681%
77016**                                                                                                  31
  77017         3283       944          0       47       24           1130                  1059          0                  0%
  77018         1804       318        249       25       15            381                   341         16                  5%
  77022         2907      1159        481       52       31           1387                  1304        125                 10%
77026**                                                                                                  31
  77032         1286       657          0      100       53             786                  633         47                  7%
  77034         2406       461        151       84       49             552                  419          0                  0%
  77037         1784       470         42       19       15             563                  529         64                 12%
  77038         2205       383          0       72       41             458                  345         45                 13%
  77039         2622       724          0       52       29             867                  786         66                  8%
  77040         3075       249        248       84       60             298                  154        165                107%
77050**                                                                                                  31
  77060         4211      1250          0      172      121           1496                  1203         50                  4%
  77061         2687       800          0       62       27            958                   869          0                  0%
  77064         3301       177        237       58       40            212                   114          6                  5%
  77065         2211       121        174       90       46            145                     9          3                 34%
  77066         1992       241        200       79       49            288                   160         47                 29%
  77067         2523       404        223      182      113            484                   189         55                 29%
  77068          554        80         45       19       16             96                    61          4                  7%
  77069          785        16          0       27       11             19                   -19          4                -21%
  77070         2303       144         73       77       34            172                    61          8                 13%
  77073         1128       263          0      150       84            315                    81         41                 51%
  77075         2217       427        185       94       58            511                   359          0                  0%
  77076         3130       979        243       31       19           1172                  1122         59                  5%
  77086         1753       312        163      102       53            373                   218         48                 22%


                                                                                                                                    97
  77088          3758       896         496      239       121           1073                    713        139                20%
  77089          2620       147         189       84        40            176                     52          0                 0%
  77090          1896       232         315      219       107            278                    -48         10               -21%
  77091          2330      1006         147      189       114           1204                    901        209                23%
  77092          3670       954         291       71        57           1142                   1014         88                 9%
  77093          4541      1457         464       82        39           1744                   1623        280                17%
77096**                                                                                                      31
  77373          2717       224         208      128        79            268                     61          8                13%
77338**                                                                                                      42
  77375          2787       181         211        57       26            217                    134         15                11%
77377**                                                                                            0          5
  77379          2975       143         272        57       24            171                     90         15                17%
  77388          1930       134         124        34       17            160                    109         12                11%
  77389          1000        75          62        19        5             90                     66          4                 6%
77396**                                                                                                      42
  77429          3929        125        404        45        25           150                     80          2                 3%
  77447           661         37         73        27        11            44                      6          0                 0%
  77501                        0          0         1         1             0                     -2          0                 0%
  77502         3070         843        350        77        53         1009                     879          0                 0%
  77503         2066         459        136        66        27           549                    456          0                 0%
  77504         1628         442         80        64        39           529                    426          0                 0%
  77505         1670         192         87        32        21           230                    177          0                 0%
  77506         4521       1385         502       109        74         1658                    1475         35                 2%
  77581         2307         170          0        17         6           203                    180          0                 0%
  77587         1528         414        410        25        28           496                    443          0                 0%
  77598         1633         272          0        45        26           326                    255          0                 0%
  Total       110,640     22,044      8,854     3,569     2,064        26,387                             2,229              18.7%

1
 This table should be used with caution. The early childhood education data was limited to Pre-Kindergarten Enrollment reports obtained from the
Texas Education Agency and Workforce Solutions/ Neighborhood Centers Inc. subsidized child care program.
2
 The number of children in Pre-K captures zip code level data by schools and not children served. While children may be enrolled at a school
within the Head Start service area, children may not necessarily live in the school’s zip code. The Pre-K data was obtained from Texas Education
Agency’s Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS).




                                                                                                                                               98
*Percent of eligible/available Children Served: In order to arrive at a percent of children served at the zip
code level, the number of children enrolled in Pre-K could not be included. As mentioned, children served
by the Pre-K program may live outside the zip code. Some zip codes have more than one Pre-K center
with large enrollment numbers. When the percent of eligible/available children served is calculated, what
results is a negative percent or the appearance of an oversaturation of eligible children within a given zip
code.

**Zip codes shaded in gray represent areas outside of the service region.

             AVANCE Centers Proximal to Service Areas with Eligible Children




                                                                                                          99
Underserved Zip Codes
                                       % Of Eligible/Available
                                       Children Below Poverty      Child
                                              Served in Harris   Poverty
Zip Code       Neighborhood/Area                      County*       Rate
77032           IAH/Airport/ Aldine                        7%     51.1%
77091                  Acres Homes                        23%     43.2%
77022           Northside/ Northline                      10%     39.9%
77093                 Eastex-Jensen                       17%     32.1%
77076                 Eastex-Jensen                        5%     31.3%
77009             Northside Village                       27%     31.3%
77506                      Pasadena                        2%     30.6%
77061*               Greater Hobby                         0%     29.8%
77060           Greater Greenspoint                        4%     29.7%
77017*      Meadowbrook/ Allendale                         0%     28.8%
77039**                      Aldine                        8%     27.6%
77502*                     Pasadena                        0%     27.5%
77504*                     Pasadena                        0%     27.1%
77587*               South Houston                         0%     27.1%
77037           Northside/ Northline                      12%     26.3%
77092       Oak Forest/ Garden Oaks                        9%     26.0%
77088                   Acres Home                        20%     23.8%
77073           IAH/Airport/ Aldine                       51%     23.3%
77008               Greater Heights                        1%     23.1%
    *Shared by GCCSA        **Shared by HCDE


                                                                           100
Cultural and Linguistic Characteristics
For the 2009-2010 program year, all participants of AVANCE Houston Early Head Start
identified as Hispanic or Latino. No participants identified themselves by the racial categories of
American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander, and White. Children in Head Start are 73% of Latino/Hispanic origin; 0.5%
Asian; 23.97% Black/African American; 0.8% White; 1.3% Bi-racial; and 0.4% indicated other.
Aldine ISD Head Start reported 61% of Latino/Hispanic origin; 31% Black/African American;
68% White (mostly of Hispanic or Latino origin); 0.5% Asian; and 0.7% Bi-racial. The most
common primary languages used in the home for participants of AVANCE Head Start, Early
Head Start and Aldine ISD were English and Spanish (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS
Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

Three Year Primary Language Trend
Over the course of the three year period, AVANCE Head Start has had two dominate languages
spoken in the home of participants, English and Spanish. By 2008, both languages were each
50% of the primary language spoken. Unlike AVANCE Head Start which had a gradual
convergence of the two languages, Aldine ISD had nearly parallel distance between English and
Spanish, with Spanish at 52.9% in 2008-2009 (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS Program
Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

                                                                             AVANCE Early Head Start
                                                                                Primary Language

                                                                           100%
                                                     Percent of Children




                                                                            80%
                                                                            60%
                                                                            40%
                                                                            20%
                                                                             0%
                                                                                   2006-2007     2007-2008                       2008-2009
                                                                                                   Year

                                                                                              English                          S panish


                                         AVANCE Head S tart                                                                   Aldine ISD Head Start
                                          Primary Language                                                                 Primary Language (Delegate)
                                 60%
                                                                                                                         60%
            Pecent of Children




                                 50%
                                                                                                    Percent of Childre




                                                                                                                         50%
                                                                                                                         40%
                                 40%
                                                                                                                         30%
                                 30%                                                                                     20%
                                                                                                                         10%
                                 20%                                                                                      0%
                                       2006-2007   2007-2008                      2008-2009                                     2006-2007    2007-2008    2008-2009

                                                      Ye ar                                                                                    Ye ar

                                               English                        Spanish                                                     English        Spanish
                                                                                                                                                                      101
Family Structure, Employment, and Educational Attainment
During the past three years, AVANCE EHS households contained mostly two-parent families.
For instance, in 2009, AVANCE EHS served a total of 146 families with two thirds representing
two-parent households. Among those families, 90% had one parent employed, 9% had both
parents employed, and less than 1% had neither parent working. In single-parent families, 76%
of caregivers were not working. Caregivers, either married or single were also more likely to
have less than a high school education (63%). Over one-quarter of families had a caregiver who
obtained a high school or general equivalency diploma (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS
Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

The Head Start program, not including Aldine ISD, had a slightly larger percentage of single-
parent families. In 2009, the HS program served 1200 families with 55% headed by a single-
parent. Also, a greater number of two-parent families had one caregiver working. In single-
parent homes, over two-thirds were employed. Over the three year period in the Aldine ISD
program, two-thirds of families were headed by two-parents. In 2009, the school district served
591 families. Among the two-parent families, one parent was employed and in single families,
three-quarters of caregivers worked (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS Program
Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

The eligibility criteria of Early Head Start revealed that in 2009, 94.7% of participants were
enrolled based on income and 5.3% received public assistance. In AVANCE Head Start, 73.7%
were enrolled based on income, 12.4% were between the incomes of 100% and 130% of the
federal poverty line, 6.1% were over-income and ineligible for public assistance, and 0.3% were
foster children. For Aldine ISD, 82.4% were enrolled based on income eligibility, 15.4% had
public assistance, 0.5% were over income and ineligible for public assistance and 1.7% were
foster children (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS Program Information Reports, 2007,
2008, 2009).

More than one-third of families served by the AVANCE-operated Head Start program had less
than a high school education (35%). A similar proportion of families had a caregiver with a high
school or general equivalency diploma (36%), and less than one-third had some college,
vocational schooling, or received an Associate’s Degree (27%). In Aldine, nearly 2 out of 5
families had less than a high school education (39%) and roughly 40% caregivers that received a
high school or general equivalency diploma. One-fifth received some college, vocational
schooling, or received an Associate’s Degree (AVANCE EHS, HS, & Aldine ISD HS Program
Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).




                                                                                             102
AVANCE Parent Employment Status (2008-2009)
                                    EHS                           HS     Aldine
Total Number of Head Start
Families                                         146           1200         591
Total Number of Two-Parent                     104              545          372
Families                                 (71.23%)          (45.4%)      (62.9%)
Of Two-Parent Families                                                       545
Both parents/guardians are
employed                                       8.6%          12.5%       12.1%
One parent/guardian is employed               90.4%          84.8%       82.5%
Both parents/guardians are not
working                                       0.96%          2.75%       5.38%
Total Number of Single Parent                  42               655          219
Families                                 (28.77%)          (54.6%)      (37.1%)
Of Single Parent Families
Single parent/guardian is
employed                                      23.8%          71.6%       74.9%
Single parent/guardian is not
working                                       76.2%          28.4%       25.1%




                     AVANCE EHS Parent Educational
                        Attainment (2008-2009)



                                 9%      1%




                  27%



                                                            63%




                 Less than high school
                 High School grad or GED
                 Some college, vocational school, or Associate degree
                 Bachelor's or advanced degree

                                                                                   103
     AVANCE HS Parent Educational                              Aldine ISD Parent Educational
        Attainment (2008-2009)                                    Attainment (2008-2009)



                     2%                                                    3%
                                                               20%
   27%
                                          35%
                                                                                               38%




                                                                  39%
                  36%


Less than high school                                  Less than high school
High School grad or GED                                High School grad or GED
Some college, vocational school, or Associate degree   Some college, vocational school, or Associate degree
Bachelor's or advanced degree                          Bachelor's or advanced degree




                                                                                               104
                                         References

1.    Aldine Independent School District. (2007). 2006-2007 Head Start Program Information
             Report. Houston, TX: Aldine ISD.
2.    Aldine Independent School District. (2008). 2007-2008 Head Start Program Information
             Report. Houston, TX: Aldine ISD.
3.    Aldine Independent School District. (2009). 2008-2009 Head Start Program Information
             Report. Houston, TX: Aldine ISD.
4.    AVANCE. (2010). AVANCE’s history. Retrieved from http://www.avance.org/why
             avance/history/
5.    AVANCE Demographics by Zip Codes [Microsoft Excel Data file]. AVANCE.
6.    AVANCE Houston. (2007). 2006-2007 Early Head Start Program Information Report.
             Houston, TX: AVANCE.
7.    AVANCE Houston. (2007). 2006-2007 Head Start Program Information Report.
             Houston,TX: AVANCE
8.    AVANCE Houston. (2008). 2007-2008 Early Head Start Program Information Report.
             Houston, TX: AVANCE.
9.    AVANCE Houston. (2008). 2007-2008 Head Start Program Information Report.
             Houston,TX: AVANCE
10.   AVANCE Houston. (2009). 2008-2009 Early Head Start Program Information Report.
             Houston, TX: AVANCE.
11.   AVANCE Houston. (2009). 2008-2009 Head Start Program Information Report.
             Houston,TX: AVANCE.
12.   AVANCE Houston. (2007). Programs. Retrieved from http://www.avancehouston.org/
             Programs.htm
13.   AVANCE Houston. (2009). Monthly attendance August 2009 – November 2009
             [Microsoft Word file]. Retrieved from AVANCE Houston.
14.   AVANCE Houston. (2009). Ranking worksheet [Microsoft Word file]. Retrieved from
             AVANCE Houston
15.   Center for Public Policy Priorities. (2009). The state of Texas children. Retrieved from
             http://www.cppp.org/ factbook09
16.   Child care Harris County enrolled (by ages zipcode). [Microsoft Excel Data file].
             Retrieved from Neighborhood Centers Inc.
17.   Head Start Saturation Theory derived from: Buckley, Janet & Watkins, J.C. (2003).
             Developing & utilizing the community assessment: the origins of planning.
             Bowling Green, Kentucky: Western Kentucky University Research Foundation.
18.   Harris County QuickFacts (2009). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
             http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48201.html
19.   HS-EHS Centers [Microsoft Excel Data file]. Retrieved by HCDE Division of Research
             and Evaluation.
20.   Urie Bronfenbrenner: the man who changed how we see human development. (2006).
             Preschool Matters, 4 (1). Retrieved from
             http://nieer.org/psm/index.php?article=136
21.   U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Poverty status in 1999 by age [Microsoft Excel Data
             file].Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov




                                                                                           105
Neighborhood Centers Inc. (Neighborhood Centers)
Neighborhood Centers Inc. is a 501(c) 3 Texas non-profit agency that has been fulfilling its
mission “to bring resources, education and connection to underserved neighborhoods” for more
than 100 years. In 2009, Neighborhood Centers served over 250,000 individuals in Harris and
the twelve surrounding counties through a variety of programs structured around its three
divisions - Choices in Education, Community-Based Initiatives and Public Sector Solutions
(Neighborhood Centers, What We Do, 2010).
      Choices in Education provides options and opportunities for students and their parents
       through an integrated birth through 5th grade model of education that focuses on
       academic excellence, family involvement, and the consistency and connection needed at
       every juncture in a child’s life. Programs include Early Head Start, Head Start,
       nationally-accredited Early Childhood Development Centers and a state chartered open-
       enrollment elementary charter school.
      Community Based Initiatives are neighborhood center-based programs that develop
       skills to enhance self-sufficiency through an asset-based approach that emphasizes
       opportunities rather than needs. Program areas include: Youth Development and School-
       Age Care, Adult Education, Economic Development, Services for Seniors, Health
       Initiatives, Immigration and Citizenship, Leadership Development, Volunteer Tax
       Assistance, a Community-Development Credit Union and the Stay Connected Texas
       long-term disaster recovery case management program.
      Public Sector Solutions provides payment processing services for Gulf Coast Workforce
       Solutions throughout the Greater Houston 13-county area, and manages child care
       eligibility, payment processing and quality improvement services for three other Boards
       around Texas.

History
In 1907, an East End school teacher named Sybil Campbell sought out the assistance of Alice
Graham Baker to address the need for an affordable nursery and kindergarten. Mrs. Baker
founded the Houston Settlement Association and served as the organization’s first president. The
Association’s stated purpose was to extend “educational, industrial, social and friendly aid to all
those within reach (Neighborhood Centers, History, 2010).”

Mission
Bringing resources, education and connection to underserved neighborhoods (Neighborhood
Centers, Vision & Mission, 2010).
The Neighborhood Centers Head Start mission seeks to provide choices and opportunities in
early education that lead to more and better opportunities in higher education (Neighborhood
Centers, Choices in Education Head Start Annual Report, 2008).




                                                                                               106
Early Head Start and Head Start
Service Area
In 1999, Neighborhood Centers implemented the Early Head Start and Head Start programs in
west Harris County, which is also known as Area III. The agency operates two Early Head Start
centers, nine Head Start centers, thirteen Head Start School-based centers, and one child care
center collaboratively. As of the 2009-2010 year, Ripley House Charter School District assumed
the role of delegate agency for the Early Head Start and Head Start program (Neighborhood
Centers, Choices in Education, 2010). See the following map of the service area and center
locations identified by “push pins”. A table with center addresses follows the map.
Neighborhood Centers Service Area Map:




Neighborhood                                    Neighborhood
Centers              Street Address             Centers              Street Address
Albury               11125 Albury               Foerester            14200 Fonmeadow Dr
Cook Road            6959 Cook Road             Fondren              12405 Carlsbad St
Freedom Station      4500 Bissonnet, Bellaire   Halpin               10901 Sandpiper Dr
Hiram Clarke         3018 W Fuqua St            Kate Bell            12323 Shaftsbury Dr
KBC                  6011 W Orem Dr             KIPP Shine           10711 Kipp Way Dr
Klein                6447 Prestwood             Martin Luther King   3939 W Fuqua St
New Horizon          6565 Rookin                McNamara             8714 McAvoy Dr
Sharpview            12280 Sharpview Dr         Parker Head          10626 Atwell Dr
Spring Branch        9655 Long Point Rd.        Robindell            5801 Dashwood Dr
Benavidez            6262 Gulfton Dr            Sylvan Rodriguez     5858 Chimney Rock Rd
Bonham               8302 Braes River Dr        Shearn               9802 Stella Link Rd
Braeburn             7007 Rampart St            Star of Hope         6801 Ardmore St


                                                                                            107
Program Options
Neighborhood Centers Early Head Start offers a 12-month, five-day center-based service and a
12-month, weekly, home-based program for families. The Head Start center-based and home-
based program is provided five days a week, August through May (Neighborhood Centers, EHS
& HS Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

Eligibility Criteria
In addition to age and pregnancy status, participant eligibility is determined by a number of
factors. Eligibility criteria include receipt of TANF or SSI assistance, whether the child is in the
foster care system, and/or if the child’s family is homeless. If the child becomes waitlisted, a
point-based system is used for selection into the program. Families are prioritized by income,
age, and factors related to welfare of the child and family (Neighborhood Centers, Head Start
Selection Prioritization Criteria, 2009).

Enrollment
In the 2008-2009 grant year, the Early Head Start program was funded for 72 infants, toddlers
and pregnant women through home-based and center-based services. As of September 2009, 70
participants enrolled in Early Head Start with 335 children put on the waiting list resulting on
average for every child enrolled five children were waitlisted (Neighborhood Centers, EHS &
HS Program Information Reports & NCI Wait List EHS & NCI Wait List HS, 2007, 2008,
2009).
Head Start was funded for the enrollment of 1,902 children. As of September 2009, 1,961
children were served by Head Start with 827 children on the waiting list resulting in
approximately one waitlisted for every two children enrolled (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS
Program Information Reports, 2009).

Three Year Enrollment Trend

Neighborhood Centers Early Head Start Enrollment                                     Head Start
  Year    Funded    Actual      Children         Pregnant women                    Funded Actual
                                 enrolled            enrolled
                               N         %        N           %
2006-07     72        96       87       90        9           10                     1932      2203
2007-08     72        88       80       90        8           10                     1902      2098
2008-09     72        82       80       97        2           82                     1902      2098




                                                                                                 108
                         NCI Early Head Start Enrollment                                                 NCI Head Start Enrollment

                         120                                                                      2300




                                                                      N u m b er of C h ild ren
    Number of Children



                         100                                                                      2200
                          80                                                                      2100
                          60                                                                      2000
                          40                                                                      1900
                          20                                                                      1800
                                                                                                  1700
                           0
                                                                                                          2006-2007      2007-2008    2008-2009
                               2006-2007     2007-2008   2008-2009
                                               Year                                                                        Year

                         Funded Enrollment        Actual Enrollment                                  Funded Enrollment        Actual Enrollment


While Neighborhood Centers’ Early Head Start funded enrollment remained constant, actual
enrollment decreased from 96 (2006-2007) to 82 participants (2008-2009). Neighborhood
Centers Head Start had a slight decrease in funded enrollment from 1,932 to 1,902 in 2007.
Actual enrollment also declined in 2007 and remained constant in 2008 at 2,098 (Neighborhood
Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

Eligible and Available Head Start Children

The Center for Public Policy Priorities reported in 2008 that almost a fourth of children in Harris
County are living in poverty (2009). Census 2000 data on children living below poverty was
collected at the zip code level to illustrate the level of need in Northwest Harris County (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2009). In order to account for population growth, the population percent change
(19.7%) from 2000 to 2009 was applied to the data on children living below poverty in the area
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Based on the projected numbers to 2009, 23,844 eligible children
are proposed to be living below poverty, and are therefore eligible for Head Start.
Subtracting the number of children accessing subsidized child care and prekindergarten centers
(19,235 children), more than 4,609 children were available for Neighborhood Centers’ Early
Head Start and Head Start programs in 2008-2009 (Child Care, 2009). According to the PIR
for 08-09, Neighborhood Centers, Inc. had a funded enrollment of 1,974 and actual enrollment of
2,178 infants, children (and women). Therefore, the agency served approximately 43% - 47%
of the eligible and available children residing in the service area and is less than the
saturation level of 85% (Buckley and Watkins, 2003). Additionally, based on updated numbers
by zip code of those served for 2009-2010, the agency had an actual enrollment of 2,584 which
is approximately 56.1% of eligible and available children for that year.

The following table displays the numbers of projected eligible and available children served by
Neighborhood Centers Inc. between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. More detailed information for
2009-2010 by zip code follows.




                                                                                                                                                  109
Neighborhood Centers Inc. % of Eligible and Available Children Served

                  Served by                                                              % Eligible/
                       Pre-K                                  % Eligible/                  Available
      Eligible       (07-08)                                   Available                     children
      children        and/or    Eligible/                children served                  served (for
    (projected    Child Care   Available       Funded        (for Funded        Actual        Actual
        2009)      (9/2009)     Children    Enrollment      Enrollment)     Enrollment   Enrollment)

2008-2009

       23,844        19,235        4,609        1,974             42.8%         2,178         47.2%

2009-2010

       23,844        19,235        4,609        1,974             42.8%         2,584         56.1%

            Neighborhood Centers Proximal to Service Areas with Eligible Children




                                                                                                110
Neighborhood Centers Eligible and Available Child Served (2009-2010)
                                                                                                  Number
                         Below                                                                          of       # Of
                        poverty                                                                  available   Children               % Of
               Total      level;       # Of   Ages 0-3    Ages 4-5                                children     Served   Eligible/Available
          population:   Under 5    Children       Sub         Sub            Adjusted below           (not         by     Children Below
    Zip      Under 5      years     in Pre-     Child       Child      poverty level, Under 5   including    HS/EHS     Poverty Served in
   Code        years     (2000)          K2      Care        Care                years (2009)      Pre-K)     2009-10     Harris County*

77002             137         10         39          5          2                         12           5           1                 20%
77004            1916        946          0         56         39                       1132        1037           0                  0%
77005            1645         54          0          3          1                         65          61           1                  2%
77006             594         87         84          0          0                        104         104           2                  2%
77007            1517        673        259         15          5                        806         786          15                  2%
77019             701        124         59         21         17                        148         110           2                  2%
77024            1461         94        298          3          0                        113         110           5                  5%
77025            1630        207        180         21          9                        248         218          79                 36%
77027             508         10          0          1          0                         12          11           1                  9%
77030             667         57        137          1          1                         68          66           0                  0%
77031            1670        466         91         36         14                        558         508          58                 11%
77035            3863        982        215        133         91                       1175         951         254                 27%
77036            8171       2730        472        195        113                       3268        2960         155                  5%
77041            2312        310        257         46         19                        371         306          34                 11%
77042            2655        267        160        107         69                        320         144          37                 26%
77043            1938        508        390         29         29                        608         550          43                  8%
77045            2074        501        705        124         85                        600         391         204                 52%
77046               6          0          0          2          1                          0          -3           0                  0%
77053            2174        461          0         98         57                        552         397          82                 21%
77054            1084        209          0         34         15                        250         201          10                  5%
77055            4251       1255        703         58         43                       1502        1401          94                  7%
77056             582         80         82          4          2                         96          90           2                  2%
77057            1801        317       1237         27         12                        379         340          31                  9%
77063            1594        218        311         58         41                        261         162          35                 22%
77071            2005        399        288         93         63                        478         322          46                 14%
77072            4586       1070        666        216        125                       1281         940         183                 19%
77074            3749       1142        410         80         42                       1367        1245         166                 13%


                                                                                                                                             111
      77077             3071        233         176        123         57                    279          99          7                 7%
      77079             1789        172         176         33         23                    206         150          5                 3%
      77080             4309       1119         335        100         45                   1339        1194         94                 8%
      77081             5430       2319       1645          58         25                   2776        2693        386                14%
      77082             2783        273         225        166         89                    327          72         53                74%
      77083             4192        531         436        198        129                    636         309        125                41%
      77084             5511        329         626        214        145                    394          35         12                34%
      77085              642        134         114         37         19                    160         104         98                94%
      77092**                                   265
      77094              636          8           0          4           2                     10          4           0                0%
      77095            3354         162         229         63          37                    194         94           4                4%
      77096            2476         331         386         75          37                    396        284          69               24%
      77098              493         83          18          2           3                     99         94           0                0%
      77099            3732         616         760        212         137                    737        388         142               37%
      77401            1156          24          43          2           1                     29         26           1                4%
      77433              375         17         238         76          32                     20        -88           6               -7%
      77449            3649         210         960        201         112                    251        -62          24              -39%
      77450            3577          91         168         56          22                    109         31           1                3%
      77492                0          0           0          0           0                      0          0           0                0%
      77493            1173          63         141         32          14                     75         29          15               51%
      77494              961         28         278         18          13                     34          3           2               79%
      Total          104,600     19,920      14,262      3,136       1,837                 23,844                  2,584
1
 This table should be used with caution. The early childhood education data was limited to Pre-Kindergarten Enrollment reports obtained from the
Texas Education Agency and Workforce Solutions/ Neighborhood Centers Inc. subsidized child care program.
2
 The number of children in Pre-K captures zip code level data by schools and not children served. While children may be enrolled at a school
within the Head Start service area, children may not necessarily live in the school’s zip code. The Pre-K data was obtained from Texas Education
Agency’s Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS).
*Percent of eligible/available Children Served: In order to arrive at a percent of children served at the zip code level, the number of children
enrolled in Pre-K could not be included. As mentioned, children served by the Pre-K program may live outside the zip code. Some zip codes have
more than one Pre-K center with large enrollment numbers. When the percent of eligible/available children served is calculated, what results is a
negative percent or the appearance of an oversaturation of eligible children within a given zip code.

**Zip codes shaded in gray represent areas outside of the service region.



                                                                                                                                              112
         Underserved Zip Codes
                                                              % Of
                                                  Eligible/Available
                                                    Children Below
                                                  Poverty Served in      Child Poverty
         Zip Code         Neighborhood/Area         Harris County*               Rate
         77004*            Greater Third Ward                    0%             49.4%
                             Washington Ave/
         77007                  Memorial Park                   2%               44.4%
         77081                         Gulfton                 14%               42.7%
         77036                     Sharpstown                   5%               33.4%
         77055              Spring Branch East                  7%               29.5%
         77043             Spring Branch West                   8%               26.2%
                                 Spring Branch
         77080                          Central                 8%               26.0%
       *Shared by GCCSA

Cultural and Linguistic Characteristics
During the 2009-2010 school year, 86.1% of individuals served in Early Head Start identified as
Hispanic or Latino; 9.3% Black or African American; and 86% White. In Head Start, 66.5%
identified as Hispanic or Latino; 2.5% Asian; 27.6% Black or African American; 72.1% White;
and 0.5% Bi- or Multi-racial. The families served by Neighborhood Centers were predominately



                                                                                            113
of Hispanic or Latino origin with respect to ethnicity (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS
Program Information Reports, 2010).

Three-Year Primary Language Trend
During 2008- 2009, Spanish was commonly reported as a primary language spoken in the home
of Early Head Start (82%) participants. Seventeen percent (17%) of participants reported
English, 2% French, and 1% identified Urdu as a primary language. A majority of participants in
Head Start also spoke Spanish primarily in the home (62%). Thirty four percent (34%) of
children primarily speak English in the home. The remaining 4% included American Sign
Language, as well as a number of languages from Asia and Africa. Figures with Language trends
for Early Head Start and Head Start over the past three years follow (Neighborhood Centers,
EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).


                          NCI Early Head Start Primary                                       NCI Head Start Primary Language
                                   Language
                                                                                            80%
                         100%
                                                                      Percent of Children
   Percent of Children




                                                                                            60%
                          80%
                          60%                                                               40%
                          40%                                                               20%
                          20%
                                                                                            0%
                           0%
                                2006-2007   2007-2008     2008-2009
                                                                                                  2006-2007      2007-2008       2008-2009

                                              Year                                                                 Year

                                        English         S panish                                              English        S panish


Family Structure, Employment, and Educational Attainment
In 2008-2009, over half (57%) of Early Head Start families were headed by a single parent and
43.1% were two parent households. Nearly three quarters of families had one employed parent of
a two-parent family and 9.7% had both parents working. Neither parent was working in 16.1% of
families. In single-parent households, 53.7% of families were employed, and approximately
46.3% were not working (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports,
2007, 2008, 2009).

For Head Start, 51.1% of all families were led by two-parent households during the same period
and 48.9% were single parents. Of two parent families, 5.6% had both parents employed and
89.4% had one parent employed. Neither parent was working in 5.0% of the families. Of single-
parent households, 69.6% of parents were employed and 30.4% were not working
(Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

The eligibility criteria of Early Head Start revealed that 91.5% of participants were enrolled
based on income, 4.9% received public assistance, and 3.7% were foster children. In Head Start,
91.4% were enrolled based on income and 2.3% had public assistance. Enrollments also included


                                                                                                                                             114
5.8% over income and ineligible for public assistance and 0.52% were foster children
(Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

One third of families (35%) in Neighborhood Centers Early Head Start program had less than a
high school education in 2008. Two out of five families had a caregiver with a high school or
general equivalency diploma. In Head Start, nearly half of families (47%) had less than a high
school education and one quarter of caregivers (27%) received a high school or general
equivalency diploma (Neighborhood Centers, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2007,
2008, 2009).

                  Neighborhood Centers Inc. Parent Employment Status
                  (2008-2009)
                                                        EHS           HS
                  Total Number of Head Start             103         1984
                  Families
                  Total Number of Two-Parent                31           1014
                  Families                             (43.1%)        (51.1%)
                  Of Two-Parent Families
                  Both parents/guardians are              9.7%           5.6%
                  employed
                  One parent/guardian is employed        74.2%          89.4%
                  Both parents/guardians are not         16.1%           5.0%
                  working
                  Total Number of Single Parent             72            970
                  Families                             (56.9%)         48.9%
                  Of Single Parent Families
                  Single parent/guardian is              53.7%          69.6%
                  employed
                  Single parent/guardian is not          46.3%          30.4%
                  working




                                                                                            115
   Neighborhood Centers EHS Parent
        Educational Attainment


                   8%

        17%                          35%




                  40%



Less than high school
High School grad or GED
Some college, vocational school, or Associate degree
Bachelor's or advanced degree




    Neighborhood Centers HS Parent
        Educational Attainment


                    7%

        19%

                                      47%




            27%




Less than high school
High School grad or GED
Some college, vocational school, or Associate degree
Bachelor's or advanced degree




                                                       116
                                       References

1. Center for Public Policy Priorities. (2009). The state of Texas children. Retrieved from
           http://www.cppp.org/factbook09
2. Child care Harris County enrolled (by ages zipcode). [Microsoft Excel Data file].
           Retrieved from Neighborhood Centers Inc.
3. Head Start Saturation Theory derived from: Buckley, Janet & Watkins, J.C. (2003).
           Developing & utilizing the community assessment: the origins of planning.
           Bowling Green, Kentucky: Western Kentucky University Research Foundation.
4. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2007). NCI Early Head Start program information report.
           [Microsoft Excel data file]. Houston, TX.
5. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2007). NCI Head Start program information report.
           [Microsoft Excel data file]. Houston, TX.
6. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2008). Choices in education Head Start annual report.
           Retrieved from:http://www.neighborhood
           centers.org/Images/library/headstartannualreport2008.pdf
7. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2008). NCI Early Head Start program information report.
           [Microsoft Excel data file]. Houston, TX.
8. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2008). NCI Head Start program information report.
           [Microsoft Excel data file]. Houston, TX.
9. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2009). 09-10 NCI lang demographics. [Microsoft Excel data
           file].Houston, TX
10. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2009). Head Start selection prioritization criteria. Retrieved
           from Neighborhood Centers Inc Head Start.
11. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2009). NCI childdemog-EHS-9-1-09. [Microsoft Excel data
           file].Houston, TX.
12. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2009). NCI childdemog-HS-9-1-09. [Microsoft Excel data
           file].Houston, TX.
13. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2009). NCI EarlyHead Start program information report.
           [Microsoft Excel data file]. Houston, TX.
14. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2009). NCI Head Start program information report.
           [Microsoft Excel data file]. Houston, TX.
15. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2009). NCI wait list EHS-9-1-09. [Microsoft Excel data
           file].Houston, TX.
16. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2009). NCI wait list HS-9-1-09. [Microsoft Excel data
           file].Houston, TX.
17. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2010). Choices in education. Retrieved from:
           http://www.neighborhood-centers.org/enus/default.aspx
18. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2010). History. Retrieved from: http://www.neighborhood
           centers.org/en us/default.aspx
19. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2010). Vision & mission. Retrieved from:
           http://www.neighborhood-centers.org/enus/default.aspx
20. Neighborhood Centers Inc. (2010). What we do. Retrieved from:
           http://www.neighborhood-centers.org/en us/default.aspx
21. U.S. Census Bureau (2000) QuickFacts: Texas. Retrieved from
           http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states /48/4835000.html



                                                                                          117
Gulf Coast Community Services Association (GCCSA)

Gulf Coast Community Services Association (GCCSA), a private nonprofit organization, is the
largest Community Action Agency in Texas since 1964. GCCSA promotes individual and
communal well-being through outreach operations, economic empowerment initiatives and
support services (GCCSA, Overview, 2009).

GCCSA initiatives include:
   Early Head Start and Head Start
   Rental/mortgage assistance
   Outreach Services -- Literacy Center, Employment Skills, Housing Services, Fair
     Housing, Home Buyer Education

History
GCCSA was formed as a response to the Economic Opportunity Act, the centerpiece of
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty”. In 1964, Houston Action for Youth was
formed and subsequently, Houston-Harris County Economic Opportunity Organization came
into operation. By 1969, the agencies merged and became known as Gulf Coast Community
Services Association (GCCSA, Overview, 2009).

Mission
The Gulf Coast Community Services Association exists to strengthen the educational, social, and
economic well-being of children and families as they move toward independence and self-
sufficiency (GCCSA, Overview, 2009).

“The Gulf Coast Community Services Association Early Head Start/Head Start Programs strives
to empower eligible families by providing comprehensive quality programs, which are child-
centered and family-focused that will result in social competence, school readiness, and self-
sufficiency (GCCSA, Early Head Start & Head Start, 2009).”

Early Head Start and Head Start
Background
GCCSA has provided Head Start services in Harris County since 1965. The agency served as the
sole provider of the program for the county until 1997. Two years prior, the Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) submitted a formal report regarding issues with the agency’s
operations of Head Start. With growing sentiment for new Head Start sponsorship, ACF
redistributed the service area, temporarily contracting William Smith, Sr., Tri-County Child
Development Council Inc. The interim sponsor served until ACF awarded AVANCE, Harris
County Department of Education, and Neighborhood Centers Inc. to operate 70% of the county
in 1997. The grantees began their implementation of Head Start in 1999 (Dyer, Dyer, Dyer,
Kolker, & Hopper, 1995, 1996, 1996, 1997, 1998).




                                                                                           118
Service Area
GCCSA retained 30% of Harris County, particularly the Southeast region designated as Area IV.
The agency operates a combination of Early Head Start and Head Start programs/services
through 26 centers located in Houston, Pasadena and South Houston (GCCSA, History, n.d.).

   GCCSA Service Area Map:




    GCCSA Center              Street Address        GCCSA Center     Street Address
    Bastian                   5051 Belfort          Ninfa Laurenzo   205 N. Delmar
                                                                     (S. Houston)
    CFC – Los Niño’s          7305 Navigation       Pasadena         902 S. Wafer
    Clayton Homes             1919 Runnels Street   Perry            4630 Perry
                              #B1
    Early Head Start          2020 Solo Street      PISD – Pomeroy   920 Burke Road
    East End                  222 South 66th        PISD – Sparks    2503 E. Southmore
    Foster                    3919 Ward Street      Reveille         3716 Reveille
    Franklin                  7101 Canal Street     South Houston    2304 Houston Blvd.
    Garden Villa              6724 Telephone Road   Southmayd        1800 Coral
    Gateway MLK@ Foster       3919 Ward Street      Sunnyside        4605 Wilmington
    Genesis Learning Center   2719 Caroline         Third Ward       3611 Ennis
    Gregg                     6701 Roxbury          Thompson         6121 Tierwester
                              (Pasadena)
    HIS Place                 700 Telephone Road    Tijerina         6501 Sherman
    Houston Gateway           3400 Evergreen        Turner           3200 Rosedale
                              (Pasadena)
    J.R. Harris               801 Broadway          TSU Lab Sch.     3100 Cleburne
                              (Pasadena)
    Moses Leroy               3611 Drew



                                                                                          119
Program Options
GCCSA Early Head Start (EHS) offers center-based and home-based services to pregnant
women and children. Head Start (HS) is a center-based program offered five days a week, from
August through July. Parents can enroll their child(ren) in extended day option or a part day
option known as a double session. The double session is offered at a Head Start, center location
twice a day from August to June (GCCSA, Refunding, 2010).

Eligibility Criteria
In addition to age and pregnancy status (children birth to 3 years and pregnant women are
eligible for Early Head Start and children between the ages of 3-5 years are eligible for Head
Start), both groups automatically qualify if the child or family receives public assistance (e.g.
TANF, SSI); the participating child is in foster care; and/or if the child and their family is
homeless. Families that do not meet these criteria are prioritized by a point system that captures
income, age, and family characteristics (GCCSA, Head Start Selection Criteria, 2009).

Enrollment
In the 2008-2009 grant year, the Early Head Start program was funded for 84 infants, toddlers,
and pregnant women (GCCSA, EHS Program Information Report, 2009). At the start of the
current program year (2009-2010), 85 participants were enrolled. GCCSA had 79 infants,
toddlers, and pregnant women placed on the waiting list for EHS, resulting in nearly a 1-to-1
ratio between participants enrolled and waitlisted (GCCSA, Current Status Enrollment &
Waitlist, 2009).

The Head Start program has a funded enrollment of 1,864 children, 1,870 children were enrolled
since September 2009. Head Start had 555 children placed on the waiting list, resulting in a 4 – 1
ratio (for every four children enrolled, one child was placed on the waiting list (GCCSA, HS
Program Information Report, Current Status Enrollment & Waitlist, 2009).

Three Year Enrollment Trend

                                                                           GCCSA Head Start
                GCCSA Early Head Start Enrollment                             Enrollment
  Year       Funded   Actual       Children           Pregnant             Funded     Actual
                                   enrolled       women enrolled
                                  N        %        N        %
2006-2007      84      130       104       80       26       20              1,864       2,431
2007-2008      84      114       106       93        8       7               1,864       2,167
2008-2009      84      130       121       93        9       7               1,864       2,064




                                                                                                 120
                                     GCCSA Early Head Start                                       GCCSA Head Start Enrollment
                                         Enrollment
                                                                                                 3000
                               140
       Number of Individuals




                                                                            Number of Children
                               120                                                               2500
                               100                                                               2000
                                80                                                               1500
                                60                                                               1000
                                40
                                                                                                 500
                                20
                                                                                                    0
                                 0
                                                                                                        2006-2007     2007-2008   2008-2009
                                      2006-2007   2007-2008   2008-2009
                                                                                                                        Year
                                                    Year

                               Funded Enrollment        Actual Enrollment                         Funded Enrollment        Actual Enrollment



Funded enrollment remained constant for Early Head Start and Head Start. The actual enrollment
for EHS dropped in 2007-2008 but returned to the 2006-2007 level (130 participants) in 2008-
2009. HS actual enrollment started out higher but gradually dropped over the three years
(GCCSA, EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2007, 2008, 2009).

Eligible and Available Head Start Children

The Center for Public Policy Priorities reported in 2008 that almost a fourth of children in Harris
County are living in poverty (2009). Census 2000 data on children living below poverty was
collected at the zip code level to illustrate the level of need in Southeast Harris County (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2000). In order to account for population growth, the population percent change
(19.7%) from 2000 to 2009 was applied to the data on children living below poverty in the area
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Based on the projected numbers for 2009, 20,359 eligible children
under the age of five residing in households with incomes below poverty, and are therefore
eligible for Head Start. The projected population estimate of eligible children was then used to
determine the number of available children. Subtracting the number of children accessing
subsidized child care and prekindergarten centers (7,572 children), approximately 12,787
children were available for GCCSA Early Head Start and Head Start program in 2008-
2009 (Child Care, 2009). During that year, GCCSA had a combined program funded enrollment
of 1,948 participants and served 2,194 infants, children and women. Therefore, the agency
served approximately 15.4% - 17.0% of the eligible and available children residing in the
service area and is less than the saturation level of 85% (Buckley and Watkins, 2003).
Additionally, based on updated numbers by zip code of those served for 2009-2010, the agency
had an actual enrollment of 2,388 which is approximately 18.7% of eligible and available
children for that year.

The following table displays the numbers of projected eligible and available children served by
GCCSA between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. More detailed information for 2009-2010 by zip
code follows.




                                                                                                                                               121
GCCSA % of Eligible and Available Children Served
               Served by                                                             % Eligible/
                    Pre-K                                 % Eligible/                  Available
      Eligible    (07-08)                                  Available                     children
      children     and/or     Eligible/              children served                  served (for
    (projected Child Care    Available      Funded       (for Funded        Actual        Actual
        2009)   (9/2009)      Children Enrollment       Enrollment)     Enrollment   Enrollment)
2008-2009
       20,359       7,572      12,787        1,974            15.4%         2,178         17.0%
2009-2010
       20,359       7,572      12,787        1,974            15.4%         2,388         18.7%

            GCCSA Centers Proximal to Service Areas with Eligible Children




                                                                                            122
GCCSA Eligible and Available Children Served (2009-2010)
                         Below                                       Adjusted
                        poverty                                          below                              # Of               % Of
               Total      level;              Ages 0-   Ages 4-        poverty           Number of      Children   Eligible/Available
          population:   Under 5        # Of    3 Sub     5 Sub    level, Under    Eligible/Available   Served by     Children Below
   Zip       Under 5      years    Children    Child     Child          5 years        children (not    HS/EHS     Poverty Served in
  Code         years     (2000)    in Pre-K     Care      Care           (2009)    including Pre-K)      2009-10     Harris County*

  77001            0          0          0         0         0              0                     0           0                  0%
  77003          910        366         80        19         7            438                   412          99                 24%
  77004         1916        946        203        56        39           1132                  1037         156                 15%
  77010            3          0          0         0         0              0                     0           0                  0%
  77011         2167        809        303        11        11            968                   946         289                 31%
  77012         2699        996        581        20        13           1192                  1159         114                 10%
  77017         3238        944        372        47        24           1130                  1059          78                  7%
  77020         2585       1024        656        37        25           1226                  1164         108                  9%
  77021         1855        851        436       128        88           1019                   803         193                 24%
  77023         3242       1199        358        19         9           1435                  1407         114                  8%
  77026         2301       1241        370        71        36           1485                  1378          55                  4%
  77033         2017        859        317       160        73           1028                   795         181                 23%
  77034         2406        461          0        84        49            552                   419          77                 18%
  77047          849        154        375        82        37            184                    65          31                 47%
  77048         1221        609        126       111        49            729                   569          51                  9%
  77051          973        473         97       114        61            566                   391          73                 19%
  77052            0          0          0         0         0              0                     0           1                  0%
  77061         2687        800        245        62        27            958                   869         102                 12%
  77075         2217        427        116        94        58            511                   359          81                 23%
  77087         3349       1114        522        54        23           1333                  1256          82                  7%
  77097            0          0          0         0         0              0                     0           0                  0%
  77501            0          0          0         1         1              0                    -2           1                -50%
  77502         3070        843          0        77        53           1009                   879         120                 14%
  77503         2066        459          0        66        27            549                   456          45                 10%
  77504         1628        442          0        64        39            529                   426          35                  8%
  77505         1670        192          0        32        21            230                   177          12                  7%
  77506         4521       1385          0       109        74           1658                  1475         242                 16%
  77587         1528        414          0        25        28            496                   443          48                 11%

  Total       51,118     17,008       5,157    1,543       872          20,359               17,944        2,388              18.7%



                                                                                                                                        123
1
 This table should be used with caution. The early childhood education data was limited to Pre-
Kindergarten Enrollment reports obtained from the Texas Education Agency and Workforce Solutions/
Neighborhood Centers Inc. subsidized child care program.
2
 The number of children in Pre-K captures zip code level data by schools and not children served. While
children may be enrolled at a school within the Head Start service area, children may not necessarily live
in the school’s zip code. The Pre-K data was obtained from Texas Education Agency’s Academic
Excellence Indicator System (AEIS).

*Percent of eligible/available Children Served: In order to arrive at a percent of children served at the zip
code level, the number of children enrolled in Pre-K could not be included. As mentioned, children served
by the Pre-K program may live outside the zip code. Some zip codes have more than one Pre-K center
with large enrollment numbers. When the percent of eligible/available children served is calculated, what
results is a negative percent or the appearance of an oversaturation of eligible children within a given zip
code.




                                                                                                        124
           Underserved Zip Codes
                                                             % Of
                                                 Eligible/Available
                                                   Children Below
                                                 Poverty Served in        Child Poverty
           Zip Code       Neighborhood/Area        Harris County*                 Rate
           77026*           Kashmere Gardens                    4%               53.9%
           77048*                    Minnetex                   9%               49.9%
           77004**         Greater Third Ward                  15%               49.4%
           77051                    Sunnyside                  19%               48.6%
           77021            OST/ South Union                   24%               45.9%
           77033                    South Park                 23%               42.6%
           77003                 Second Ward                   24%               40.2%
           77020            Greater Fifth Ward                  9%               39.6%
           77011                Magnolia Park                  31%               37.3%
           77023           Lawndale/ Wayside                    8%               37.0%
                                   Harrisburg/
           77012                   Manchester                  10%               36.9%
           77061***       Greater Hobby Area                   12%               29.8%
                               Meadowbrook/
           77017***                  Allendale                  7%                 29.2%
           77502***                  Pasadena                  14%                 27.5%
           77504***                  Pasadena                   8%                 27.1%
           77587***            South Houston                   11%                 27.1%
           77503                     Pasadena                  10%                 22.2%
          *Shared by HCDE   **Shared by Neighborhood Centers          ***Shared by AVANCE

Cultural and Linguistic Characteristics
During the 2009-2010 school year, 57.1% of individuals served in Early Head Start identified as
Latino/Hispanic; 35.7% Black/African American; 2.4% White; and 1.2% Bi-or Multi-racial.
Based on the percentage of “Whites”, children and families who identify as Hispanic or Latino
did not label themselves as “White”, but as “Some Other Race” and possibly “Not applicable”.
Two categories, “Some Other Race” and “Not Applicable” make up the majority of Early Head
Start clientele. In the Head Start program, 66.9% of the participants are of Latino/Hispanic
origin; 0.1% American Indian or Alaska Native; 0.4% Asian; 30.9% Black/African American;
1.2% White; and 1.0% Bi-racial. In this program as well, children and families who identify as
Hispanic or Latino did not label themselves as “White”, but as “Some Other Race sometimes
specifying race as Hispanic/Latino (GCCSA EHS & HS Program Information Reports, 2007,
2008 & 2009)

Three Year Primary Language Trend
From 2006 to 2009, EHS had a 36% increase in participants who primarily spoke English in the
home with the percentage of children primarily speaking Spanish in the home dropping by 24%.
In 2009, over half of the participants spoke in English with 45% of participants conversing in
Spanish. In the Head Start program, the number of primarily English and Spanish speakers is
gradually becoming equivalent, making up 56% and 43%, respectively in 2009 (GCCSA EHS &
HS, 2009).



                                                                                            125
                             GCCSA Early Head Start Primary                                          GCCSA Head Start Primary
                                      Language                                                             Language




                                                                         Percent of Children
       Percent of Children


                             80%                                                               80%
                             60%                                                               60%
                             40%                                                               40%
                             20%                                                               20%
                             0%                                                                0%
                                   2006-2007   2007-2008     2008-2009                                 2006-2007      2007-2008      2008-2009
                                                 Year                                                                    Year

                                           English         S panish                                                English        S panish



Family Structure, Employment, and Educational Attainment
During the three year period, GCCSA EHS served a larger percentage of single parent families in
comparison to two-parent run homes. In 2009, GCCSA EHS served a total of 103 families with
nearly two thirds single headed households. Among single headed families, 47% of single
parents were employed, and 53% were not working. Among two-parent families, 70% had one
parent employed, 19% had both parents employed, and 10% had neither parent working
(GCCSA, EHS Program Information Report, 2009).

In 2009, the Head Start program served 1,920 families. In Head Start, the majority of families
were also single parent run (62%). Among single headed families, 69% of single parent
households were employed, and 31% were not working. In two-parent families, 74% had one
parent working, 18% had both parents working, and in 8% both parents did not work (GCCSA,
HS Program Information Report, 2009).

In 2009, an overwhelming majority of EHS participants were enrolled based on income (98.5%);
0.8% received public assistance; and less then one percent (0.8%) were over-income and
ineligible for public assistance. In Head Start, 88.7% were enrolled based on income; 1.2% had
public assistance; 9.7% were over-income and ineligible for public assistance; and 0.4% were
enrolled due to status as a foster child (GCCSA, EHS & HS Program Information Report, 2009).

Nearly half of families (47%) in GCCSA Early Head Start program had less than a high school
education in 2009. More than one-third of families had a caregiver with a high school or general
equivalency diploma (36%). In Head Start, 2 out of 5 families had less than a high school
education (43%) and one-third of caregivers received a high school or general equivalency
diploma. About 20% had some college, vocational school or an Associate’s degree (GCCSA,
EHS & HS Program Information Report, 2009).




                                                                                                                                                 126
                     GCCSA Parent Employment Status (2008-2009)
                                                                     EHS                HS
                     Total Number of Head Start Families              103              1920

                     Total Number of Two-Parent                       37               730
                     Families                                    (35.9%)          (38.0%)
                     Of Two-Parent Families
                     Both parents/guardians are employed            18.9%             18.0%
                     One parent/guardian is employed                70.3%             74.0%
                     Both parents/guardians are not working         10.8%              8.0%

                     Total Number of Single Parent                    66             1190
                     Families                                    (64.1%)          (62.0%)
                     Of Single Parent Families
                     Single parent/guardian is employed             47.0%             69.1%
                     Single parent/guardian is not working          53.0%             30.9%



GCCSA EHS Parent Educational Attainment                        GCCSA HS Parent Educational Attainment
            (2008-2009)                                                    (2008-2009)



                        1%                                                         3%
              14%
                                                                         21%

                                                                                                 43%
                                   47%


          38%
                                                                            33%



Less than high school                                         Less than high school
High School grad or GED                                       High School grad or GED
Some college, vocational school, or Associate degree          Some college, vocational school, or Associate degree
Bachelor's or advanced degree                                 Bachelor's or advanced degree




                                                                                                       127
                                      References

1. Center for Public Policy Priorities. (2009). The state of Texas children. Retrieved from
          http://www.cppp.org/factbook09
2. Child care Harris County enrolled (by ages zipcode). [Microsoft Excel Data file].
          Retrieved from Neighborhood Centers Inc.
3. Dyer, R.A. (1995, July 23). Head Start program wrestles with leadership crisis. Houston
          Chronicle, pp. 33.
4. Dyer, R.A. (1996, January 20). County’s Head Start uncertain of its future. Houston
          Chronicle, pp. 29.
5. Dyer, R.A. (1996, March 7). Head Start oversight agency makes progress on its woes.
          Houston Chronicle, pp. 21.
6. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2007). GCCSA Head Start program
          information report. [Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
7. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2007). GCCSA Head Start program
          information report. [Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
8. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2008). GCCSA Early Head Start program
          information report. [Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
9. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2008). GCCSA Early Head Start program
          information report. [Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
10. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2009). Current status enrollment. [Portable
          Document Format]. Houston, TX.
11. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2009). Current status waitlist [Portable
          Document Format].Houston, TX.
12. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2009). GCCSA Early Head Start program
          information report. [Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
13. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2009). GCCSA Early Head Start program
          information report. [Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
14. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2009). GCCSA Head Start program
          information report. [Microsoft Excel data file].Houston, TX.
15. Gulf Coast Community Services Association (2009). P_lang-1331.[Portable Document
          Format].Houston, TX.
16. Gulf Coast Community Services Association. (2009). Early Head Start - overview.
          Retrieved from http://www.gulfcoastcommunityservicesassociation.org/
          gccsaoverview.html
17. Gulf Coast Community Services Association. (2009). Head Start - overview. Retrieved
          from: http://www.gulfcoastcommunityservicesassociation.org/
          gccsaoverview.html
18. Gulf Coast Community Services Association. (2009). Head Start selection criteria.
          Retrieved from Gulf Coast Community Services Association.
19. Gulf Coast Community Services Association. (2009). Overview. Retrieved
          from:http://www.gulfcoastcommunityservicesassociation.org/gccsaoverview.html
20. Gulf Coast Community Services Association. (2010.). Refunding application summary.
          Retrieved from Gulf Coast Community Services Association.
21. Gulf Coast Community Services Association. (n.d.). History. Retrieved from Gulf Coast
          Community Services Association.



                                                                                       128
22. Head Start Saturation Theory derived from: Buckley, Janet & Watkins, J.C. (2003).
           Developing & utilizing the community assessment: the origins of planning.
           Bowling Green, Kentucky: Western Kentucky University Research Foundation.
23. Hopper, Leigh. (1998, September 26). Head Start program gets shot in the arm/ 3
           agencies pledge cooperation. Houston Chronicle, pp. 29
24. Kolker, Claudia (1997, December 3). Interim Head Start sponsor selected. Houston
           Chronicle, pp.38.
25. U.S. Census Bureau (2000) QuickFacts: Texas. Retrieved from
           http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html




                                                                                   129
Strengths and Needs: Family Survey




                                     130
HS/ EHS Family Strengths and Needs:
Overall Harris County
Family Needs Assessment Survey
Information based on the Head Start/ Early Head Start Family Survey is organized into five
sections. Data is explored at the county level, followed by reports for each grantee. The sections
for the overall county report and agency reports are arranged in the same fashion. Relevant
comments either from the Family Surveys or focus groups (if occurred) are also added to support
quantitative results. Information about service coverage from the grantees’ Program Information
Reports (PIR) is also included as is relevant. Given the range of geography and culture in Harris
County, the data may reveal variation between the service areas.
A limitation to the interpretation of these results is seen that while assistance was available to
families for completing their surveys, parents demonstrated “satisficing,” a type of response bias
most likely due to the matrix format for questions related to service needs. This was seen in their
responses revealed by a pattern of straight-lining, where the same column was selected row after
row. Evidence of survey abandonment was also seen. Both types of responses are indicative of
test burden. These factors, more than likely, explain the significant amount of missing data seen
for the different service categories and the subsequently reduced sample size (overall and per
each agency). Despite these limitations, HCDE Research Institute of Texas feels that the results
from the Family Survey provide each grantee with insight as to how best to serve the needs of
families within their associated Head Start/Early Head Start area. EHS and HS results are
combined for this report.
Response Rate
During the 2009-10 program year, 3,354 caregivers completed the Head Start Family Survey out
of a total of 6,687 families served across all four Head Start/EHS grantees. This resulted in an
overall response rate of 50.2%. The response rates of each grantee range from 23.9% - 75.5%
based on the number of surveys received compared to the number of families served. The
response rates by grantee are illustrated in the graph below.




                                                                                               131
                                                Harris County HS/EHS
                                                Family Response Rates


                                   100
                                    90
                                                                    75.5
                                    80
                                    70
                   Response Rate    60
                                         46.4        49.9
                                    50
                                    40
                                    30                                         23.9
                                    20
                                    10
                                     0
                                          1           2                 3       4
                                                      HS/EHS Grantees



            2009-10                              AVANCE(1)       HCDE(2)    GCCSA(3)   NCI(4)
            Number of Respondents                   589            695        1507      486
            Number of Families served               1269           1392       1995      2031
            Response rate                          46.4%          49.9%      75.5%     23.9%

Caregivers with children enrolled in Head Start completed 97% of the surveys submitted
(n=3,154). Those with children in Early Head Start completed 3% (n=95) of the surveys, similar
to the proportion of enrolled families as Early Head Start participants also represented 3%
(n=253) of all individuals enrolled. Two out of five caregivers (42%, n=1,420) requested a
Spanish-translated questionnaire, an increase from 35% seen in the last Triennial community
assessment performed in 2006.
Transportation
The majority of families (88.4%, n=2,914) found it ‘very easy’ or ‘somewhat easy’ to bring their
child(ren) to their Head Start or Early Head Start program everyday (avg. =3.32, based on a 4-
point scale). The ease of transporting children was most likely due in part to the nearly three-
quarters (73%, n=2,454) of families who dropped-off children in their own cars. Some families
used other alternatives, which included taking a friend or relative’s vehicle or carpooling (12%,
n=409); walking (9%, n=311); school bus (4%, n=144); and public transportation (3%, n=105).
The modes of transportation for families during 2009-2010 were similar to the responses
reported during 2005-2006 program year.
Service Accessibility by Category
More than three-quarters (79%, n=2,565) of caregivers reported they found it ‘very easy’ to
‘somewhat easy’ to acquire services for their family (av. =3.32). With a greater number of
families reporting they can access services, an in-depth review of what was provided within the
community will reveal the level of need and satisfaction of families enrolled in Head Start.

The strengths and needs of families accessing different services are described for the following
categories: education, employment, social services, health and nutrition, mental health,


                                                                                                132
disabilities, and public services. Whether a service was a need, not needed, or don’t know could
be answered independently in the survey from the degree of met-unmet, therefore, totals for each
response set may not be equal.

Not all surveys received from families contained complete data. Therefore, the number of
responses for each category are less than the overall number of surveys received for each
grantee. To help understand the level of missing responses for each category, descriptions begin
with the range of responses for service items in that category and percent out of the number of
surveys submitted. Survey results for each service category are then displayed in tables with
short narratives that summarize service needs with the highest endorsement. Caregiver comments
and PIR data are included as relevant to support the findings.

The table for each service category first displays the number of families who chose whether the
service was a need, not needed, or did not know. The second part of the table follows with
additional information on whether the service items were met, somewhat met, or not met (unmet)
with associated percentages. Services that approximately 40% or more of respondent families
identified as most needed and either met or not met were selected as the highest met and unmet
needs. The results for the top needs in the tables are shaded in gray and the highest results for
degree of met/unmet services identified by approximately 40% or more of families are shaded in
light green if met, in yellow if somewhat met, and in pink if not met.

Education
Caregivers were given an opportunity to reflect on thirteen different educational supports that
they and their children may have needed during the year. The response rates for the Education
services ranged from 19.6% (n=658) to 48.2% (n=1,618). Responses are shown in the following
table.




                                                                                             133
Educational Services – Overall Harris County Families
Service                                                                         Don't                             Somewhat
                                        Total       Needed      Not Needed      Know     Total          Met          Met        Not Met
                                          N       N      %      N      %     N     %       N       N       %      N     %      N     %
Affordable Early Education              1618    1432    88.5   141     8.7   45    2.8   1601    1398     87.3   138    8.6   65     4.1
Quality Early Education                 1475    1301    88.2   130     8.8   44    3.0   1464    1251     85.5   134    9.2   79     5.4
Affordable Childcare                     917     647    70.6   226    24.6   44    4.8    903     286     31.7   141   15.6   479   52.7
Computer Classes                         873     615    70.4   221    25.3   37    4.2    858     251     29.3   129    15    478   55.7
Fatherhood programs                      879     612    69.6   203    23.1   64    7.3    867     392     45.2   172   19.8   303   34.9
Parenting Education                      870     598    68.7   223    25.6   49    5.6    857     374     43.6   149   17.4   334   39.0
Help with School Work                    817     554    67.8   236    28.9   27    3.3    796     317     39.8   168   21.1   311   39.1
Personal finance programs                820     555    67.7   221    27.0   44    5.4    805     250     31.1   151   18.8   404   50.2
ESL Classes                              869     566    65.1   272    31.3   31    3.6    842     348     41.4   153   18.2   339   40.3
Enroll/Stay in College                   827     497    60.1   251    30.4   79    9.6    804     264     32.8   137   17.0   403   50.1
GED/ HS Diploma                          879     512    58.2   291    33.1   76    8.6    850     325     39.4   120   14.1   395   46.5
Marriage Education                       749     416    55.5   279    37.2   54    7.2    729     243     33.3   135   18.5   351   48.1
Literacy-building                        678     345    50.9   280    41.3   53    7.8    658     232     35.3   129   19.6   297   45.1




                                                                                                                                   134
Educational Service Need
As seen in the table, more than half to 88% of respondents indicated services under the education
category were a need for them. Access to affordable and quality early childhood education is a
strength for these caregivers as the majority of parents responding (85-87%) felt this need was “met”
by community initiatives. Almost two thirds of respondents also reported their need was “met” or
“somewhat met” for Fatherhood programs. On the other hand, despite access to Head Start/EHS, pre-
kindergarten and subsidized child day care, more than half reported they still had an unmet need for
affordable child care. Furthermore, almost half to more than half reported unmet needs for computer
classes, personal finance programs, enroll/stay in college, and marriage/relationship education.
Compared to the overall 2008-09 PIRs, 31.5% (n=2132) of families received parenting education,
11.2% (n=760) of families participated in ESL classes, 10.5% (n=712) received their GED and help
with college, and 5.1% (n=346) participated in marriage education. The percentages of respondents
whose need for Educational supports were met are seen in the following figure.

                                                                         Harris County
                                                   Acce ss to Educational Se rvice s for Childre n and Familie s


                                             100
                                              90
                                              80
                     Percent of Caregivers




                                              70
                                              60
                                              50
                                              40
                                              30
                                              20
                                              10
                                               0
                                                     1    2     3    4    5      6     7     8        9   10   11   12   13
                                                                              Se rvice Ne e ds Me t



                                         Educational Service Needs
       1. Affordable Education for birth – 5 yrs      8. Personal finance programs
       2. Quality Education for birth – 5 yrs         9. ESL Classes
       3. Affordable Childcare                        10. Enroll/Stay in College
       4. Computer Classes                            11. GED/ HS Diploma
       5. Fatherhood programs                         12. Marriage Education
       6. Parenting Education                         13. Literacy-building
       7. Help with School Work

Employment
Caregivers reflected on three services under the Employment service category. The response rates for
the Employment services ranged from 21.7% (n=729) to 24.7% (n=827). Responses are shown in the
following table




                                                                                                                              135
Employment Services – Overall Harris County Families
Service                                                   Total    Needed    Not Needed Don't Know   Total      Met     Somewhat Met    Not Met
                                                            N      N    %     N     %    N     %       N      N     %     N     %       N    %
Help finding and getting a good job                        827    601 72.7   191 23.1    35    4.2    818    179 18.2    149   18.2    490 59.9
Classes to help learn a trade or profession                837    588 70.3   200 23.9    49    5.9    825    181 16.1    133   16.1    511 61.9
Help with resume, interview skills, professional clothing  752    460 61.2   239 31.8    53    7.0    729    192 17.6    128   17.6    409 56.1




                                                                                                                                       136
Employment Service Needs
Overall, caregivers “needed” employment services, and more than half reported that those services
had been “unmet”. For instance, three out of five caregivers (60%, n=490) identified ‘help finding
and getting a good job” as “not met.” According to the 2008-09 PIRs, about 7% (n=493) of all Head
Start families and 5% (n=13) of all Early Head Start families had received job training assistance.
The percentages of respondents whose need for Employment services were met are seen in the
following figure.

                                                               Harris County
                                                       Acce ss to Job-building Skills


                                             100
                                              90
                                              80
                     Percent of Caregivers




                                              70
                                              60
                                              50
                                              40
                                              30
                                              20
                                              10
                                               0
                                                   1                      2              3
                                                                 Se rvice Ne e ds Me t



                                         Employment Service Needs
             1. Help finding and getting a good job
             2. Classes to help learn a trade or profession
             3. Help with resume, interview skills, professional clothing

Social Services
Caregivers reflected on needs for seven services under the social services category. The response
rates for the Social Services ranged from 16.1% (n=539) to 26.9% (n=901). Responses are displayed
in the following table.




                                                                                                137
Social Services – Overall Harris County Families
                                                                          Not       Don't                       Somewhat
Service                                            Total     Needed     Needed     Know     Total      Met         Met       Not Met
                                                     N      N    %     N     %    N    %      N      N    %     N     %      N    %
Help getting food for my family                     901    608 67.5   261    29   32 3.6     890    449 50.4   178    20    263 29.6
Help paying my rent or other bills                  806    527 65.4   233 28.9    46 5.7     798    249 31.2   174 21.8     375 47.0
Safe, affordable housing                            659    374 56.8   251 38.1    34 5.2     646    208 32.2   129    20    308 47.7
Services available in my language                   671    371 55.3   282 42.0    18 2.7     644    289 44.9   114 17.7     241 37.4
Access to a lawyer or legal advice                  573    286 49.9   259 45.2    28 4.9     561    185 33.0   95    16.9   281 50.1
Help with immigration questions or concerns         621    299 48.1   291 46.9    31 5.0     597    207 34.7   92    15.4   298 49.9
Help finding a shelter or other assistance          557    218 39.1   304 54.6    35 6.3     539    208 38.6   120 22.3     211 39.1




                                                                                                                              138
Social Service Needs
As seen, almost half to two thirds of respondents indicated these services were a need, with the
exception of help finding a shelter which more than half said was not needed. Strengths of these
families included “help getting food for family” and “services available in my language” as almost
two thirds of respondents reported their need was met or somewhat met. Services that almost half
reported were unmet included, “help paying rent or other bills”, “safe affordable housing”, “access to
a lawyer or legal advice”, and “help with immigration questions or concerns”.

The percentages of respondents whose need for social services were “met” are seen in the following
figure. According to 2008-09 PIRs, 5% (n=340) of Head Start families and 10.2% (n=27) of EHS
families received housing and utilities assistance.

                                                                  Harris County
                                                             Acce ss to Social Se rvice s


                                               100
                                                90
                                                80
                       Percent of Caregivers




                                                70
                                                60
                                                50
                                                40
                                                30
                                                20
                                                10
                                                 0
                                                     1   2          3          4            5   6   7
                                                                     Se rvice Ne e ds Me t



                                                             Social Service Needs
       1. Help getting food for my family                              5. Access to a lawyer or legal advice
       2. Help paying my rent or other bills                           6. Help with immigration questions or concerns
       3. Safe, affordable housing                                     7. Help finding a shelter or other assistance
       4. Services available in my language

Health and Nutrition
Respondents reflected on their needs for eleven services related to health and nutrition over the past
year. The response rates for Health and Nutrition services ranged from 17.1% (n=574) to 24.5%
(n=822). Responses are seen in the following table.




                                                                                                                        139
Health and Nutrition Services – Overall Harris County Families
                                                                                Not         Don't                           Somewhat
Service                                                 Total    Needed       Needed        Know      Total      Met           Met        Not Met
                                                          N      N   %        N     %     N     %       N      N    %       N      %      N    %
Good, affordable dentists                                822    626 76.2     180 21.9     16    1.9    820    333 40.6     158    19.3   329 40.1
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid                 913    624 68.3     262 28.7     27    3.0    888    521 58.8     176    19.7   189 21.3
Medical care for my children                             787    536 68.1     233 29.6     18    2.3    779    452 58.0     184    23.6   143 18.4
Information or classes on staying healthy, exercising
etc.                                                    728     495   68.0   202   27.7   31    4.3   723     272   37.6   152    21.0   299   41.4
Fresh fruit and vegetables that I can afford            730     493   67.5   221   30.3   16    2.2   728     317   43.5   174    23.9   237   32.6
Immunizations for my children                           785     529   67.4   235   29.9   21    2.7   776     496   63.9   153    19.7   127   16.4
Good medical care that I can afford                     792     529   66.8   243   30.7   20    2.5   771     280   36.3   187    24.3   304   39.4
Health insurance that I can afford                      789     526   66.7   234   29.7   29    3.7   773     302   39.1   168    21.7   303   39.2
Classes on healthy eating and cooking                   723     479   66.3   219   30.3   25    3.5   711     274   38.5   173    24.3   264   37.1
Immunizations for me or other adult family members      686     425   62.0   238   34.7   23    3.4   673     287   42.6   154    22.9   232   34.5
Medical care for pregnant women                         598     291   48.7   282   47.2   25    4.2   574     273   47.6   132    23.0   169   29.4




                                                                                                                                               140
Health and Nutrition Service Needs
About two thirds to three fourths of respondents regarded most services as a need. The top three
met/somewhat met by most caregivers were ”immunizations for my children” (83.6%), “medical care
for my children” (81.6%), and “assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid” (78%). The services with
the most unmet need included “Information or classes on staying healthy, exercising, etc (41.4%),
“Good medical care that I can afford” (39.4%), and “Health insurance that I can afford” (39.2%).
“Good, affordable dentists” was almost equally met (40.6%) and unmet (40.1%) for respondents,
Note that more than a third said their need was unmet for immunizations for themselves and other
adults in the family which is in contrast to a lower unmet need of 16% for their children’s
immunizations.

Compared to PIR data over the past 3 years, the amount of Health and Nutrition services families
received has varied. Most have either increased or stayed the same except for dental services.
Immunizations have increased the most which at the end of each year went from 65.2% in 2006-07 to
85.9% in 2008-09.

                                                   Harris County PIR Data- Health & Nutrition

                                             100.00%                                     Health Insurance
                      Percent participated




                                             80.00%
                                                                                         Medical Services
                                             60.00%
                                                                                         Immunization
                                             40.00%                                      Services
                                                                                         Dental Services
                                             20.00%
                                                                                         Disability
                                              0.00%                                      Determination
                                                       2006-07   2007-08   2008-09       Health education
                                                                  Year



The percentages of respondents whose need for Health and Nutrition were met are seen in the
following figure.




                                                                                                            141
                                                                 Harris County
                                                        Acce ss to He alth and Nutrition


                                          100
                                           90
                                           80




                      Service Needs Met
                                           70
                                           60
                                           50
                                           40
                                           30
                                           20
                                           10
                                            0
                                                1   2     3     4        5     6      7     8   9   10   11
                                                                    Pe rce nt of Care give rs



                                    Health and Nutrition Service Needs
     1. Good, affordable dentists                    7. Good medical care that I can afford
     2. Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid     8. Health insurance that I can afford
     3. Medical care for my children                 9. Classes on healthy eating and cooking
     4. Information or classes on staying health,    10. Immunizations for me or other adult family
        exercising etc.                                  members
     5. Fresh fruit and vegetables that I can afford 11. Medical care for pregnant women
     6. Immunizations for my children

Mental Health
Caregivers reflected on eight services in the mental health category. The response rates for the
Mental Health services ranged from 13.5% (n=454) to 20.4% (n=684). Responses are seen in the
following table.




                                                                                                              142
Mental Health Services – Overall Harris County Families
Service                                                 Total    Needed      Not Needed   Don't Know   Total      Met       Somewhat Met    Not Met
                                                          N      N    %       N     %      N     %       N      N     %       N     %       N    %
Classes on how to raise well adjusted, healthy children  684    434 63.5     229 33.5      21    3.1    672    259 38.5      163   24.3    250 37.2
Classes on how to handle stress                          659    406 61.6     233 35.4      20     3     647    213 32.9      130   20.1    304 47.0
Counseling or therapy services                           643    385 59.9     36.5 235      23    3.6    625    241 38.6      123   19.7    261 41.8
Classes on how to handle anger                           576    324 56.3     234 40.6      18    3.1    562    192 34.2      113   20.1    257 45.7
Help with domestic violence issues                       496    211 42.5     273 55.0      12    2.4    486    191 39.3      108   22.2    187 38.5
Help with child abuse or neglect issues                  485    197 40.6     273 56.7      13    2.7    473    190 40.2      103   21.8    180 38.1
Care for sick/disabled family members so I can rest/run
errands                                                  499    201   40.3   284   56.9   14    2.8     486    171   35.2   112     23     203    41.8
Treatment for drug or alcohol problems                   466    170   36.5   279   59.9   17    3.6     454    177   39.0    91     20     186    41.0




                                                                                                                                            143
Mental Health Service Needs
The top three services with more than half “needed” were “classes on how to raise well
adjusted, healthy children” (63%, n=434), “classes on how to handle stress (62%, n=406), and
“counseling or therapy services” (60%, n=385). No clear majority was seen among parents who
identified the degree of met or unmet. For example, the largest percentage of parents, about 62%,
identified “classes on how to raise well, adjusted healthy children” and “child abuse or neglect
issues” as being met or somewhat met. On the other hand, almost half of families said “classes
on how to handle stress” and classes on how to handle anger” were unmet.
It should be noted that according to the 2008-09 PIRs, less than one-half of a percent (0.25%,
n=17) of Head Start families and no Early Head Start families received child abuse and neglect
services; less than one-half percent (0.28%, n=19) of Head Start families and more than half
(55.3%, n=146) of Early Head Start families received substance abuse prevention or treatment;
less than one percent (0.7%, n=49) of Head Start and 3.4% (n=9) of Early Head Start received
help for domestic violence issues; and 3.96% (n=268) of Head Start and 10.2% (n=27) of Early
Head Start families received overall mental health services.
The percentages of respondents whose need for Mental Health services were “met” are seen in
the following figure.
                                                                Harris County
                                                      Acce ss to Me ntal He alth Se rvices


                                            100
                                             90
                                             80
                    Percent of Caregivers




                                             70
                                             60
                                             50
                                             40
                                             30
                                             20
                                             10
                                              0
                                                  1    2       3        4        5         6   7   8
                                                                   Se rvice Ne e ds Me t



                                     Mental Health Service Needs
   1. Classes on how to raise well adjusted,        6. Help with child abuse or neglect issues
      healthy children
   2. Classes on how to handle stress               7. Care for sick/disabled family members so
   3. Counseling or therapy services                8. I can rest/run errands
   4. Classes on how to handle anger                9. Treatment for drug or alcohol problems
   5. Help with domestic violence issues




                                                                                                       144
   Disabilities
   Caregivers reflected on four services included in the disabilities service category. The response rates for Disabilities ranged from 13.1%
   (n=439) to 17.4% (n=583). Responses are seen in the following table.

Disability Services – Overall Harris County Families
Service                                             Total    Needed      Not Needed Don't Know       Total      Met        Somewhat Met      Not Met
                                                      N      N    %       N     %    N     %           N      N     %        N     %         N    %
Help identifying if my child may have a disability   583    342 58.7     226 38.8    15    2.6        573    242 42.2       148   25.8      148 31.9
Special education services through my local public
school                                               537    279   52.0   250   46.6    8      1.5     521    230    44.1    122     23.4    169   32.4
Support for a family member with disabilities        469    210   44.8   245   52.2    14      3      455    171    37.6    107     23.5    177   38.9
Child care for children with disabilities            455    192   42.2   249   54.7    14     3.1     439    157    35.8    114     26.0    168   38.3




                                                                                                                                                145
Disability Service Needs
More than half of caregivers needed help identifying if a child had a disability and assistance with
special education services in schools. Two thirds of caregivers reported their need for screening and
access to special education services for their children through local schools was met or somewhat
met. Even though less than half of parents were interested in support for a family member with
disabilities or child care for children with disabilities, more than a third said they were an unmet
need. Overall, the number of children with disabilities is small in both HS and EHS programs.

According to the 2008-09 PIR, 6% of Head Start (n=411) and 6% Early Head Start (n=23) children
received a disability diagnosis prior to or during enrollment, indicating a possible need to increase
outreach efforts to parents of children with disabilities. The percentages of respondents whose need
for Disabilities’ services were met are seen in the following figure.

                                                                  Harris County
                                                          Acce ss to Disability Se rvice s


                                                100
                                                 90
                                                 80
                        Percent of Caregivers




                                                 70
                                                 60
                                                 50
                                                 40
                                                 30
                                                 20
                                                 10
                                                  0
                                                      1              2                 3     4
                                                                    Se rvice Ne e ds Me t



                                       Disabilities Services Needs Met
        1. Help identifying if my young child may       3. Support for a family member with
        have a disability                               disabilities
        2. Special education services through my
        local public school                             4. Child care for children with disabilities

Other Public Services
Caregivers reflected on ten services included under Public Services. The response rates for Other
Public Services ranged from 16.7% (n=561) to 18.4% (n=616). Responses are seen in the following
table.




                                                                                                       146
Other Public Services – Overall Harris County Families
                                                                               Not         Don't                           Somewhat
Service                                                  Total    Needed     Needed        Know      Total      Met           Met        Not Met
                                                           N      N   %      N     %     N     %       N      N    %       N      %      N    %
Public parks and recreation areas                         616    384 62.3   209 33.9     23    3.7    609    299 49.1     163    26.8   147 24.1
Community Centers                                         638    397 62.2   209 32.8     32    5.0    624    287 46.0     160    25.6   177 28.4
Public transportation                                     619    376 60.7   217 35.1     26    4.2    606    282 46.5     143    23.6   181 29.9
Neighborhood Watch                                        648    392 60.5   212 32.7     44    6.8    629    230 36.6     139    22.1   260 41.3
Churches                                                  611    352 57.6   227 37.2     32    5.2    592    331 55.9     130     22    131 22.1
Recycling programs                                        632    357 56.5   239 37.8     36    5.7    616    246 39.9     158    25.6   212 34.4
Emergency response services                               616    346 56.2   244 39.6     26    4.2    594    348 58.6     116    19.5   130 21.9
Public services (trash collection, street maintenance,
etc.)                                                    620     345 55.6   237   38.2   38    6.1   312     312   52.3   141    23.7   143   24.0
Community Centers that serve my culture                  563     313 55.6   218   38.7   32    5.7   548     239   43.6   132    24.1   177   32.3
Stores, restaurants, entertainment                       579     296 51.1   249   43.0   34    5.9   561     268   47.8   140    24.9   153   27.3




                                                                                                                                              147
Other Public Service Needs
More than half to two-thirds of families saw a need for various public services with public parks,
community centers, public transportation, and Neighborhood Watch comprising the highest
needs. The top three services reported as met or somewhat met by a majority of the respondents
included “Emergency response services” (78%, n=464), “churches” (77%, n=461), and “public
parks” (76%, n=475). For these respondents, the Neighborhood Watch appears to have the
highest unmet need with 41.3% (n=260). Although it may be outside the realm of the Head Start
program, efforts could be taken to consider the degree to which neighborhood safety is an issue
for families. According to the 2008-09 PIRs, 4.1% (n=284) of Head Start families and 41.9%
(n=119) of Early Head Start families received emergency interventions for basic needs. During
the same time period, no Head Start or Early Head Start families were noted to have had
assistance with public transportation. The percentages of respondents whose need for Public
Services were met are seen in the following figure:

                                                                    Harris County
                                                          Acce ss to O the r Public Se rvice s


                                            100
                                             90
                                             80
                    Percent of Caregivers




                                             70
                                             60
                                             50
                                             40
                                             30
                                             20
                                             10
                                              0
                                                  1   2       3      4       5      6      7     8   9   10
                                                                       Se rvice Ne e ds Me t



                                       Public Service Needs Met
         1. Public parks and recreation areas     6. Recycling programs
         2. Community Centers                     7. Emergency response services
         3. Public transportation                 8. Public services (trash collection, street
                                                  maintenance, etc.)
         4. Neighborhood Watch                    9. Community Centers that serve my culture
         5. Churches                              10. Stores, restaurants, entertainment

Program Reach and Recruitment
Caregivers were asked whether they knew of families who would be eligible for either Head
Start or Early Head Start, but were not being served. Over two-thirds (68%, n=2,223) of
respondents did not know of any families eligible for Head Start and not receiving services and
70% (n=2,278) did not know any families eligible for Early Head Start and not enrolled. Parents
were also asked if they knew any specific groups, such as other cultural groups, the elderly or


                                                                                                              148
youth, not receiving appropriate services. An overwhelming majority, 95% (n=3,028) said they
did not know of any. Of the 5% who did, the elderly (n=34), youth (n=25), and homeless (n=22)
were highlighted as not receiving the appropriate services.
Greatest “Unmet” Needs
Parents were asked, at the survey’s conclusion, what their three greatest “unmet” needs were.
Forty-two percent (42%, n=1,404) of caregivers stated “Employment”, the largest percentage
among all needs. Employment was followed by education (35%, n=1,170), housing and health
were closely tied at 26% (n=878, n=873). Using the Borda method of multi-decision making,
parents reported their three greatest “unmet” needs were:
               (1) Employment          (2) Education        (3) Housing/Health

           Harris County Families          Borda Score   Avg. Endorsement         SD
           1. Employment                         11690               8.33        0.02
           2. Education                           9821               8.39        0.02
           3. Housing                             7086               8.07        0.03
           4. Health                              7075               8.10        0.03
           5. Transportation                      6498               8.17        0.03
           6. Food & nutrition                    6593               7.91        0.03
           7. Social/family services              4891                7.81       0.04
           8. Legal                               4262               8.07        0.04
           9. Mental health                       2566               7.79        0.06
           10. Disabilities                       2334               8.02        0.05

Additional Comments
Caregivers were given an opportunity to provide additional comments regarding their needs.
Responses included the need for employment (n=27), an inability to access SNAP, formerly
known as the food stamp program (n=9), as well as assistance with basic needs support (n=8),
before and after school care (n=8), and educational support for children and adults (n=8).

Summary
Approximately 50% of Harris County Head Start families enrolled in the 2009-2010 program
year completed the Family Survey. Over two-thirds (68%, n=2,223) of respondents did not know
of any families eligible for Head Start and not receiving services and 70% (n=2,278) did not
know any families eligible for Early Head Start and not enrolled. Their three greatest unmet
needs in order of importance included: (1) Employment, (2) Education, and (3)
Housing/Health.

Reported strengths and unmet needs for each service category include the following:
    Transportation to Head Start: The majority (88.4%) of families were able to easily
       bring their children to their Head Start/Early Head Start program everyday with most
       (73%) dropping-off children in their own cars.
    Access to services overall: More than three-quarters (79%) thought it was
       easy/somewhat easy to access services overall to met their needs.




                                                                                              149
Their greatest unmet needs included the following:
    Education – Computer classes (55.7%, n=478), affordable before/after school care
       (52.7%, n=479), personal finance programs (50.2%, 404), and enroll/stay in college
       (50.1%, n=403), marriage education (48.1%, n=351), GED/HS diploma (46.5%, n=395),
       and literacy- building (45.1%, n=297)
    Employment – Classes to help learn a trade (61.9%, n=511), help finding and getting a
       good job (59.9%, n=490), and help preparing for employment (56.1%, n=409)
    Social Services – Access to a lawyer or legal advice (50.1%, n=281), help with
       immigration questions or concerns (49.9%, n=298), safe affordable housing (47.7%,
       n=308), and help paying rent or other bills (47%, n=375)
    Health – Health education (Information on staying healthy, exercising, etc.) (41.4%,
       n=299)
    Mental Health – Stress management Classes (47%, n=304), anger management classes
       (45.7%, n=257), counseling services (41.8%, n=261), respite care services (41.8%,
       n=203), treatment for drug and alcohol problems (41.0%, n=186)
    Other public services – Neighborhood watch (41.3%, n=260)

Their greatest met needs included the following:
    Education – Affordable early education (87.3%, n= 1398), quality early education
       (85.5%, n=1251), fatherhood programs (45.2%, n=392), Parenting education (43.6%,
       n=374), ESL classes (41.4%, n=348)
    Social services – Emergency assistance for food (50.4%, n=449) and services in own
       language (44.9%, n=289)
    Health and Nutrition – Immunizations for children (63.9%, n=496), assistance enrolling
       in CHIP or Medicaid (58.8%, n=521), medical care for children (58%, n=452), prenatal
       care (47.6%, n=273), access to affordable fresh produce (43.5%, n=317), immunizations
       for adults (42.6%, n=287), and dental care, 40.6%, n=333)
    Mental Health – Child abuse/neglect services (40.2%, n=190)
    Disabilities- Local public school provision of special education (44.1%, n=230) and
       screening for early detection of disabilities (42.2%, n=242)
    Other Public Services – Emergency response services (58.6%, n=348), churches
       (55.9%, n=331), public services (e.g. trash collection, street maintenance, etc, 52.3%,
       n=312), parks & recreation (49.1%, n= 299), businesses (47.8%, n= 268), public
       transportation (46.5%, n= 282), community centers (46.0%, n=287), and cultural
       community centers (43.6%, n= 239)




                                                                                          150
HS/EHS Family Strengths and Needs:
Harris County Department of Education
Response Rate
For HCDE, 695 caregivers completed the Head Start Family Survey, comprising 50% of the
1,392 Head Start families enrolled during the 2009-2010 program year. HCDE only offers Head
Start; therefore all surveys were completed by caregivers with children enrolled in that program.
Nearly, three out of five caregivers (59%, n=365) requested a Spanish translated questionnaire.
This is an increase compared to the 2006 community assessment as fewer than 20% of the
surveys were completed in Spanish.
Transportation
The majority (89.5%) of families found it ‘very easy or somewhat easy’ to bring their child(ren)
to their Head Start program everyday (av.=3.32). The ease of transporting children is probably
due in part to the fact that 77% (n=537) of families dropped-off children in their own cars. Some
families had other alternatives, which included taking a friend or relative’s vehicle or carpooling
(15%, n=104); walking 11%, n=78); or other such as a Daycare bus (4%, n=26). The forms of
transport to Head Start remained the same since the last community assessment in 2006.
Service Accessibility
More than three fourths (77.4%) of caregivers reported that they found it ‘very easy or somewhat
easy’ to acquire services for their family. Sentiment had a strong shift towards “somewhat easy”
(avg.=2.99). A review of what was provided within the community will reveal the level of need
and satisfaction of families enrolled in Head Start. The service categories to be explored include
education, employment, social services, health and nutrition, mental health, disabilities, and
public services.
Not all surveys received from families contained complete data. Therefore, the number of
responses for each category is less than the overall number of surveys received for each grantee.
To help understand the level of missing responses for each category, descriptions begin with the
range of responses for service items in that category and percent out of the number of surveys
submitted. Survey results for each service category are then displayed in tables with short
narratives that summarize service needs with the highest endorsement. Caregiver comments and
PIR data are included as relevant to support the findings.
The table for each service category first displays the number of families who chose whether the
service was a need, not needed, or did not know. The second part of the table follows with
additional information on whether the service items were met, somewhat met, or not met (unmet)
with associated percentages. Services that approximately 40% or more of respondent families
identified as most needed and either met or not met were selected as the highest met and unmet
needs. The results for the top needs in the tables are shaded in gray and the highest results for
degree of met/unmet services identified by approximately 40% or more of families are shaded in
light green if met, in yellow if somewhat met, and in pink if not met.




                                                                                                151
Education
The response rates for the Education section ranged from 14.1% (n=98) to 45.3% (n=315). Responses are displayed in the following
table.
Educational Services – HCDE
Service                   Total      Needed    Not Needed Don't Know Total   Met   Somewhat Met               Not Met
                            N       N       %   N     %    N     %     N   N    %   N      %                  N    %
Affordable Education       315     290    92.1 20     6.3  5     1.6  314 286 91.1  18     5.7                10 3.2
Quality Education          279     254    91.0 16     5.7  9     3.2  279 245 87.8  15     5.4                19 6.8
Parenting Education        141     110    78.0 21    14.9 10     7.1  140  62 44.3  28     20                 50 35.7
Fatherhood programs        130      98    75.4 20    15.4 12     9.2  128  62 48.4  19    14.8                47 36.7
Computer Classes           121      89    73.6 30    24.8  2     1.7  119  27 22.7  11     9.2                81 68.1
ESL Classes                150     110    73.3 37    24.7  3      2   144  63 43.7  24    16.7                57 39.6
Affordable Childcare       136      93    68.4 40    29.4  3     2.2  134  34 25.4  14    10.4                86 64.2
Help with School Work      112      75    67.0 33    29.5  4     3.6  110  52 47.3  16    14.5                42 38.2
Personal finance programs 115       72    62.6 33    28.7 10     8.7  112  15 13.4  13    11.6                84 75.0
Marriage Education         100      53    53.0 44    44.0  3     3.0   98  21 21.4   9     9.2                68 69.4
GED/ HS Diploma            131      68    51.9 41    31.3 22    16.8  124  48 38.7  11     8.9                65 52.4
Enroll/Stay in College     117      59    50.4 46    39.3 12    10.3  112  40 35.7  16    14.3                56 50.0
Literacy-building          102      50    49.0 43    42.2  9     8.8   96  20 20.8  13    13.5                63 65.6




                                                                                                                              152
Educational Service Needs
Nearly all the Educational services were identified as needs by HCDE families. More than 90%
of caregiver respondents expressed a need for affordable and quality education, which more than
95% reported was “met” by early childhood programs like Head Start. Comments supporting this
sentiment include, “I really like this program. My son learned a lot over the last 2 years,” and
“Head Start has exceeded my expectations with my children. Very helpful!” Another also
expressed, “Head Start needs more classrooms to (give) services to more children/families.”
While early childhood programs were a benefit to many families, two thirds were additionally
challenged by their need for affordable child care for children less than 2 years and before and
after school care for their school age children. Nearly seven out of ten (n=93) families were in
need of child care, yet two thirds (64%, n=86) of parents noted their need as “unmet”.

Another point of interest can be found in the level of unmet need for other educational services.
For instance, three fourths of interested respondents could not access personal finance programs
and more than two thirds could not access computer classes, marriage/relationship education, or
classes to build their reading skills. Furthermore, half of those interested found getting a GED
and enrolling in college as unmet. Focus group parents suggested that more parents would come
to ESL trainings and computer classes if they were “offered during the early part of the day,
instead of the afternoon when older children are coming home from school” and they begin
preparing dinner for their families. They also support the need for budgeting classes saying
“classes are needed to help manage the resources and budget the money they do have,” as well as
“plan meals and shop ahead to reduce monthly expenses,” and “how to use coupons” to save
money.

According to HCDE’s 2008-2009 PIR, only 0.35% (n=4) HS families accessed GED and college
selection, 0.5% (n=6) participated in ESL training, 0.7% (n=8) accessed parenting classes, and
no one participated in marriage or relationship education. The percentages of respondents whose
needs for educational supports were met are seen in the following figure.




                                                                                             153
                                                                              HCDE
                                                    Acce ss to Educational Services for Children and Families


                            100
                             90
                             80


                   Percent of Caregivers
                                           70
                                           60
                                           50
                                           40
                                           30
                                           20
                                           10
                                            0
                                                1   2     3    4    5    6     7    8    9    10   11   12      13
                                                                        Se rvice Nee ds Met




                                      Educational Service Needs
                1. Affordable Education             8. Help with School Work
                2. Quality Education                9. Personal finance programs
                3. Parenting Education              10. Marriage Education
                4. Fatherhood programs              11. GED/ HS Diploma
                5. Computer Classes                 12. Enroll/Stay in College
                6. ESL Classes                      13. Literacy-building
                7. Affordable Childcare

Employment
The response rates for the Employment section ranged from 15.3% (n=106) to 19.7% (n=137).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                                                     154
Employment Services – HCDE
                                                                          Don't                           Somewhat
Service                               Total    Needed      Not Needed     Know      Total        Met         Met       Not Met
                                        N     N     %       N     %     N     %       N     N       %     N      %    N      %
Help finding and getting a good job    119    90   75.6    25     21    4     3.4    117    28     23.9   21   17.9   68    58.1
Help with resume, interview skills,
professional clothing                 109     69    63.3   34    31.2   6     5.5   106     32     30.2   13   12.3   61    57.5
Classes to help learn a trade or
profession                            137     109   79.6   23    16.8   5     3.6   134     29     21.6   17   12.7   88    65.7




                                                                                                                           155
Employment Service Needs
Employment services were expressed as a need by HCDE caregivers as well as families in the
other three Head Start regions. Most caregiver respondents (75%) expressed a need for “help
with finding and getting a good job” and almost six out of ten still felt it was unmet. More than
three fourths also reported they could use “classes to help them learn a trade or profession”
which two thirds felt was unmet. On the other hand, three out of five caregivers needed help with
their resume, interviewing skills, and professional clothing and two fifths said their need was met
or somewhat met. An idea that focus group parents added for helping to get employment was
“need more computer classes to learn how to create an online resume.” According to the 2008-
09 PIR, 0.2% (n=2) of families participated in job training.

The percentages of caregivers whose need for employment services were met are seen in the
following figure.

                                                             HCDE
                                                 Access to Employment Services


                                  100
                                   90
                                   80
                     Percent of Caregivers




                                   70
                                   60
                                   50
                                   40
                                   30
                                   20
                                   10
                                    0
                                             1                   2               3

                                                           Service Needs Met


                                         Employment Service Needs
                    1. Help finding and getting a good job
                    2. Classes to help learn a trade or profession
                    3. Help with resume, interview skills, professional clothing


Social Services
The response rates for the Social Services section ranged from 8.2% (n=57) to 23.2% (n=161).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                               156
Social Services - HCDE
                                                                                                            Somewhat
Service                           Total     Needed     Not Needed   Don't Know    Total        Met             Met         Not Met
                                    N      N     %     N      %      N      %       N     N           %     N       %     N      %
Help getting food for my family    161    134   83.2   26    16.1    1      0.6    157    89         56.7   20     12.7   48    30.6
Help paying my rent or other
bills                             118     84    71.2   27    22.9    7     5.9    117     32         27.4   15     12.8   70    59.8
Services available in my
language                           93     58    62.4   32    34.4    3     3.2     87     40         46.0   12     13.8   35    40.2
Safe, affordable housing           82     51    62.2   26    31.7    5     6.1     82     21         25.6   13     15.9   48    58.5
Access to a lawyer or legal
advice                             63     37    58.7   25    39.7    1     1.6     61     21         34.4   5      8.2    35    57.4
Help with immigration questions
or concerns                        88     51    58.0   33    37.5    4     4.5     84     17         20.2   10     11.9   57    67.9
Help finding a shelter or other
assistance                         73     25    34.2   43    58.9    5     6.8     71     22         31.0   13     18.3   36    50.7




                                                                                                                               157
Social Service Needs
HCDE families saw a need for six out of the seven Social Service items. The majority of
respondents (83.2%, n=134) reported that “Help getting food for my family” was their greatest
social service need and it was met or somewhat met for seven out of ten respondents. Also, three
out of five families saw language-appropriate services as a need and it was met for 60% of that
group. On the other hand, almost three fourths of respondents reported “basic needs assistance
(e.g. rent, utilities, etc.)” was a high need, though, it was still unmet for three out of five
caregivers. Other services with needs more than half to two thirds unmet for those it impacted
included “help with immigration questions or concerns”; “safe, affordable housing”; and “access
to a lawyer or legal advice.” Focus group parents explained that reliable help with immigration
questions is needed. They said that a lot of extra cost for mistakes from notaries and other people
not properly informed is a problem. Because of this many would rather “go to a lawyer for
questions and gather documents for them, not the notary”, though they “worry whether the
lawyer is good or bad.” Of least need to parents was assistance in finding temporary shelter
(35%, n=25); however, for that group, half felt it was still unmet. Temporary shelter may be an
increasing need for HS families as we go into the recession. For example, a respondent to the
survey said, “Husband has not worked in 3 months. We could lose our house and other
necessities.” Another said, “Have been on Harris County Housing Authority waiting list for a
year and half have not heard anything, close to being homeless. HHA is not doing anything and I
cannot afford a mortgage. When will they open the list? Send me something, please.” According
to the 2008-09 PIR, 0.4% (n=4) received housing and utility assistance and one person received
crisis intervention services. No families or children were homeless during the year.
The percentages of caregivers whose need for social services were met are seen in the following
figure.
                                                              HCDE
                                                     Access to Social Services


                                       100
                                        90
                     Percent of Caregivers




                                        80
                                        70
                                        60
                                        50
                                        40
                                        30
                                        20
                                        10
                                         0
                                             1   2        3         4        5    6   7
                                                              Service Needs Met



                                             Social Service Needs
             1. Help getting food for my family      5. Access to a lawyer or legal advice
                                                     6. Help with immigration questions or
             2. Help paying my rent or other bills concerns
             3. Services available in my language 7. Help finding a shelter or other assistance
             4. Safe, affordable housing


                                                                                                  158
Health and Nutrition
The response rates for the Health and Nutrition section ranged from 12.5% (n=87) to 21.4% (n=149). Responses are displayed in the
following table.

Health and Nutrition Services – HCDE
Service                                        Total    Needed  Not Needed Don't Know Total   Met   Somewhat Met          Not Met
                                                 N      N    %   N     %    N     %     N   N    %   N      %             N    %
Good, affordable dentists                       149    125 83.9 21    14.1  3      2   148  68 45.9  17    11.5           63 42.6
Immunizations for my children                   130    106 81.5 24    18.5  0      0   130 104 80    12    9.2            14 10.8
Medical care for my children                    128    104 81.3 24    18.8  0      0   128 100 78.1  10    7.8            18 14.1
Classes on healthy eating and cooking           128    102 79.7 22    17.2  4     3.1  127  57 44.9  24    18.9           46 36.2
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid        143    109 76.2 34    23.8  0      0   139 100 70.9  15    10.6           24 17.0
Immunizations for me or other adult
family members                                 114     84   73.7   28   24.6   2   1.8   110   51   46.4   16     14.5    43 39.1
Information or classes on staying healthy,
exercising etc.                                117     86   73.5   27   23.1   4   3.4   116   48   41.4   24     20.7    44   37.9
Fresh fruit and vegetables that I can afford   119     85   71.4   32   26.9   2   1.7   119   62   52.1   18     15.1    39   32.8
Good medical care that I can afford            111     79   71.2   29   26.1   3   2.7   111   46   41.4   11     9.9     54   48.6
Health insurance that I can afford             116     79   68.1   34   29.3   3   2.6   115   57   49.6   9      7.8     49   42.6
Medical care for pregnant women                93      49   52.7   42   45.2   2   2.2    87   50   57.5    7      8.0    30   34.5




                                                                                                                               159
Health and Nutrition Service Needs
More than half to over 80% of caregiver respondents regard the services within health and
nutrition as a need for their families. More than 80% of respondents (eight of out ten parents)
wanted good, affordable dentists (n=125) which over the year was unmet for 42% of that group.
Care for children is seen in a high need for their immunizations, medical care, and assistance
with enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid which were all met or somewhat met by 83-90% of
respondents. Three fourths of respondents also indicated a need for “Classes on healthy eating
and cooking” which was met or somewhat met for 63.8% of that group. HCDE’s Head Start on
Healthy Living program may be helping to meet this need. On the other hand, even though
immunizations for children are met for the majority (90%) of families, only 60% of adult family
members and had their immunization needs met or somewhat met. Regarding classes on staying
healthy, focus group parents said they were needed, but “sometime we are not good about
following a healthy lifestyle because we like to eat a lot”, and “…might be a need for learning
how to make quick and easy healthy meals.” In addition, respondents have concern for obtaining
affordable medical care and health insurance which were met or somewhat met for only slightly
more than half of respondents. Parents expressed frustration with the limited choices they have
for clinics that are only open from 8 am to 4 pm, which prompts them to go to the emergency
room after that. Another voiced a concern for “more help to young pregnant girls that can’t talk
with their families because they are scared, that decide to have an abortion.” According to the
2008-09 PIR, 91% (n=1198) HCDE HS families were enrolled in health insurance at the end of
year. Furthermore, 39% (n=510) of HS children received medical services, 75.5% received
immunizations, and 44.6% (n=584) received dental services.
The percentages of caregivers whose needs for health and nutrition services were met are seen in
the following figure.




                                                                                            160
                                                               HCDE
                                               Access to Health and Nutrition Services

                              100
                               90


                   Percent of Caregivers
                               80
                               70
                               60
                               50
                               40
                               30
                               20
                               10
                                0
                                           1   2    3     4     5    6    7     8    9   10   11
                                                              Service Needs Met


                                  Health and Nutrition Service Needs
1. Good, affordable dentists                             7. Information/classes on staying healthy,
                                                         exercising etc.
2. Immunizations for my children                         8. Fresh fruit and vegetables that I can afford
3. Medical care for my children                          9. Good medical care that I can afford
4. Classes on healthy eating and cooking                 10. Health insurance that I can afford
5. Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid              11. Medical care for pregnant women
6. Immunizations for me or other adult family members




                                                                                                           161
Mental Health
The response rates for the Mental Health section ranged from 9.1% (n=63) to 18% (n=125). Responses are displayed in the following
table.

Mental Health Services – HCDE
Service                                      Total   Needed      Not Needed Don't Know Total     Met       Somewhat Met   Not Met
                                              N      N   %        N     %    N     %    N      N   %        N      %      N    %
Classes on how to raise well adjusted,
healthy children                             125     94   75.2   28   22.4   3    2.4   123    55   44.7    11     8.9    57   46.3
Counseling or therapy services               110     79   71.8   26   23.6   5    4.5   106    41   38.7    14    13.2    51   48.1
Classes on how to handle stress              110     78   70.9   30   27.3   2    1.8   108    28   25.9    15    13.9    65   60.2
Classes on how to handle anger                91     54   59.3   33   36.3   4    4.4    90    27   30.0    14    15.6    49   54.4
Care for sick/disabled family members so I
can rest/run errands                          73     29   39.7   43   58.9   1    1.4    72    21   29.2    11    15.3    40   55.6
Help with domestic violence issues            66     25   37.9   41   62.1   0     0     63    17   27.0    10    15.9    36   57.1
Treatment for drug or alcohol problems        75     27   36.0   45   60.0   3     4     72    23   31.9     8    11.1    41   56.9
Help with child abuse or neglect issues       73     26   35.6   43   58.9   4    5.5    71    26   36.6     9    12.7    36   50.7




                                                                                                                               162
Mental Health Service Needs
Many Head Start families identified the same needs for the service items noted by HCDE
families. As seen in the previous table, of those caregivers responding to this section, about three
fourths expressed a need for “classes to help raise well adjusted, healthy children” and
“counseling or therapy services” which more than half said was met or somewhat met. Despite
the majority saying classes on “how to raise well adjusted, children” was a need, a focus group
parent disagreed, saying that “it is up to parents to decide what is a well adjusted, healthy child
not others.” If others have this sentiment it might explain less than enthusiastic turnouts. A focus
group parent agreed that a need for counseling or therapy services exists in the area especially for
depression. She said children “have a counselor at school but there is nothing for adults.” More
than two thirds also voiced a need for “classes on handling stress,” though, 60% said it was
unmet. In addition, “classes for how to handle anger” were needed by 59% of responding
caregivers with more than half reporting the need was unmet. An idea from a parent on the
survey gave that might help meet the need for handling stress and anger especially for single
mothers which involved meetings where they are “discussing about life and getting advice from
each other.”
Supports related to child maltreatment, substance abuse, and respite were not in great need in
comparison to other mental health services. However, for those families impacted by domestic
violence, substance abuse, respite care for disabled family members, and child abuse, more than
half felt their needs were unmet. According to the 2008-2009 PIR, while only eight parents
participated in parenting education, no HCDE families participated in mental health, child abuse,
or domestic violence services; or substance abuse prevention & treatment. The percentages of
caregivers whose need for mental health services were met are seen in the following figure.

                                                              HCDE
                                                  Access to Mental Health Services


                                    100
                                     90
                      Percent of Caregivers




                                     80
                                     70
                                     60
                                     50
                                     40
                                     30
                                     20
                                     10
                                      0
                                              1   2      3      4      5      6      7   8

                                                             Service Needs Met


                                         Mental Health Service Needs
               1. Classes on how to raise well      5. Care for sick/disabled family members
               adjusted, healthy children           so I can rest/run errands
               2. Counseling or therapy services    6. Help with domestic violence issues
               3. Classes on how to handle stress   7. Treatment for drug or alcohol problems
               4. Classes on how to handle anger    8. Help with child abuse or neglect issues



                                                                                                 163
      Disabilities
      The response rates for the Disabilities section ranged from 8.3% (n=58) to 14.2% (n=99). Responses are displayed in the following
      table.

Disability Services – HCDE
                                                                                       Don't                             Somewhat
Service                                              Total    Needed     Not Needed    Know      Total         Met         Met        Not Met
                                                      N      N     %      N     %     N    %      N       N          %   N     %      N    %
Help identifying if my young child may have a
disability                                            99     69   69.7   26    26.3   4     4      99     45     45.5    18   18.2   36     36.4
Special education services through my local public
school                                                69     40   58.0   29     42    0     0      70     29     41.4    5     7.1   36     51.4
Support for a family member with disabilities         66     33   50.0   31     47    2     3      66     21     31.8    9    13.6   36     54.5
Child care for children with disabilities             58     24   41.4   33    56.9   1    1.7     58     15     25.9    8    13.8   35     60.3




                                                                                                                                      164
Disability Service Needs
While all the service items were regarded as “needed”, the percentages of need for disability
services may be due in part to the small number of children diagnosed with a disability. During
the 2008-2009 school year, only 3.6% (n=47) of children were identified prior to or during their
enrollment in Head Start, therefore, other parents may have decided to skip a section they saw as
not applicable to their child(ren). Of the respondents, more than two thirds reported that help
identifying whether a child had a disability was an essential service and about two thirds said this
need was met or somewhat met. Also, more than half saw special education services through a
local public school as a need, though slightly more than half reported it was unmet. Furthermore,
half of the respondents reported that “support for family members with disabilities” was a need
that was unmet for more than a half of the group. Child care for children with disabilities was of
lesser need (41%, n=24) to parents, though, of those it impacted, 60% were unable to access it.

The percentages of caregivers whose need for disability services were met are seen in the
following figure.

                                                                 HCDE
                                                      Access to Disability Services

                                            100
                                             90
                                             80
                    Percent of Caregivers




                                             70
                                             60
                                             50
                                             40
                                             30
                                             20
                                             10
                                              0
                                                  1              2                3    4
                                                                 Se rvice Ne eds Met



                                           Disability Service Needs
                  1. Help identifying if my young        3. Support for a family member
                  child may have a disability            with disabilities
                  2. Special education services          4. Child care for children with
                  through my local public school         disabilities

Other Public Services
The response rates for the Public Services section ranged from 12.1% (n=84) to 15.3% (n=106).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                                165
Other Public Services - HCDE
                                                                Not          Don't                       Somewhat
Service                                     Total    Needed    Needed        Know     Total     Met          Met        Not Met
                                              N     N    %    N     %     N      %      N     N   %      N        %     N    %
Public transportation                        100    80 80.0   18 18.0      2    2.0     99    52 52.5    8        8.1   39 39.4
Neighborhood Watch                           103    80 77.7   19 18.4      4    3.9    103    34 33.0    19      18.4   50 48.5
Public parks and recreation areas            103    79 76.7   18 17.5      6    5.8    103    68 66.0    11      10.7   24 23.3
Churches                                      91    69 75.8   20 22.0      2    2.2     90    69 68.9    14      14.4   17 16.7
Community Centers                            106    80 75.5   16 15.1     10    9.4    106    56 52.8    17      16.0   33 31.1
Emergency response services                  101    75 74.3   22 21.8      4    4.0    100    66 66.0    15      15.0   19 19.0
Recycling programs                            95    68 71.6   21 22.1      6    6.3     95    35 36.8   16.8     16.8   44 46.3
Public services (trash collection, street
maintenance, etc.)                           95     65 68.4   23   24.2   7     7.4    95     53 55.8   14      14.7    28 29.5
Community Centers that serve my culture      84     57 67.9   25   29.8   2     2.4    84     32 38.1   15      17.9    37 44.0
Stores, restaurants, entertainment           90     54 60.0   27   30.0   9    10.0    87     44 50.8   15      17.2    28 32.2




                                                                                                                           166
Other Public Services Needs
The majority of respondents reported that access to public services was needed over the past
year. Caregivers, for the most part, agreed that public services were essential to the wellbeing of
their families; however, the ability to benefit from these services varied. For the majority of
HCDE respondents, “public transportation” was very important, though unmet for more than a
third. A focus group parent said “we do have the metro but it goes to downtown and we don’t
have a great need to go there.” More than three fourths of parents also indicated that a
“neighborhood watch” program was necessary; yet, almost half did not have this service in their
neighborhood which could help them feel safer. Services that most respondents valued for the
community and were mostly met or somewhat met included “public parks and recreation
centers,” “churches,” “community centers,” and emergency response services (e.g. police, fire,
ambulance, etc.). Almost three fourths of respondents valued “recycling programs;” yet almost
half did not have access to such programs in the community. To note, is that two thirds thought
culturally specific community centers were needed; though slightly more than two out of five
respondents could not access them.

The percentages of caregivers whose needs for public services in their community were met are
seen in the following figure.

                                                                        HCDE
                                                              Access to Public Services


                              100
                                             90
                                             80
                     Percent of Caregivers




                                             70
                                             60
                                             50
                                             40
                                             30
                                             20
                                             10
                                              0
                                                  1   2   3      4      5       6      7   8   9   10
                                                                     Se rvice Ne eds Met




                                            Public Service Needs
                 1. Public transportation            6. Emergency response services
                 2. Neighborhood Watch               7. Recycling programs
                 3. Public parks and recreation      8. Public services (trash collection,
                 areas                               street maintenance, etc.)
                 4. Churches                         9. Community Centers that serve my
                                                     culture
                 5. Community Centers                10. Stores, restaurants, entertainment




                                                                                                        167
Program Reach and Recruitment
Caregivers were asked whether they knew of families who would be eligible for either Head
Start or Early Head Start, but were not being served. More than two-thirds (70%, n=481) of
parents did not know of other families who were eligible for Head Start, and not receive services.
Additionally, 74% (n=503) did not know any families eligible for Early Head Start, that were not
already enrolled. Parents were also asked if the program had missed specific social groups, such
as other cultural groups, elderly and youth; 97% (n=650) said they did not know of any groups
that the program could focus recruiting efforts towards. A small percentage highlighted that
youth (n=3), the elderly (n=3), and homeless (n=3) are not receiving the appropriate services.

Greatest “Unmet” Needs
Using the Borda method of multi-decision making, HCDE parents reported their three greatest
“unmet” needs were:
    HCDE Families                           Borda Score       Avg. Endorsement            SD
    1. Employment                                  2099                   8.33           0.05
    2. Transportation                              1339                   8.27           0.06
    3. Education                                   1330                   8.11           0.08

Additional Comments

Caregivers were given an opportunity to provided additional comments regarding their needs,
responses included the need for employment (n=7) and housing (n=3). Parents also highlighted
that the elderly (n=3), youth (n=3), and the homeless (n=3) are not receiving the appropriate
services.

Summary
Fifty percent of HCDE Head Start families enrolled in the 2009-2010 program year completed
the Family survey and two parents from the policy council participated in a focus group. Their
responses highlight the service needs that were met (strengths) and those that were
overwhelmingly unmet (needs). The overwhelming majority (97%) did not know anyone eligible
for HS or EHS services and not receiving services. Their three greatest unmet needs in order of
importance included: (1) Employment, (2) Transportation, and (3) Education.

Reported strengths and unmet needs for each service category include the following:

      Transportation to Head Start: The majority (89.5%) of families were able to easily
       bring their children to their Head Start program everyday with most (77%) dropping-off
       children in their own cars.
      Access to services overall: More than three fourths (77%) thought it was easy/somewhat
       easy to access services overall to meet their needs.

Their greatest unmet needs included the following:
    Education – Personal finance programs (75%, n=84), marriage education (69.4%, n=68),
       computer classes (68.1%, n=81), literacy-building (65.6%, n=63), and affordable child


                                                                                                168
       care (64.2%, n=86) (i.e. for children less than 2 yrs. or before & after school care for
       school aged children)
      Employment – Classes to learn a trade (65.7%, n=88), finding a good job (58.1%, n=68),
       and help preparing for employment such as with resumes, interview skills, and
       professional clothing (57.5%, n=61)
      Social Services – Help with immigration questions or concerns (67.9%, 57), help paying
       with rent or other bills (59.8%, n=70), safe, affordable housing (58.5%, n=48), access to a
       lawyer or legal advice (57.4%, n=35), and help finding a shelter or other assistance
       (50.7%, n=36)
      Health – Good medical care that caregivers can afford (48.6%, n=54) and health
       insurance that caregivers can afford (42.6%, n=54)
      Mental Health – Classes on how to handle stress (60.2%, n=65), help with domestic
       violence issues (57.1%, n=36), treatment for drug or alcohol problems (56.9%, n=41),
       respite care (55.6%, n=40), classes on how to handle anger (54.4%, n=49), help with
       child abuse or neglect (50.7%, n=36), counseling or therapy services (48.1%, n=51),
       classes on raising well adjusted, healthy children (46.3%, n=57)
      Disabilities – Support to families either for child care for children with disabilities
       (60.3%, n=35), for a family member with disabilities (54.5%, n=36), and special
       education services through local public school (51.4%, n=36)
      Other Public Services – Neighborhood Watch (48.5%, n=50), recycling programs
       (46.3%, n=44), and cultural community centers (44.0%, n=37)

Their greatest met needs included the following:
    Education – Affordable education (91.1%, n=286), quality early education (87.8%,
       n=245), fatherhood programs (48.4%, n=62), parenting education (44.3%, n=62), and
       ESL Classes (43.7%, n=63)
    Health –Immunizations for their children (80%, n=104), medical care for children
       (70.9%, n=100), assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid (70.9%, n=100), medical care
       for pregnant women (57.5%, n=50), affordable fresh fruit and vegetables (52.1%, n=62),
       immunizations for caregivers and other adult family members (46.4%, n=51), good
       affordable dentists (45.9%, n=68), classes on healthy eating and cooking (44.9%, n=57),
       and information or classes on staying healthy, exercising, etc. (41.4%, n=48)
    Social Services – Help getting food for my family (56.7%, n=89)
    Disabilities – Help identifying if child has a disability (45.5%, n=45)
    Other Public Services – Churches (68.9%, n=69), Emergency response services (66%,
       n=66), Public parks and recreation areas (66%, n=68), Public services (55.8%, n=53),
       Community centers (52.8%, n=56), Public transportation (52.5%, n=52) and businesses
       (50.8%, n=44)




                                                                                              169
HS/ EHS Family Strengths and Needs:
AVANCE
Response Rate
Of the 1,269 families enrolled during the 2009-2010 program year, 589 caregivers completed the
Head Start Family Survey, comprising 46% of the Head Start families. Respondents included
caregivers with children enrolled in Head Start (99%, n=581) and in Early Head Start (1%, n=8).
Nearly two out of five caregivers (38%, n=365) requested a Spanish translated questionnaire.
The percentage of caregivers who completed the survey in Spanish is comparable to the
percentage of individuals that completed the Family Survey during the last community
assessment.

Transportation
The majority of families (90%, n=530) found it easy to somewhat easy to bring their child(ren)
to their Head Start or Early Head Start program everyday (avg.= 3.35). The ease of transporting
children is probably due in part to the fact that 70% (n=414) of families dropped-off children in
their own cars. Some families had other alternatives, which included taking a friend or relative’s
vehicle or carpooling (13%, n=78); school bus 11%, n=65); walking (4%, n=23); and public
transportation (3%, n=21). A few requested expansion of transportation services to Head Start
centers (n=4) such as a bus (“even if parents all had to meet at a common place”). The forms of
transport remained the same from last Community assessment and the percent of use for each
was also comparable.
Service Accessibility by Category
Eighty one percent (81.5%, n=470) of caregivers reported that they found it ‘somewhat easy’ to
‘very easy’ to acquire services (avg. = 3.13). A review of what was provided within the
community will reveal the level of need and satisfaction of families enrolled in Head Start. The
service categories to be explored include education, employment, social services, health and
nutrition, mental health, disabilities, and public services.
Not all surveys received from families contained complete data. Therefore, the number of
responses for each category is less than the overall number of surveys received for each grantee.
To help understand the level of missing responses for each category, descriptions begin with the
range of responses for service items in that category and percent out of the number of surveys
submitted. Survey results for each service category are then displayed in tables with short
narratives that summarize service needs with the highest endorsement. Caregiver comments and
PIR data are included as relevant to support the findings.

The table for each service category first displays the number of families who chose whether the
service was a need, not needed, or did not know. The second part of the table follows with
additional information on whether the service items were met, somewhat met, or not met (unmet)
with associated percentages. Services that approximately 40% or more of respondent families
identified as most needed and either met or not met were selected as the highest met and unmet
needs. The results for the top needs in the tables are shaded in gray and the highest results for


                                                                                               170
degree of met/unmet services identified by approximately 40% or more of families are shaded in
light green if met, in yellow if somewhat met, and in pink if not met.
Education
The response rates for the Education services ranged from 10% (n=59) to 38.9% (n=229).
Responses are displayed in the following table




                                                                                           171
Educational Services – AVANCE
Service                  Total      Needed      Not Needed    Don't Know    Total         Met          Somewhat Met     Not Met
                           N      N       %     N       %     N       %       N      N           %       N      %     N       %
Quality Education         191    175     91.6   13      6.8    3      1.6    190    172         90.5    16     8.4     2      1.1
Affordable Education      229    207     90.4   16      7.0    6      2.6    224    204         91.1    17     7.6     3      1.3
ESL Classes                80     83     80.6   18     17.5    2      1.9     79     47         46.5    23    22.8    31     30.7
Computer Classes          110     82     78.1   21     20.0    2      1.9    110     37         35.6    15    14.4    52     50.0
Affordable Childcare      105     81     73.6   25     22.7    4      3.6    101     45         40.9    12    10.9    53     48.2
Literacy-building         105     27     45.8   27     45.8    5      8.5    104     25         42.2    14    23.7    20     33.9
Parenting Education        96     97     77.6   24     19.2    4      3.2     94     71         58.2    14    11.5    37     39.2
GED/ HS Diploma            59     73     69.5   25     23.8    7      6.7     59     42         41.6    19    18.8    40     39.6
Enroll/Stay in College    125     60     75.0   17     21.3    3      3.8    122     31         39.2    17    21.5    31     39.2
Marriage Education         79     62     64.6   25     26.0    9      9.4     78     49         52.1    24    25.5    21     22.3
Personal finance
programs                  103    56      70.9   19     24.1   4       5.1   101     23          29.5    17    21.8    38         48.7
Help with School Work      92    69      75.0   20     21.7   3       3.3    89     37          41.6    22    24.7    30         33.7
Fatherhood programs       109    87      79.8   16     14.7   6       5.5   109     57          52.3    30    27.5    22         20.2




                                                                                                                           172
Education Service Needs

The majority of AVANCE families identified all Education services as a need. More than 90% of
AVANCE respondents reported that quality and affordable education was needed and almost
100% felt it was met or somewhat met. Four fifths of respondents (80%) were also pleased with
fatherhood programs. Two thirds to three fourths of respondents felt the remaining education
related services were needed. The services with the most unmet need indicated by about half of
respondents were “computer classes”, “personal finance programs”, and “affordable child care”.
The remaining education related services were about two thirds to three fourths met/somewhat
met. For instance, regarding need for personal finance programs a parent said they need “help
fixing my credit score and solving all my debt.”

According to the 2008-09 PIRs, 32.9% (n=429) participated in ESL classes, 29.6% (n=386)
participated in adult GED and college selection programs, 92.1% (n= 1200) participated in
Parenting education, and 18.7% (n= 243) participated in marriage education.

The percentages of respondents whose educational supports were met are seen in the following
figure.

                                                                        AVANCE
                                                 Access to Educational Services for Children and Families

                                           100
                                            90
                                            80
                   Percent of Caregivers




                                            70
                                            60
                                            50
                                            40
                                            30
                                            20
                                            10
                                             0
                                                   1   2    3    4    5     6     7    8      9   10   11   12   13
                                                                          Service Needs Met




                                     Educational Service Needs Met
                  1. Quality Education              8. GED/ HS Diploma
                  2. Affordable Education           9. Enroll/Stay in College
                  3. ESL Classes                    10. Marriage Education
                  4. Computer Classes               11. Personal finance programs
                  5. Affordable Childcare           12. Help with School Work
                  6. Literacy-building              13. Fatherhood programs
                  7. Parenting Education

Employment

The response rates for the Employment services ranged from 12.1% (n=71) to 14.3% (n=84).
Responses are displayed in the following table


                                                                                                                      173
Employment - AVANCE
                                                                  Don't                           Somewhat
Service                         Total    Needed     Not Needed    Know     Total        Met         Met       Not Met
                                 N      N     %      N     %     N    %     N      N          %   N     %     N    %
Classes to help learn a trade
or profession                    80     61   76.3   16    20.0   3   3.8    77     25     32.5    16   20.8   36   46.8
Help with resume, interview
skills, professional clothing    78     62   73.8   18    21.4   4   4.8    71     29     35.4    13   15.9   40   48.8
Help finding and getting a
good job                         84     51   65.4   23    29.5   4   5.1    82     22     31.0    15   21.1   34   47.9




                                                                                                                          174
Employment Service Needs

Employment was identified as a need by the majority of families in AVANCE. Families served
by other grantees also expressed a need for employment services as well. Three fourths of
respondents were in need of employment services and two thirds needed help to learn a trade or
new profession. Almost half of respondents reported these services were unmet for them.
According to the 2008-09 PIRs, 17.7% (n=230) of Head Start caregivers and 8.2% (n=12) of
EHS caregivers received job training.

The percentages of respondents whose employment services were met are seen in the following
figure.
                                                               AVANCE
                                                     Access to Employment Services

                                           100
                                            90
                                            80
                   Percent of Caregivers




                                            70
                                            60
                                            50
                                            40
                                            30
                                            20
                                            10
                                             0
                                                 1                     2             3
                                                                Service Needs Met



                                        Employment Service Needs
                   1 Classes to help learn a trade or profession
                   2. Help with resume, interview skills, professional clothing
                   3. Help finding and getting a good job

Social Services

The response rates for the Social Services ranged from 7.5% (n=44) to 18.8% (n=111).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                            175
Social Services - AVANCE
                                                                   Not         Don't                          Somewhat
Service                                      Total    Needed      Needed       Know     Total        Met        Met       Not Met
                                               N     N    %      N    %      N    %       N     N      %     N     %     N     %
Help getting food for my family               111    80 72.1     26 23.4     5   4.5     109    76    69.7   18   16.5   15 13.8
Services available in my language             65     44 67.7     20 30.8     1   1.5      65    38    58.5   9    13.8   18 27.7
Help paying my rent or other bills            81     52 64.2     28 34.6     1   1.2      78    29    37.2   18   23.1   31 39.7
Safe, affordable housing                      53     31 58.5     22 41.5     0   0.0      50    16    32.0   10   20.0   24 48.0
Help with immigration questions or
concerns                                      60     35   58.3   18   30.0   7   11.7    57     24    42.1   13   22.8   20   35.1
Access to a lawyer or legal advice            52     27   51.9   22   42.3   3    5.8    48     20    41.7   9    18.8   19   39.6
Help finding a shelter or other assistance    46     21   45.7   25   54.3   0    0.0    44     20    45.5   9    20.5   15   34.1




                                                                                                                               176
Social Services Needs

Families saw a need for six out of the seven Social Service items. Two thirds to three fourths of
respondents reported they most needed help with food for their family, services available in their
language, and help paying rent and other bills. For instance a parent said, “All I needed was help
with my rent and utility bills and I could not get it and to go look for help I would have to miss a
whole days work.” More than 85% of respondents were satisfied with the food assistance they
received, though a few (n=3) said they were denied access to the food stamp program and did not
know why. On the other hand, almost half reported that “safe, affordable housing” was an unmet
need for them. One single mom said, “The truth is I just need orientation on where I can get an
affordable apt. in our area.” According to the 2008-09 PIR, 5.7% (n=74) of Head Start and
15.8% (n=23) of EHS families received assistance for housing. In addition, 12.7% (n=152) HS
and 75% (n=110) EHS families received basic needs crisis intervention services. Even though no
HS families were homeless during the year, three EHS families (and four children) were (2%)
and all acquired housing by the end of the school year.

The percentages of respondents whose need for Social services were met are seen in the
following.

                                                                 AVANCE
                                                          Access to Social Services

                                             80

                                             70

                                             60
                     Percent of Caregivers




                                             50

                                             40

                                             30

                                             20

                                             10

                                              0
                                                  1   2        3           4            5   6   7
                                                                   S ervice Needs Met



                                           Social Service Needs Met
         1. Help getting food for my family           5. Help with immigration questions or concerns
         2. Services available in my language         6. Access to a lawyer or legal advice
         3. Help paying my rent or other bills        7. Help finding a shelter or other assistance
         4. Safe, affordable housing

Health and Nutrition Service Needs

The response rates for the Health and Nutrition services ranged from 8.8% (n=52) to 19%
(n=112). Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                                       177
Health and Nutrition Services - AVANCE
                                                                            Don't                           Somewhat
Service                                  Total     Needed     Not Needed    Know      Total        Met         Met        Not Met
                                          N      N      %     N     %      N      %    N      N       %     N      %    N      %
Good, affordable dentists                 79     65    82.3   14   17.7    0    0.0    79     47     59.5   15   19.0   17    21.5
Health insurance that I can afford        83     64    77.1   19   22.9    0    0.0    80     45     56.3   15   18.8   20    25.0
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
Medicaid                                 112     85    75.9   27   24.1    0    0.0   106     81     76.4   14   13.2   11         10.4
Medical care for my children              85     64    75.3   21   24.7    0    0.0    81     65     80.2    9   11.1    7          8.6
Immunizations for my children            81      59    72.8   21   25.9    1    1.2    80     65     81.3    7    8.8    8         10.0
Good medical care that I can afford       96     68    70.8   27   28.1    1    1.0    92     51     55.4   20   21.7   21         22.8
Fresh fruit and vegetables that I can
afford                                    60     41    68.3   17   28.3    2    3.3    59     36     61.0    8   13.6   15         25.4
Classes on healthy eating and cooking     57     36    63.2   19   33.3    2    3.5    52     22     42.3   13   25.0   17         32.7
Information or classes on staying
health, exercising etc.                   67     42    62.7   22   32.8    3    4.5    66     28     42.4   12   18.2   26         39.4
Immunizations for me or other adult
family members                            58     33    56.9   25   43.1    0    0.0    55     31     56.4    9   16.4   15         27.3
Medical care for pregnant women           57     31    54.4   25   43.9    1    1.8    52     31     59.6   12   23.1   9          17.3




                                                                                                                             178
Health and Nutrition Service Needs

Health services were noted as “needed” and “met” by AVANCE parents. For example, the need
for good, affordable dentists was met or somewhat met for more than three fourths of
respondents. The services with the greatest met/somewhat met (90%) are those for their children
- assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid, medical care, and immunizations. Satisfaction with
“Medical care for pregnant women” was also high (82%). Cost-related services such as
“affordable, health insurance” and “affordable, good medical care” are also highly
met/somewhat met for three fourths of respondents. Also, more than two thirds of respondents
expressed needs for increased supports for healthy lifestyles (i.e. information and/or classes on
healthy eating, cooking and exercising) which, were met/somewhat for more than two thirds; the
least met across this category. According to the PIR for the 2008-09 program year, 100% of HS
and EHS families participated in Health Education and 61.7% (n=740) of HS and 90.4% (n=132)
of EHS families received WIC services. Also during the year, HS children received
immunizations (97.5%, n=1270), dental services (93.4%, n=1224), and medical services
(93.5%). EHS children also received immunizations (95.3%, n=163) and medical services
(90.6%, n=155).
The percentages of respondents whose need for health and nutrition services were met are seen
in the following figure.

                                                                            AVANCE
                                                           Acce s s to He alth and Nutrition Se rvice s

                                             100
                                              90
                                              80
                     Percent of Caregivers




                                              70
                                              60
                                              50
                                              40
                                              30
                                              20
                                              10
                                               0
                                                   1   2        3      4      5      6       7      8     9   10   11
                                                                           Se rvice Ne e ds M e t



                                      Health and Nutrition Service Needs
       1. Good, affordable dentists                      7. Fresh fruit and vegetables that I can afford
       2. Health insurance that I can afford             8. Classes on healthy eating and cooking
       3. Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid       9. Information or classes on staying health,
                                                         exercising etc.
       4. Medical care for my children                   10. Immunizations for me or other adult
                                                         family members
       5. Immunizations for my children                  11. Medical care for pregnant women
       6. Good medical care that I can afford




                                                                                                                        179
Mental Health
The response rates for the Mental Health services ranged from 4.4% (n=26) to 10.4% (n=61). Responses are displayed in the
following table.

Mental Health Services - AVANCE
                                                                             Don't                          Somewhat
Service                                   Total    Needed     Not Needed    Know      Total        Met         Met       Not Met
                                           N      N     %      N     %     N     %     N      N       %     N      %    N      %
Counseling or therapy services             53     38   71.7    15   28.3   0    0.0    52     31     59.6    9   17.3   12    23.1
Classes on how to raise well adjusted,
healthy children                           61     42   68.9   19    31.1   0    0.0    61     38     62.3   16   26.2   7    11.5
Classes on how to handle stress            42     25   59.5   15    35.7   2    4.8    42     22     52.4    6   14.3   14   33.3
Classes on how to handle anger             43     24   55.8   16    37.2   3    7.0    41     19     46.3    8   19.5   14   34.1
Help with domestic violence issues         32     13   40.6   17    53.1   2    6.3    31     15     48.4    8   25.8    8   25.8
Help with child abuse or neglect issues    35     14   40.0   20    57.1   1    2.9    32     16     50.0    8   25.0    8   25.0
Care for sick/disabled family members
so I can rest/run errands                  36     14   38.9   19    52.8   3    8.3    31     13     41.9   9    29.0   9    29.0
Treatment for drug or alcohol
problems                                   28     10   35.7   18    64.3   0    0.0    26     15     57.7   6    23.1   5    19.2




                                                                                                                               180
Mental Health Service Needs

Many Head Start families identified the same needs for the service items noted by AVANCE
families. The top Mental Health service need reported was “Counseling and therapy services”
(72%, n=38) which more than three fourths said was met or somewhat met. The next highest
need, “classes on how to raise well adjusted, healthy children” (68.9%, n=42) was also met or
somewhat met for 88% of respondents. More than half of respondents said “classes on handling
stress and anger” were needed, though a third said they were still an unmet need. A parent asked
for “more spiritual meetings and advice.” Even though other mental health services were met for
about three fourths of respondents, “Treatment for drug and alcohol problems” was mostly met
(80%) for those it impacted. During the 2008-09 program year, 8.5% (n=111) of Head Start
families and 5.5% (n=8) of Early Head Start families were referred for Mental Health services.
In addition, during the year, even though no Head Start families received Substance abuse
prevention or treatment, all EHS families (100%, n=146) did.

The percentage of caregiver respondents whose need for mental health services were met are
seen in the following figure.

                                                                         A VA N C E
                                                           A cce s s to M e ntal H e alth Se rv ice s

                                             100
                                              90
                                              80
                     Percent of Caregivers




                                              70
                                              60
                                              50
                                              40
                                              30
                                              20
                                              10
                                               0
                                                   1   2            3          4          5             6   7   8
                                                                          Se rv ice N e e ds M e t



                                      Mental Health Service Needs Met
        1. Counseling or therapy services              5. Help with domestic violence issues
        2. Classes on how to raise well adjusted,      6. Help with child abuse or neglect issues
        healthy children
        3. Classes on how to handle stress             7. Care for sick/disabled family members so I
                                                       can rest/run errands
        4. Classes on how to handle anger              8. Treatment for drug or alcohol problems

Disabilities

The response rates for the Disabilities services ranged from 5.3% (n=31) to 8.5% (n=50).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                                                    181
Disability Services - AVANCE
                                                                           Don't                         Somewhat
Service                            Total       Needed       Not Needed    Know     Total        Met        Met          Not Met
                                    N      N            %   N      %     N     %    N      N       %    N     %     N        %
Help identifying if my young
child may have a disability         50     35       70.0    15    30     0   0.0    50     36    72.0   7    14     7          14.0
Special education services
through my local public school      46     28       60.9    18   39.1    0   0.0    41     29    70.7   5    12.2   7          17.1
Support for a family member with
disabilities                        36     18       50.0    16   44.4    2   5.6    34     14    41.2   9    26.5   11         32.4
Child care for children with
disabilities                        33     14       42.4    19   57.6    0   0.0    31     16    51.6   6    19.4   9          29.0




                                                                                                                         182
Disability Service Needs

While all the service items were regarded as “needed”, a small number (8.5%, n = 50) of
caregivers completed the disabilities portion of the Family Survey. The low sample size may be
due in part to the low number of families caring for family members with disabilities. In 2008-
2009, 11% of the AVANCE EHS participants had a disability, and 2% of children in Head Start
were tested for disabilities, prior to or during their enrollment. Among those who completed the
section, 86% (n=30) of caregivers reported that when it came to assessing whether their child had
a disability, their need had been “met”. Also, among families in need, eight out of ten (82%,
n=23) caregivers were able to receive special education services through their local public
school. Even fewer caregivers completed the last two questions. Of those impacted, seven out of
ten families were able to have their need met/ somewhat met for child care assistance for their
children with disabilities, while a third were unable to have their need met for support of other
members with disabilities.

The percentages of caregivers whose need for disability services were met are seen in the figure
below.
                                                                   A VA N C E
                                                     A c c e s s to D is ability Se rv ic e s

                                           100
                                            90
                                            80
                   Percent of Caregivers




                                            70
                                            60
                                            50
                                            40
                                            30
                                            20
                                            10
                                             0
                                                 1                2                        3    4
                                                                  Se rv ic e N e e ds M e t



                                          Disability Service Needs
                  1. Help identifying if my young      3. Support for a family member with
                  child may have a disability          disabilities
                  2. Special education services        4. Child care for children with
                  through my local public school       disabilities

Other Public Services

The response rates for the Other Public Services ranged from 6.1% (n=36) to 8.7% (n=51).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                                    183
Other Public Services - AVANCE
                                                                                                          Somewhat
Service                              Total     Needed      Not Needed   Don't Know    Total      Met        Met         Not Met
                                      N      N      %     N       %     N       %      N      N     %     N     %     N      %
Emergency response services           51     40    78.4    9     17.6   2       3.9    50     42    84    5    10.0   3      6.0
Public transportation                 41     29    70.7    9     22.0   3       7.3    40     29 72.5     4    10.0   7     17.5
Community Centers                     47     33    70.2   12     25.5   2       4.3    46     32 69.6     6    13.0   8     17.4
Public services (trash collection,
street maintenance. etc.)             46     31    67.4   13    28.3    2       4.3    45     32   71.1    6   13.3    7         15.6
Recycling programs                    50     33    66.0   15    30.0    2       4.0    47     22   46.8    9   19.1   16         34.0
Churches                              49     32    65.3   14    28.6    3       6.1    48     39   81.3    4    8.3    5         10.4
Neighborhood Watch                    44     28    63.6   15    34.1    1       2.3    40     19   47.5    9   22.5   12         30.0
Public parks and recreation areas     51     32    62.7   17    33.3    2       3.9    50     33   66.0   12   24.0   5          10.0
Stores, restaurants, entertainment    40     22    55.0   17    42.5    1       2.5    38     23   60.5    7   18.4    8         21.1
Community Centers that serve my
culture                               41     22    53.7   12    29.3    7      17.1    36     20   55.6   8    22.2   8          22.2




                                                                                                                           184
Other Public Service Needs

The majority of respondents reported that access to public services was needed over the past
year. The largest need “met” was for emergency response services (e.g. police, fire, ambulance,
etc.) with 94% (n=47) of families able to easily access services when needed. Ninety percent of
families also felt their need for attending church was met/somewhat met. Neighborhood Watch
had the highest unmet need with almost a third of respondents, which may indicate they may
have safety issues around their home. A third of families also felt that access to recycling
programs was unmet. Of all service categories, respondents were most satisfied with access to
Public Services.
The percentages of caregivers whose need for public services were met are seen in the following
figure.

                                                                        A VA N C E
                                                            A c c e s s to P ublic Se rv ic e s

                                              100
                                               90
                                               80
                      Percent of Caregivers




                                               70
                                               60
                                               50
                                               40
                                               30
                                               20
                                               10
                                                0
                                                    1   2   3       4          5        6           7   8   9   10
                                                                        Se rv ic e N e e ds M e t




                                              Public Service Needs Met
     1. Emergency response services                                  6. Churches
     2. Public transportation                                        7. Neighborhood Watch
     3. Community Centers                                            8. Public parks and recreation areas
     4. Public services (trash collection, street maintenance, etc.) 9. Stores, restaurants, entertainment
     5. Recycling programs                                           10. Community Centers that serve my
                                                                     culture

Program Reach and Recruitment
More than two-thirds (70%, n=411) of parents did not know of other families who were eligible
for Head Start, and did not receive services. Additionally, 72% (n=413) did not know any
families eligible for Early Head Start, that were not already enrolled. Parents were also asked if
they knew any specific groups, such as other cultural groups, the elderly or youth, not receiving
appropriate services; 93% (n=531) said they did not know of any such groups. Of those who did
they included: Hispanics (n=4), Elderly (n=4), Blacks/African Americans (n=3), Youth ages 5 -
10 and youth programs (n=3), parents of children with disabilities (n=1), Homeless (n=2), and
Whites (n=1). A respondents also mentioned a geographic area of South side area especially
Corder Place Apartments.


                                                                                                                     185
Greatest “Unmet” Needs

Using the Borda method of multi-decision making (see Methodology section), GCCSA parents
reported their three greatest “unmet” needs were:

        AVANCE Families                  Borda Score       Avg. Endorsement         SD
        1. Employment                           1511                   8.35        0.05
        2. Education                            1306                   8.31        0.07
        3. Health                                842                   8.10        0.08

Additional Comments

Caregivers were given an opportunity to provided additional comments regarding their needs,
responses included the need for Transportation (n=4) and SNAP formerly known as food stamps
(n=3). Parents also highlighted that the elderly (n=6) and youth (n=5) are not receiving the
appropriate services.

Summary

Forty six percent (46%) of the AVANCE Head Start families enrolled in the 2009-2010 program
year completed the Family survey. Their responses highlight the service needs that were met
(strengths) and those that were most unmet (needs). The majority (70-72%) did not know anyone
eligible for HS or EHS services and not receiving services and the majority (93%) did not know
any special groups not receiving appropriate services. Overall, the AVANCE caregiver
respondents felt the majority of their needs were met which they may link to a caring staff.
Compliments about the staff include, “Needs are met. I really love the Head Start family, very
supportive,” “FDWs help me with almost everything,” and “Thank you for your care.” Their
three greatest unmet needs in order of importance included: (1) Employment, (2) Education,
and (3) Health.

Reported strengths and unmet needs for each service category include the following:

      Transportation to Head Start: The majority (90%) of families were able to easily bring
       their children to their Head Start program everyday with most (70%) dropping-off
       children in their own cars.
      Access to services overall: More than three fourths (81.5%) thought it was
       easy/somewhat easy to access services overall to meet their needs.

Their greatest UNMET needs included the following:
    Education – Computer classes (50%, n=52), personal finance programs (48.2%, n=53),
       and affordable child care (48.2%, n=53)
    Employment – Assistance with resume, interview skills, and professional clothing
       (48.8%), finding a good job (47.9%, n=319) and accessing classes to learn a trade
       (46.8%, n=25)
    Social Services – Safe, affordable housing (48%, n=24)



                                                                                            186
Their greatest MET needs included the following:
    Education – Affordable (91.1%, n=204), quality early education (90.5%, n=172),
       parenting education (58.2%, n=71), GED/HS diploma (41.6%, n=42), fatherhood
       programs (52.3%, n=57), marriage education (52.1%, n=49), ESL classes (46.5%, n=47),
       literacy-building (42.2%, n=25), and help with school work (41.6%, n=37)
    Social Services – Helping getting food (69.7%, n=76), services available in the
       caregiver/family’s language (58.5%, n=38), help finding shelter or other assistance
       (45.5%, n=20), help with immigration questions or concerns (42.1%, n=24), and access
       to a lawyer or legal advice (41.7%, n=20)
    Health – For their children: immunizations for their children (81.3%, n=65) medical care
       for children (80.2%, n=65), and assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid (76.4%, n=81),
       medical care for pregnant women (59.6%, n=31)good, affordable dentists (59.5%, n=47),
       affordable health insurance (56.3%, n=45), affordable medical care (55.4%, n=51),
       affordable fresh fruit and vegetables (61.0%, n=36), information or classes on staying
       healthy , exercising, etc (42.4%, n=28) and classes on healthy eating and cooking (42.3%,
       n=22)
    Mental Health – Classes on how to raise well adjusted, healthy children (62.3%, n=38),
       counseling or therapy services (59.6%, n=31), treatment for drug or alcohol problems
       (57.7%, n=15) classes on how to handle stress, (52.4%, n=22), help with child abuse and
       neglect issues (50.0%, n=16), help with domestic violence issues (48.4%, n=15), classes
       on how to handle anger (46.3%, n=19), and respite care (41.9%, n=13)
    Disabilities – Help identifying if a child has a disability (72%, n=36), special education
       services through local public school (70.7%, n=29), child care for children with
       disabilities (51.6%, n=16), and support for a family member with disabilities (41.2%.
       n=14)
    Other Public Services – Emergency response services (84%, n=42), churches (81.3%,
       n=39), public services (71.1%, n=32), recycling programs (71.1%, n=32), public
       transportation, (72.5%, n=29), community centers (69.6%, n=32), public parks and
       recreation areas (66.0%, n=33), businesses (60.5%, n=23), cultural community centers
       (55.6%, n=20), and neighborhood watch (47.5%, n=19)




                                                                                            187
HS/ EHS Family Strengths and Needs:
Neighborhood Centers, Inc.

Response Rate
Of the 2,031 families enrolled during the 2009-2010 program year, 486 family surveys were
submitted by caregivers, comprising 24% of the Head Start/Early Head Start families. As
previously mentioned in the Introduction to this section, families responded variably to services
for each category despite a certain response rate for the survey overall. The ranges of response
rates for services within each category are included.
Respondent characteristics
Respondents were caregivers with children enrolled in either Head Start (97%, n=411) or Early
Head Start (3%, n=14). Over half of all caregivers (54%, n=264) requested a Spanish translated
questionnaire. The percentage of caregivers who completed the survey in Spanish is comparable
to the percentage of individuals choosing Spanish during the last community assessment.
Transportation
The majority of families (86.2%, n=418) found it easy to somewhat easy to bring their child(ren)
to their Head Start or Early Head Start program everyday (av.= 3.33). The ease of transporting
children is probably due in part to the fact that 77% (n=434) of families dropped-off children in
their own cars. Some families had other alternatives, which included taking a friend or relative’s
vehicle or carpooling (11%, n=52); walking 7%, n=36); or other (3%, n=15). The forms of
transport to Head Start remained the same since the last community assessment in 2006.
Service Accessibility by Category
The majority (71%) of parents reported they found it very easy to somewhat easy to acquire
services for their family. Even though the average degree of ease was 3.06 (1-4 scale), sentiment
wavered between ‘somewhat difficult’ (23%, n=112) to ‘somewhat easy’ (46%, n=224) to ‘very
easy’ (25%, n=26). A review of what was provided within the community will reveal the level of
need and satisfaction of families enrolled in HS/EHS. The service categories to be explored
include education, employment, social services, health and nutrition, mental health, disabilities,
and public services.
Not all surveys received from families contained complete data. Therefore, the number of
responses for each category are less than the overall number of surveys received for each
grantee. To help understand the level of missing responses for each category, descriptions begin
with the range of responses for service items in that category and percent out of the number of
surveys submitted. Survey results for each service category are then displayed in tables with
short narratives that summarize service needs with the highest endorsement. Caregiver comments
and PIR data are included as relevant to support the findings.
The table for each service category first displays the number of families who chose whether the
service was a need, not needed, or did not know. The second part of the table follows with
additional information on whether the service items were met, somewhat met, or not met (unmet)
with associated percentages. Services that approximately 40% or more of respondent families


                                                                                              188
identified as most needed and either met or not met were selected as the highest met and unmet
needs. The results for the top needs in the tables are shaded in gray and the highest results for
degree of met/unmet services identified by approximately 40% or more of families are shaded in
light green if met, in yellow if somewhat met, and in pink if not met.




                                                                                              189
  Education
  The response rates for the Education services ranged from 16.2% (n=79) to 39.5% (n=192). Responses are displayed in the following
  table.

Education services – Neighborhood Centers
                                                          Not          Don't                            Somewhat
Service                           Total       Needed     Needed        Know      Total      Met           Met         Not Met     Miss
                                    N        N     %   N      %     N      %       N      N     %      N      %       N    %       N
Affordable Education               192      183 95.3    3     1.6    6     3.1    191    155   81.2    22    11.5     14 7.3      295
Quality Education                  177      163 92.1    5     2.8    9     5.1    176    135   76.7    28    15.9     13 7.4      310
Personal finance programs          112       96 85.7   11     9.8    5     4.5    110     55   50.0    20    18.2     35 31.8     375
Parenting Education                103       85 82.5   11    10.7    7     6.8    103     50   48.5    25    24.3     28 27.2     383
ESL Classes                        108       86 79.6   18    16.7    4     3.7    105     40   38.1    23    21.9     42 40.0     381
Computer Classes                    97       76 78.4   13    13.4    8     8.2     95     24   25.3    19    20.0     52 54.7     391
Help with School Work               93       71 76.3   15    16.1    7     7.5     88     41   46.6    23    26.1     24 27.3     398
Fatherhood programs                121       91 75.2   20    16.5   10     8.3    120     65   54.2    27    22.5     28 23.3     366
Affordable Childcare                87       64 73.6   10    11.5   13    14.9    85      17   20.0    21    24.7     47 55.3     401
Marriage Education                  99       69 69.7   18    18.2   12    12.1    98      32   32.7    24    24.5     42 42.9     388
Literacy-building                   84       54 64.3   21    25.0    9    10.7     79     33   41.8    17    21.5     29 36.7     407
Enroll/Stay in College             100       63 63.0   20    20.0   17    17.0    93      23   24.7    21    22.6     49 52.7     393
GED/ HS Diploma                    108       63 58.3   28    15.9   13     7.4     98     63   58.3    32    29.6     13 12.0     378




                                                                                                                                190
Educational Service Needs
The majority (more than 50%) of caregiver respondents reported that all educational services
were of great need to their families. Affordable and Quality early education were the greatest
needs, which were met for 81.2% (n=155) and 76.7% (n=135) of respondents by early childhood
programs like Head Start. The highest unmet needs included computer classes (54.7%, n=52),
affordable child care (55.3%, n=47) (i.e. for children less than 2 yrs. or before & after school
care for school aged children), and Enroll/stay in college (52.7%, n=49). Other highest needs
met included personal finance programs (50%, n=55), Fatherhood programs (54.2%, N=65), and
GED/HS diploma (58%, N=63). According to the 2008-09 PIR, Neighborhood Centers’ Head
Start families received ESL training (10.5%, n=209), Adult education/GED (9.6%, n=190),
parenting education (19.4%, n=384), and marriage education (4.1%, n=81). EHS families
received ESL training (4.2%, n=3), Adult education/GED (18.1%, n=13), parenting education
(66.7%, n=48), and marriage education (15.3%, n=11).

The percentages of respondents whose educational supports were met are seen in the following
figure.

                                                                      Neighborhood Centers
                                                     Access to Educational Services for Children and Families

                                           100
                                            90
                   Percent of Caregivers




                                            80
                                            70
                                            60
                                            50
                                            40
                                            30
                                            20
                                            10
                                             0
                                                 1      2     3    4    5    6     7    8    9    10 11 12 13

                                                                            Service Needs Met

                                       Educational Service Needs Met
              1. Affordable Education                  8. Fatherhood programs
              2. Quality Education                     9. Affordable Childcare
              3. Personal finance programs             10. Marriage Education
              4. Parenting Education                   11. Literacy-building
              5. ESL Classes                           12. Enroll/Stay in College
              6. Computer Classes                      13. GED/ HS Diploma
              7. Help with School Work


Employment
The response rates for the Employment services ranged from 15.2% (n=74) to 18.3% (n=89).
Responses are displayed in the following table.



                                                                                                                191
Employment Services - Neighborhood Centers
Service                              Total Needed Not Needed Don't Know   Total        Met    Somewhat Met Not Met
                                      N    N   %   N     %    N     %      N      N       %    N      %    N    %
Help finding and getting a good job   89   76 85.4 10   11.2  3     3.4    89     13     14.6  20    22.5  56 62.9
Classes to help learn a trade or
profession                            89   70 78.7 12   13.5  7     7.9    89     14     15.7   17   19.1   58 65.2
Help with resume, interview skills,
professional clothing                 74   51 68.9 17    23   6     8.1    74     19     25.7   15   20.3   40 54.1




                                                                                                               192
Employment Service Needs
Respondents reported high need for employment services. The services with the highest unmet
needs were accessing classes to learn a trade (65.2%, n=58) and finding a good job (62.9%,
n=56). In addition, 54.1% (n=40) of respondents reported their need for help preparing for
employment such as with resumes, interview skills, and professional clothing was not met.
Respondents commented on their needs for employment services and shift in the breadwinner
position reporting comments such as, “I went to work because my husband does not have the
same work he used to have. It becomes difficult with the bills. Sometimes he works 1 day a week
or he doesn’t work due to rain.” Another said, “Work is an important necessity. In my family
only one of us works because my husband can’t find a full time job; only part time.” According
to the 2008-09 PIR, 2.9% (n=57) of Head Start caregivers and 1.4% (n=1) of EHS caregivers
received job training.

The percentages of respondents whose employment services were met are seen in the following
figure.

                                                          Neighborhood Centers
                                                      Access to Employment Services
                                            100
                                             90
                    Percent of Caregivers




                                             80
                                             70
                                             60
                                             50
                                             40
                                             30
                                             20
                                             10
                                              0
                                                  1                  2                3

                                                               Service Needs Met

                                          Employment Service Needs
                  1. Help finding and getting a good job
                  2. Classes to help learn a trade or profession
                  3. Help with resume, interview skills, professional clothing

Social Services
The response rates for the Social Services section ranged from 10.9% (n=53) to 18.1% (n=88).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                           193
Social Services - Neighborhood Centers
Service                                     Total    Needed Not Needed Don't Know Total   Met   Somewhat Met   Not Met
                                             N      N    %   N     %    N     %    N    N   %    N      %      N    %
Help getting food for my family              88     66 75.0 17    19.3  5     5.7  87   38 43.7  21    24.1    28 32.2
Help with immigration questions or concerns  67     49 73.1 16    23.9  2     3.0  67   23 34.3  12    17.9    32 47.8
Services available in my language            70     51 72.9 17    24.3  2     2.9  70   27 38.6  18    25.7    25 35.7
Help paying my rent or other bills           81     57 70.4 10    12.3 14    17.3  81   14 17.3  17    21.0    50 61.7
Access to a lawyer or legal advice           61     42 68.9 16    26.2  3     4.9  61   8 13.1   17    27.9    36 59.0
Safe, affordable housing                     61     39 63.9 18    29.5  4     6.6  60   10 16.7  13    21.7    37 61.7
Help finding a shelter or other assistance   53     26 49.1 18    34.0  9    17.0  53   14 26.4  16    30.2    23 43.4




                                                                                                                   194
Social Service Needs
The majority (more than 50%) of respondents reported they needed help with most of the social
services listed except for finding temporary shelters. For those services needed by most
respondents, those with the highest unmet need included ”Help paying rent or other bills”
(61.7%, n=50), Safe, affordable housing” (61.7%, 37), “access to a lawyer/legal advice” (59%,
n=36), and “help with immigration questions” (47.8%, n=32). The services with the highest met
need included “Getting food for family” (43.7%, n=38) and “services in my language” (38.6%,
n=27). However, a caregiver commented she needed help with language, reporting through a
translator, “… need help with translation from English to Chinese (Cantonese). (I) did not know
that a teacher spoke Chinese at Head Start center.” According to the 2008-09 PIR, 6.9% (n=136)
of Head Start and 5.6% (n=4) of EHS families received assistance for housing. In addition, 1.4%
(n=27) HS and 12.5% (n=9) EHS families received basic crisis intervention services. No HS
families or EHS families were homeless during the year.

The percentages of respondents whose need for Social services were met are seen in the
following figure.


                                                       Neighborhood Centers
                                                      Access to Social Services

                                      100
                      Percent of Caregivers




                                       90
                                       80
                                       70
                                       60
                                       50
                                       40
                                       30
                                       20
                                       10
                                        0
                                              1   2        3        4        5    6    7
                                                            Service Needs Met


                                            Social Service Needs Met
      1. Help getting food for my family                   5. Access to a lawyer or legal advice
      2. Help with immigration questions or concerns       6. Safe, affordable housing
      3. Services available in my language                 7. Help finding a shelter or other assistance
      4. Help paying my rent or other bills



Health and Nutrition
The response rates for the Health and Nutrition services ranged from 14.8% (n=72) to 21.6%
(n=105). Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                                           195
Health and Nutrition Services - Neighborhood Centers
                                                                     Not         Don't                       Somewhat
Service                                        Total Needed         Needed       Know     Total   Met          Met       Not Met
                                                N    N   %         N     %     N     %     N    N   %       N      %     N    %
Classes on healthy eating and cooking           93   84 90.3       8    8.6    1    1.1    93   42 45.2     20    21.5   31 33.3
Good, affordable dentists                       90   80 88.9       8    8.9    2    2.2    90   28 31.1     15    16.7   47 52.2
Information or classes on staying health,
exercising etc.                                 97     85 87.6      6    6.2   6    6.2    97   43 44.3     16    16.5   38 39.2
Fresh fruit and vegetables that I can afford    87     75 86.2     12   13.8   0     0     87   35 40.2     18    20.7   34 39.1
Immunizations for my children                   96     81 84.4     13   13.5   2    2.1    95   57 60       22    23.2   16 16.8
Immunizations for me or other adult family
members                                        87      72   82.8   11   12.6   4    4.6    87   31   35.6   20    23.0   36   41.4
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid       105     85   81.0   17   16.2   3    2.9   103   57   55.3   20    19.4   26   25.2
Medical care for my children                   93      71   76.3   16   17.2   6    6.5    93   50   53.8   22    23.7   21   22.6
Health insurance that I can afford             89      66   74.2   16   18.0   7    7.9    85   24   28.2   14    16.5   47   55.3
Good medical care that I can afford            91      64   70.3   22   24.2   5    5.5    83   18   21.7   21    25.3   44   53.0
Medical care for pregnant women                74      45   60.8   25   33.8   4    5.4    72   25   34.7   20    27.8   27   37.5




                                                                                                                              196
Health and Nutrition Service Needs
All Health services are important to the majority of Neighborhood Centers’ caregivers, most
notably the need for “Good, affordable dentists,” which was unmet for more than half (52.2%,
n=47). In support of this need, one respondent said, “Really my greatest necessity is a dentist.
They are very expensive and our teeth are deteriorating more and more. I have already lost 4
teeth. I wish there was a solution.” Other services with the highest unmet needs included
“immunizations for adults” (41.4%, n=36), “affordable, health insurance” (55.3%, n=47), and
“affordable, good medical care” (53%, n=44). Services with the highest met needs included
those for their children {“immunizations for their children”(60%, n=57), “Assistance enrolling in
CHIP or Medicaid”(55.3%, n=57)), and “medical care for children (53.8%, n=50)} and those
related to a healthy lifestyle (“Classes on healthy eating/ cooking”(45.2%, n=47), “Information
or classes on staying healthy, exercising etc” (44.3%, n=43), and “Fresh fruit and vegetables that
I can afford” (40.2%, n=35). According to the PIR for the 2008-09 program year, 48.6% (n=965)
of HS and 88.9% (n=64) of EHS families participated in Health Education and 53.4% (n=1062)
of HS and 80.6% (n=58) of EHS families received WIC services. Also, by the end of year, HS
children had a Dental services “home” (65.7%, n=1379), and received immunizations (83.6%,
n=1754) and medical services (39.6%, n=831). EHS children also had a dental services home
(78.8%, n=63) and 68.8% (n=58) were screened; also received immunizations (87.5%, n=70) and
medical services (58.8%, n=47).

The percentages of respondents whose need for health and nutrition services were met are seen
in the following figure.

                                                             Neighborhood Centers
                                                     Access to Health and Nutrition Services

                                       100
                                        90
                                        80
                    Percent of Caregivers




                                        70
                                        60
                                        50
                                        40
                                        30
                                        20
                                        10
                                         0
                                             1   2     3     4    5    6    7    8     9   10   11

                                                                 Service Needs Met

                                      Health and Nutrition Service Needs
         1. Classes on healthy eating and cooking         7. Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
                                                          Medicaid
         2. Good, affordable dentists                     8. Medical care for my children
         3. Information or classes on staying health,     9. Health insurance that I can afford
         exercising etc.
         4. Fresh fruit and vegetables that I can afford  10. Good medical care that I can afford



                                                                                                     197
5. Immunizations for my children                11. Medical care for pregnant women
6. Immunizations for me or other adult family
members




                                                                                      198
Mental Health
The response rates for the Mental Health services ranged from 10.7% (n=52) to 18.3% (n=89). Responses are displayed in the
following table.

Mental Health Services - Neighborhood Centers
Service                                 Total Needed   Not Needed Don't Know Total   Met    Somewhat Met                 Not Met
                                         N    N    %    N     %     N     %   N    N     %    N      %                   N    %
Classes on how to handle anger          72.0 61.0 84.7 11.0 15.3   0.0   0.0 70.0 23.0 32.9 12.0   17.1                 35.0 50.0
Classes on how to raise well adjusted,
healthy children                        87.0 72.0 82.8 14.0 16.1   1.0   1.1 86.0 31.0 36.0 23.0   26.7                 32.0   37.2
Classes on how to handle stress         89.0 72.0 80.9 15.0 16.9   2.0   2.2 89.0 37.0 41.6 11.0   12.4                 41.0   46.1
Counseling or therapy services          81.0 62.0 76.5 16.0 19.8   3.0   3.7 80.0 29.0 36.3 14.0   17.5                 37.0   46.3
Help with child abuse or neglect issues 60.0 40.0 66.7 20.0 33.3   0.0   0.0 60.0 26.0 43.3  6.0   10.0                 28.0   46.7
Help with domestic violence issues      60.0 39.0 65.0 19.0 31.7   2.0   3.3 60.0 25.0 41.7 10.0   16.7                 25.0   41.7
Care for sick/disabled family members
so I can rest/run errands               60.0 39.0 65.0 20.0 33.3   1.0   1.7 59.0 17.0 28.8 12.0   20.3                 30.0 50.8
Treatment for drug or alcohol problems 52.0 29.0 55.8 21.0 40.4    2.0   3.8 52.0 17.0 32.7  7.0   13.5                 28.0 53.8




                                                                                                                               199
Mental Health Service Needs
Of those Neighborhood Centers’ caregivers who responded, the majority (more than 50%)
reported all mental health services were needed. Furthermore, all services had more unmet needs
than otherwise, with the exception of “help with domestic violence issues” which an equal
amount of respondents chose met and unmet. The highest unmet needs (based on the most
persons/percents were “classes on how to handle anger” (50%, n=35) and “Classes on how to
handle stress” (46.1%, n=41), care for sick/disabled family members (50.8%,n=30), and
Treatment for drug or alcohol problems” (53.8%, n=28). During the 2008-09 program year, 3.8%
(n=75) of Head Start families and 26.4% (n=19) of Early Head Start families were referred for
Mental Health services and 1.3% (n=25) Head Start families and 7% (n=5) were referred for
Domestic violence services. On the other hand, no Head Start or Early Head Start families
received Substance abuse prevention or treatment during the year. The percentage of caregiver
respondents whose need for mental health services were met are seen in the following figure.

                                                              Neighborhood Centers
                                                         Access to Mental Health Services
                                               100
                                                90
                       Percent of Caregivers




                                                80
                                                70
                                                60
                                                50
                                                40
                                                30
                                                20
                                                10
                                                 0
                                                     1    2     3      4     5      6       7   8

                                                                    Service Needs Met

                                        Mental Health Service Needs Met
               1. Classes on how to handle anger       5. Help with child abuse or neglect issues
               2. Classes on how to raise well         6. Help with domestic violence issues
               adjusted, healthy children
               3. Classes on how to handle stress      7. Care for sick/disabled family members
                                                       so I can rest/run errands
               4. Counseling or therapy services       8. Treatment for drug or alcohol problems



Disabilities
The response rate for the Disabilities section was 11.5% (n=56). The low sample size may be due
to the relevancy of the items to the fewer number of families caring for family members with
disabilities. Responses are displayed in the following table:




                                                                                                    200
Disability Services - Neighborhood Centers
                                                                    Not         Don't                     Somewhat
Service                                         Total   Needed     Needed      Know     Total     Met       Met       Not Met
                                                 N      N   %     N     %     N     %    N      N   %     N     %     N    %
Help identifying if my young child may have a
disability                                       56     41 73.2   15   26.8   0    0     53     18 34.0   15   28.3   20 37.7
Special education services through my local
public school                                    56     38 67.9   18   32.1   0    0     54     17 31.5   14   25.9   23 42.6
Child care for children with disabilities        54     34 63.0   18   33.3   2   3.7    51     10 19.6   15   29.4   26 51.0
Support for a family member with disabilities    49     30 61.2   17   34.7   2   4.1    48     9 18.8    12   25.0   27 56.3




                                                                                                                         201
Disability Services Needs
Almost three fourths of respondents reported that help identifying if their child had a disability
was a need with 37.7% still unmet. Accessing “special education services through a local public
school” was unmet for more than 42% of those needing it. Also, more than half of interested
respondents reported their need was unmet for support to families either for child care for
children with disabilities or for a family member with disabilities. During the 2008-09 program
year, Neighborhood Centers served 5% (n=4) of EHS children and 7.1% (n=149) Head Start
children diagnosed with a disability. The percentages of caregivers whose need for disability
services were met are seen in the figure below.


                                                       Neighborhood Centers
                                                     Access to Disability Services
                                           100
                                            90
                                            80
                   Percent of Caregivers




                                            70
                                            60
                                            50
                                            40
                                            30
                                            20
                                            10
                                             0
                                                 1           2            3          4

                                                            Service Needs Met


                                          Disability Service Needs
                 1. Help identifying if my young     3. Child care for children with
                 child may have a disability         disabilities
                 2. Special education services       4. Support for a family member with
                 through my local public school      disabilities

Other Public Services
The response rates for the Public services ranged from 13.2% (n=64) to 16.3% (n=79).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                               202
Other Public Services - Neighborhood Centers
                                                                      Not          Don't                          Somewhat
Service                                        Total    Needed       Needed        Know      Total     Met          Met       Not Met
                                                N      N    %      N      %     N      %      N      N   %       N      %     N    %
Community Centers                               69     56 81.2      7    10.1    6     8.7    68     25 36.8     17    25.0   26 38.2
Recycling programs                              79     64 81.0      8     10    7     8.9     78     26 33.3     22    28.2   30 38.5
Public parks and recreation areas               76     59 77.6     10 13.2      7      9.2    76     31 40.8     19    25.0   26 34.2
Public transportation                           70     54 77.1     12 17.1      4      5.7    70     33 47.1     17    24.3   20 28.6
Churches                                        70     52 74.3      8    11.4   10    14.3    69     28 40.6     20    29.0   21 30.4
Public services (trash collection, street
maintenance, etc.)                              71     51   71.8   10   14.1    10   14.1     71     31   43.7   13    18.3   27   38.0
Community Centers that serve my culture         67     47   70.1   11   16.4     9   13.4     65     23   35.4   17    26.2   25   38.5
Stores, restaurants, entertainment              66     46   69.7   14   21.2     6    9.1     64     25   39.1   12    18.8   27   42.2
Emergency response services                     69     46   66.7   13   18.8    10   14.5     69     33   47.8   13    18.8   23   33.3
Neighborhood Watch                              67     42   62.7   11   16.4    14   20.9     67     21   31.3   18    26.9   28   41.8




                                                                                                                                   203
Other Public Services Needs
The majority of respondents reported that access to public services was needed over the past
year. Of those responding, families’ greatest unmet needs were “Stores, restaurants and
entertainment” (42.2%, n=27) and “Neighborhood Watch” (41.8%, n=28). The top needs met
were Public transportation (40.8%, n=31), public parks & recreation (40.8%, 31), Emergency
response services (47.8%, n=33), Public services (43.7%, n=31), and Churches (40.6%, n=28).
The percentages of caregivers whose need for public services were met are seen in the following
figure.

                                                      Neighborhood Centers
                                                     Access to Public Services

                                       100
                                        90
                    Percent of Caregivers




                                        80
                                        70
                                        60
                                        50
                                        40
                                        30
                                        20
                                        10
                                         0
                                             1   2   3     4    5     6    7     8   9   10
                                                           Service Needs Met

                                          Public Service Needs Met
       1. Community Centers                             6. Public services (trash collection, street
                                                        maintenance, etc.)
       2. Recycling programs                            7. Community Centers that serve my culture
       3. Public parks and recreation areas             8. Stores, restaurants, entertainment
       4. Public transportation                         9. Emergency response services
       5. Churches                                      10. Neighborhood Watch

Program Reach and Recruitment
Caregivers were asked whether they knew of families who would be eligible for either Head
Start or Early Head Start, but were not being served. More than half (54%, n=242) of parents did
not know of other families who were eligible for Head Start, and not receiving services.
Additionally, 56% (n=253) did not know any families eligible for Early Head Start, and not
already enrolled. Parents were also asked if any social groups in their community were not
receiving appropriate services, such as specific cultural groups, elderly, or youth; 91% (n=407)
said they did not know of any groups.

Greatest “Unmet” Needs
Using the Borda method of multi-decision making, Neighborhood Centers’ parents reported their
three greatest “unmet” needs were:



                                                                                                       204
                     (1) Employment        (2) Education          (3) Health

       Neighborhood Centers Families       Borda Score        Avg. Endorsement          SD
       1. Employment                              1469                    8.54         0.06
       2. Education                               1465                    8.57         0.06
       3. Health                                  1119                    8.29         0.07

Additional Comments
Caregivers provided additional comments regarding their needs. They requested expansion of
public transportation services and transportation to Head Start centers (n=4) as well as expressed
an inability to access SNAP (formerly known as the food stamp program, n=3).
Summary
Twenty four percent (24%) of the Neighborhood Centers’ Head Start families enrolled in the
2009-2010 program year completed the Family survey. Their responses highlight the service
needs that were met (strengths) and those that were the most unmet (needs). The majority 54%-
56% did not know anyone eligible for HS or EHS services and not receiving services and the
majority (91%) did not know any special groups not receiving appropriate services. Their three
greatest unmet needs in order of importance included (1) Employment, (2) Education, and (3)
Health.
      Transportation to Head Start: The majority (86.2%) of families were able to easily
       bring their children to their Head Start program everyday with most (77%) dropping-off
       children in their own cars.
      Access to services overall: The majority (71%) of parents reported they found it very
       easy to somewhat easy to acquire services for their family.
Their greatest unmet needs included the following:
    Education – Affordable child care (55.3%, n=47) (i.e. for children less than 2 yrs. or
       before & after school care for school aged children), computer classes (54.7%, n=52),
       enroll/stay in college (52.7%, n=49), marriage education (42.9%, n=42), and ESL classes
       (40.0%, n=42)
    Employment – Classes to learn a trade (65.2%, n=58), finding a good job (62.9%,
       n=56), and help preparing for employment such as with resumes, interview skills, and
       professional clothing 54.1% (n=40)
    Social Services – Help paying rent or other bills (61.7%, n=50), Safe, affordable housing
       (61.7%, 37), “access to a lawyer/legal advice” (59%, n=36), help with immigration
       questions or concerns (47.8%, n=32), help finding a shelter or other assistance (43.4%,
       n=23), and immunization for caregiver or other adult family members (41.4%, n=36)
    Health – Affordable health insurance (55.3%, n=47), affordable, good medical care
       (53%, n=44), and good, affordable dentists (52.2%, n=47)
    Mental Health – Treatment for drug or alcohol problems (53.8%, n=28), classes on how
       to handle anger (50%, n=35), care for sick/disabled family members (50.8%, n=30), help
       with child abuse or neglect issues (46.7%, n=28), counseling or therapy services (46.3%,
       n=37), classes on how to handle stress (46.1%, n=41), and help with domestic violence
       issues (41.7%, n=25)


                                                                                              205
      Disabilities – Support for a family member with disabilities (56.3%, n=27), child care for
       children with disabilities (51%, n=26), and special education services through the local
       public school (42.6%, n=23)
      Other Public Services – Businesses (42.2%, n=27) and neighborhood watch (41.8%,
       n=28)
Their greatest met needs included the following:
    Education – Affordable and Quality early education 81.2% (n=155) and 76.7% (n=135)
       respectively, personal finance programs (50%, n=55), parenting education (50.0%,
       n=55), help with school work (46.6%, n=41), fatherhood programs (54.2%, n=65),
       literacy-building (41.8%, n=33), and GED/HS diploma (58%, N=63)
    Social Services – Help getting food for my family (43.7%, n=38)
    Mental health – Help with domestic violence issues (41.7%, n=25)
    Health – Immunizations for their children (60%, n=57), Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
       Medicaid (55.3%, n=57), medical care for children (53.8%, n=50), classes on healthy
       eating and cooking (45.2%, n=42), affordable fresh fruit and vegetables (44.3%, n=43),
       and immunizations for children (40.2%, n=35)
    Other Public Services – Emergency response services (47.8%, n=33), public
       transportation (47.1%, n=33), public services (43.7%, n=33), public parks and recreation
       areas (40.8%, n=31), and churches (40.6%, n=28)




                                                                                             206
HS/ EHS Family Strengths and Needs:
Gulf Coast Community Services Association

Response Rate
Of the 1,995 families enrolled during the 2009-2010 program year, 1,507 family surveys were
submitted by caregivers, comprising 75.5% of the Head Start/Early Head Start families. As
previously mentioned in the Introduction to this section, families responded variably to services
for each category despite a certain response rate for the survey overall. The ranges of response
rates for services within each category are included. In addition to the Family survey, a focus
group was held with ten Policy Council parents in December 2009. Their comments on these
issues are included as relevant to the service.

Respondent Characteristics
Respondents were caregivers with children enrolled in either Head Start (95%, n=1,433) or Early
Head Start 5% (n=72). One out of every three caregivers (34%, n=512) requested a Spanish
translated questionnaire. This is an increase from the 2006 Community Assessment, in which
12% of surveys submitted were in Spanish.

Transportation
The majority of families (88%, n=1,317) found it easy to somewhat easy to bring their child(ren)
to their Head Start or Early Head Start program everyday (av. = 3.35). The ease of transporting
children is probably due in part to the fact that 74% (n=1,119) of families dropped-off children in
their own cars. Some families had other alternatives, which included taking a friend or relative’s
vehicle or carpooling (12%, n=175); walking (11%, n=171); school bus (4%, n=59); public
transportation (4%, n=58). The forms of transport to Head Start remained the same since the last
community assessment in 2006.

Service Accessibility by Category
The majority (79%, n=1,184) of caregivers reported they found it very easy/somewhat easy to
acquire services for their family. Sentiment for access wavered (av. 3.09 on a 4 point scale) with
a strong shift towards “somewhat easy”.

The level of need of GCCSA families and the degree their needs are met are explored for seven
service categories. Service categories include education, employment, social services, health &
nutrition, mental health, disabilities, and other public services. Overall, surveys asked about
families’ need for 57 services under those categories and the degree to which they are met.

Not all surveys received from families contained complete data. Therefore, the number of
responses for each category is less than the overall number of surveys received for each grantee.
To help understand the level of missing responses for each category, descriptions begin with the
range of responses for service items in that category and percent out of the number of surveys
submitted. Survey results for each service category are then displayed in tables with short



                                                                                               207
narratives that summarize service needs with the highest endorsement. Caregiver comments and
PIR data are included as relevant to support the findings.

The table for each service category first displays the number of families who chose whether the
service was a need, not needed, or did not know. The second part of the table follows with
additional information on whether the service items were met, somewhat met, or not met (unmet)
with associated percentages. Services that approximately 40% or more of respondent families
identified as most needed and either met or not met were selected as the highest met and unmet
needs. The results for the top needs in the tables are shaded in gray and the highest results for
degree of met/unmet services identified by approximately 40% or more of families are shaded in
light green if met, in yellow if somewhat met, and in pink if not met.

Education
The response rates for the Education services ranged from 27.9% (n=421) to 57.1% (n=860).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                             208
Education - GCCSA
                                                                                                   Somewhat
Service                  Total    Needed      Not Needed      Don't Know    Total         Met         Met         Not Met
                           N      N    %       N        %      N       %      N      N       %     N      %      N      %
Quality Education         808    690 85.4      95      11.8    23     2.8    799    685     85.7   71     8.9    43     5.4
Affordable Education      860    731 85.0     101      11.7    28     3.3    850    737     86.7   75     8.8    38     4.5
Enroll/Stay in College    523    311 59.5     167      31.9    45     8.6    514    168     32.7   83    16.1   263    51.2
Affordable Childcare      576    404 70.1     148      25.7    24     4.2    568    188     33.1   92    16.2   288    50.7
GED/ HS Diploma           531    306 57.6     191      36.0    34     6.4    524    218     41.6   69    13.2   237    45.2
Computer Classes          541    361 66.7     155      28.7    25     4.6    531    160     30.1   84    15.8   287    54.0
Marriage Education        448    228 50.9     190      42.4    30     6.7    434    140     32.3   77    17.7   217    50.0
Literacy-building         429    212 49.4     187      43.6    30     7.0    421    152     36.1   85    20.2   184    43.7
Parenting Education       494    303 61.3     163       33     28     5.7    485    186     38.4   81    16.7   218    44.9
Personal finance
programs                 507     326   64.3   156      30.8    25     4.9   499     154     30.9   101   20.2   244     48.9
ESL Classes              497     281   56.5   196      39.4    20     4.0   482     197     40.9    83   17.2   202     41.9
Help with School Work    515     336   65.2   166      32.2    13     2.5   504     185     36.7   107   21.2   212     42.1
Fatherhood programs      515     334   64.9   145      28.2    36     7.0   507     206     40.6    96   18.9   205     40.4




                                                                                                                      209
Education Service Needs
The majority (more than 50%) of caregiver respondents reported that all educational services
were of great need to their families. Affordable and quality early education were the highest met
needs, with 85.7% (n=685) and 86.7% (n=737) of respondents about early childhood programs
like Head Start. In support of the program, a parent said, “Make more children eligible for Head
Start because the way I see things Head Start is not about babysitting, but about teaching kids
and getting them ready for school. My daughter has learned lots and lots of things. I am very
grateful.” The highest unmet needs included Computer Classes (54%, n=287), Enroll/stay in
college (51.2%, n=263), Affordable Childcare (50.7%, n=288), and Marriage Education (50%,
n=217). Parents are challenged to pursue education and work for their families and affordable
child care is quite an issue for them. One parent said, “I need help with finding daycare for my
youngest child while I attend college and my husband works. Another said, “I would have like
to have received more information on childcare for the summer. By the time I found out the
program had already started and classes were full.” Another parent mentioned a need for her
children with, “Afternoon help with children’s homework; more big brothers and sister
programs.”

The percentages of respondents whose educational supports were met are seen in the following
figure.
                                                                          GCCSA
                                                  Access to Educational Services for Children and Families

                                            100
                                             90
                                             80
                    Percent of Caregivers




                                             70
                                             60
                                             50
                                             40
                                             30
                                             20
                                             10
                                              0
                                                    1    2    3    4    5     6     7    8       9   10   11   12   13
                                                                            S ervice Needs Met



                                     Educational Service Needs Met
                   1. Quality Education              8. Literacy-building
                   2. Affordable Education           9. Parenting Education
                   3. Enroll/Stay in College         10. Personal finance programs
                   4. Affordable Childcare           11. ESL Classes
                   5. GED/ HS Diploma                12. Help with School Work
                   6. Computer Classes               13. Fatherhood programs
                   7. Marriage Education




                                                                                                                         210
Employment
The response rates for the Employment services ranged from 31.2% (n=470) to 34.8% (n=525). Responses are displayed in the
following table.
Employment - GCCSA
                                                                                                        Somewhat
Service                               Total   Needed     Not Needed   Don't Know    Total     Met         Met          Not Met
                                       N      N    %    N       %     N      %       N      N    %      N     %       N     %
Help with resume, interview skills,
professional clothing                 483     285 59.0 163    33.7    35    7.2      470    117 24.9    84    17.9   269    57.2
Help finding and getting a good job   525     365 69.5 136    25.9    24    4.6      520    107 20.6    94    18.1   319    61.3
Classes to help learn a trade or
profession                            518     338 65.3 148    28.6    32    6.2      512    111 21.7    82    16.0   319    62.3




                                                                                                                             211
Employment Service Needs

The majority of respondents reported high need for employment services. All the services had a
high unmet need. Parents needed assistance with finding a good job (61.3%, n=319), accessing
classes to learn a trade (62.3%, n=319), and “help preparing for employment such as with
resumes, interview skills, and professional clothing” (57.2%, n=269). Parents commented on the
need for a living wage saying, “I would just like to find a job to properly support my family”;
“The only thing we want is employment to pay the rent and bills”; and “There are many
necessities now that my husband does not have that much work.” According to the 2008-09 PIR,
8.6% (n=166) of Head Start caregivers and 6.7% (n=7) of EHS caregivers received job training.

The percentages of respondents whose employment services were met are seen in the following
figure.
                                                            GCCSA
                                                 Access to Employment Services

                                           100
                                            90
                                            80
                   Percent of Caregivers




                                            70
                                            60
                                            50
                                            40
                                            30
                                            20
                                            10
                                             0
                                                 1                  2            3
                                                            S ervice Needs Met



                                      Employment Service Needs
                  1. Help with resume, interview skills, professional clothing
                  2. Help finding and getting a good job
                  3. Classes to help learn a trade or profession

Social Services
The response rates for the Social Services ranged from 24.4% (n=367) to 35.2% (n=531).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                            212
Social Services - GCCSA
                                                             Not         Don't                         Somewhat
Service                              Total    Needed       Needed        Know      Total      Met         Met        Not Met
                                       N      N      %     N     %     N     %       N      N    %     N      %      N    %
Help paying my rent or other bills    515    325   63.1   168 32.6     22    4.3    511    172 33.7   120    23.5   219 42.9
Help getting food for my family       531    322   60.6   190 35.8     19    3.6    527    242 45.9   117    22.2   168 31.9
Safe, affordable housing              456    248   54.4   183 40.1     25    5.5    446    159 35.7    93    20.9   194 43.5
Services available in my language     437    215   49.2   210 48.1     12    2.7    416    182 43.8    74    17.8   160 38.5
Access to a lawyer or legal advice    388    175   45.1   193 49.7     20    5.2    382    132 34.6    64    16.8   186 48.7
Help with immigration questions or
concerns                             399     161   40.4   220   55.1   18    4.5   382     139 36.4   57     14.9   186 48.7
Help finding a shelter or other
assistance                           381     144   37.8   216   56.7   21    5.5   367     150 40.9   82     22.3   135 36.8




                                                                                                                        213
Social Services Needs
The majority (more than 50%) of respondents reported they needed help with basic necessities
like paying rent and bills, getting food, and obtaining safe, affordable housing. For services
needed by most respondents, those with the highest unmet need included, “Help paying rent or
other bills” (42.9%, n=219) and “Safe, affordable housing” (43.5%, n=194). Several GCCSA
respondents commented on these needs such as, “Help with repairs of the house and utility bills”;
“Need help with the bills, rent for house, do not get paid enough for work to stretch.” Their need
for housing may be primarily to feel the stability of home ownership such as, “I am mostly
focused on looking for a good house for my girls and I’m tired of apartments already. I wanted to
see if the government can help;” and “Assistance to buy housing at a reasonable price for the
wellbeing of my children.” The services with the highest met need included “Getting food for
family” (45.9%, n=242). According to the 2008-09 PIR, 3.8% (n=72) of Head Start and 13.6%
(n=14) of EHS families received assistance for basic crisis intervention services. Also, 5.2%
(n=100) of HS families and 28.2% (n=29) of EHS families received housing assistance. During
the year, GCCSA served 24 homeless families and 19 homeless children and seven families
acquired housing.
The percentages of respondents whose need for Social services were met are seen in the
following figure.
                                                              GCCSA
                                                      Access to Social Services

                                            100
                                            90
                                            80
                    Percent of Caregivers




                                            70
                                            60
                                            50
                                            40
                                            30
                                            20
                                            10
                                              0
                                                  1   2      3           4            5   6   7
                                                                 S ervice Needs Met



                                          Social Service Needs Met
              1. Help getting food for my family       5. Services available in my language
              2. Help paying my rent or other bills    6. Access to a lawyer or legal advice
              3. Help finding a shelter or other       7. Help with immigration questions or
              assistance                               concerns
              4. Safe, affordable housing




                                                                                                  214
Health and Nutrition

The response rates for the Health and Nutrition services ranged from 23.7% (n=357) to 35.6% (n=537). Responses are displayed in the
following table.

Health and Nutrition - GCCSA
                                                                       Not         Don't                          Somewhat
Service                                        Total    Needed       Needed       Know      Total      Met           Met        Not Met
                                                 N      N    %       N     %     N     %      N      N    %       N      %      N    %
Good, affordable dentists                       489    344 70.3     134 27.4     11   2.2    488    187 38.3     109    22.3   192 39.3
Good medical care that I can afford             478    308 64.4     159 33.3     11   2.3    469    160 34.1     134    28.6   175 37.3
Health insurance that I can afford              487    308 63.2     160 32.9     19   3.9    480    173 36.0     128    26.7   179 37.3
Fresh fruit and vegetables that I can afford    454    286 63.0     157 34.6     11   2.4    453    180 39.7     128    28.3   145 32.0
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid        537    337 62.8     176 32.8     24   4.5    524    274 52.3     127    24.2   123 23.5
Information or classes on staying health,
exercising etc.                                435     271   62.3   146   33.6   18   4.1   432     150   34.7   100    23.1   182   42.1
Medical care for my children                   468     291   62.2   167   35.7   10   2.1   466     232   49.8   142    30.5   92    19.7
Immunizations for my children                  465     277   59.6   172   37.0   16   3.4   460     262   57.0   110    23.9   88    19.1
Classes on healthy eating and cooking          431     245   56.8   168   39.0   18   4.2   425     149   35.1   115    27.1   161   37.9
Immunizations for me or other adult family
members                                        418     231 55.3     173   41.4   14   3.3   412     172 41.7     104    25.2   136 33.0
Medical care for pregnant women                368     164 44.6     186   50.5   18   4.9   357     164 45.9      93    26.1   100 28.0




                                                                                                                                     215
Health and Nutrition Service Needs
Most all Health and Nutrition services are important to the majority (more than 50%) of GCCSA
caregiver respondents except for medical care for pregnant women. Though needs for these
services appear mostly met the highest unmet needs (by number and percent) were for “good,
affordable dentists” (39.3%, n=192) and “information on staying healthy, exercising, etc.”
(42.1%, n=182). In support of the need for an affordable dentist, one respondent said, “Trying to
get a dentist appointment is the most dramatic disaster for anyone with paid insurance! Trying to
make AM appointment.” Services with the highest met needs included those for their children
“immunizations for their children” (57%, n=262), “Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
Medicaid”(52.3%, n=254), and “medical care for children”(49.8%, n=232). Also more met was
“Immunizations for me or other adult family members” (41.7%, n=172). Results show that
parents pay attention to meeting their children’s needs. A parent expressed themselves on this
saying, “What’s important to me is the health of my kids.” According to the PIR for the 2008-09
program year, 2.7% (n=51) of HS and 1.2% (n=12) of EHS families participated in Health
Education and 50.3% (n=966) of HS and 76.7% (n=79) of EHS families received WIC services.
Also, by the end of year, the majority of HS children had a Dental services “home” (69.9%,
n=1442) and a medical “home” (89.9%, n=1856) and were up to date on their immunizations
(84.7%, n=1748). EHS children also had a dental services home (58.5%, n=76) and a medical
home (80.7%, n=105) and were up to date on immunizations (74.6%, n=97).
The percentages of respondents whose need for health and nutrition services were met are seen
in the following figure.

                                                                            GCCSA
                                                            Acce ss to Health and Nutrition Service s

                                              100

                                               90

                                               80
                      Percent of Caregivers




                                               70

                                               60

                                               50

                                               40

                                               30

                                               20

                                               10

                                                0
                                                    1   2       3      4     5      6     7      8      9   10   11

                                                                            Service Needs Met



                                         Health and Nutrition Service Needs
1. Good, affordable dentists                                   7. Medical care for my children
2. Good medical care that I can afford                         8 Immunizations for my children
3. Health insurance that I can afford.                         9. Classes on healthy eating and cooking
4. Fresh fruit and vegetables that I can afford                10. Immunizations for me or other adult family
                                                               members
5. Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid                    11. Medical care for pregnant women
6. Information or classes on staying health, exercising etc




                                                                                                                      216
Mental Health
The response rates for the Mental Health services ranged from 19.9% (n=300) to 26.9% (n=406). Responses are displayed in the
following table.
Mental Health Services - GCCSA
                                                                        Not         Don't                          Somewhat
Service                                          Total   Needed       Needed        Know      Total     Met          Met        Not Met
                                                  N      N    %       N     %      N    %      N      N    %       N     %      N    %
Classes on how to raise well adjusted, healthy
children                                         399     217   54.4   165   41.4   17   4.3   390     131   33.6   113   29.0   146   37.4
Classes on how to handle stress                  406     220   54.2   172   42.4   14   3.4   396     124   31.3    97   24.5   175   44.2
Counseling or therapy services                   390     198   50.8   177   45.4   15   3.8   378     137   36.2    86   22.8   155   41.0
Classes on how to handle anger                   363     179   49.3   173   47.7   11   3.0   354     121   34.2    79   22.3   154   43.5
Help with domestic violence issues               333     132   39.6   193   58.0    8   2.4   327     132   40.4    80   24.5   115   35.2
Help with child abuse or neglect issues          313     117   37.4   188   60.1    8   2.6   306     120   39.2    80   26.1   106   34.6
Care for sick/disabled family members so I
can rest/run errands                             325     118 36.3     198   60.9    9   2.8   319     117 36.7     80    25.1   122 38.2
Treatment for drug or alcohol problems           307     104 33.9     191   62.2   12   3.9   300     120 40.0     70    23.3   110 36.7




                                                                                                                                      217
Mental Health Service Needs

Of those GCCSA caregivers who responded, four out of the eight mental health services were
needed. These same services had the highest unmet needs and included “classes on handling
stress” (44.2%, n=175), “Counseling or therapy services” (41%, n=155), “classes on handling
anger” (43.5%, n=154), and “classes on how to raise well adjusted, healthy children (37.4%,
n=146). Comments from a few parents said they needed psychological services and someone
needed treatment for depression. During the 2008-09 program year, 2.2% (n=43) of Head Start
families and 4.9% (n=5) of Early Head Start families were referred for Mental Health services
and 0.2% (n=3) Head Start families and 10.7% (n=11) were referred for Domestic violence
services. Also, 0.7% (n=14) Head Start and 1.9% (n=2) Early Head Start families received
Substance abuse prevention or treatment during the year. The percentage of caregiver
respondents whose need for mental health services were met are seen in the following figure.

                                                                       GCCSA
                                                           Access to Mental Health Services

                                             100

                                              90

                                              80
                     Percent of Caregivers




                                              70

                                              60

                                              50

                                              40

                                              30

                                              20

                                              10

                                               0
                                                   1   2          3       4        5          6   7   8
                                                                       Service Needs Met




                                       Mental Health Service Needs Met
    1. Classes on how to raise well adjusted, healthy children 5. Help with domestic violence issues
    2. Classes on how to handle stress                         6. Help with child abuse or neglect issues
    3. Counseling or therapy services                          7. Care for sick/disabled family members so
                                                               I can rest/run errands
    4. Classes on how to handle anger                          8. Treatment for drug or alcohol problems

Disabilities

The range of response rates for the Disabilities section was 19.6% (n=296) to 24.7% (n=372).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                                             218
Disability Services - GCCSA
                                                                   Not         Don't                        Somewhat
Service                                       Total   Needed     Needed        Know      Total     Met        Met        Not Met
                                               N      N    %     N     %      N    %      N      N    %     N     %      N    %
Help identifying if my young child may have
a disability                                  372     192 51.6   169   45.4   11   3.0   365     142 38.9   108   29.6   115 31.5
Special education services through my local
public school                                 361     171 47.4   182   50.4   8    2.2   352     153 43.5   98    27.8   101 28.7
Support for a family member with
disabilities                                  313     127 40.6   178   56.9    8   2.6   303     126 41.6   77    25.4   100 33.0
Child care for children with disabilities     306     120 39.2   175   57.2   11   3.6   296     115 38.9   85    28.7   96 32.4




                                                                                                                             219
Disability Service Needs

One out of the four items was identified as a need by families. The lower sample size may be due
to the relevancy of the items to the fewer number of families caring for family members with
disabilities. Of those GCCSA caregivers who responded, the majority (more than 50%) reported
they needed help with identifying if their child had a disability. Even though most who
responded to that need reported it was met (38.9%, n=142), it was only slightly more than a third
in comparison for those it was somewhat met and not met. A need for less than half of
respondents (47.4%, n=171) accessing “special education services through a local public school”
was met for 43.5% (n=153). According to the 2008-09 PIR, GCCSA served 5.5% (n=114) of
Head Start children and 10% (n=13) of Early Head Start children diagnosed with a disability.

The percentages of caregivers whose need for disability services were met are seen in the figure
below.
                                                                 GCCSA
                                                      Acce ss to Disability Service s

                                            100

                                             90

                                             80
                    Percent of Caregivers




                                             70

                                             60

                                             50

                                             40

                                             30

                                             20

                                             10

                                              0
                                                  1             2                3      4
                                                                 Service Needs Met



                                          Disability Service Needs
                  1. Help identifying if my young child     3. Support for a family
                  may have a disability                     member with disabilities
                  2. Special education services through     4. Child care for children with
                  my local public school                    disabilities

Other Public Services

The response rates for the Public services ranged from 23.5% (n=354) to 28.1% (n=424).
Responses are displayed in the following table.




                                                                                              220
Other Public Services - GCCSA
                                                                    Not          Don't                          Somewhat
Service                                     Total    Needed       Needed        Know      Total      Met           Met        Not Met
                                              N      N    %       N     %     N      %      N      N    %       N      %      N    %
Neighborhood Watch                           424    238 56.1     163 38.4     23    5.4    409    152 37.2     93     22.7   164 40.1
Public parks and recreation areas            379    208 54.9     163 43.0      8    2.1    373    164 44.0     121    32.4   88 23.6
Community Centers                            405    218 53.8     173 42.7     14    3.5    393    170 43.3     120    30.5   103 26.2
Public transportation                        401    209 52.1     175 43.6     17    4.2    391    164 41.9     114    29.2   113 28.9
Community Centers that serve my culture      362    181 50.0     167 46.1     14    3.9    354    161 45.5      92    26.0   101 28.5
Churches                                     393    196 49.9     181 46.1     16    4.1    377    198 52.5      93    24.7   86 22.8
Public services (trash collection, street
maintenance, etc.)                          402     194   48.3   189   47.0   19    4.7   379     192   50.7   108    28.5   79    20.8
Recycling programs                          399     188   47.1   190   47.6   21    5.3   387     160   41.3   111    28.7   116   30.0
Emergency response services                 385     180   46.8   195   50.6   10    2.6   365     201   55.1    81    22.2   83    22.7
Stores, restaurants, entertainment          376     169   44.9   189   50.3   18    4.8   365     173   47.4   106    29.0   86    23.6




                                                                                                                                   221
Other Public Service Needs
The majority of respondents reported that access to public services was needed over the past
year. Of those responding, families’ greatest unmet need was for “Neighborhood Watch”
(40.1%, n=164). The top needs met were “Churches” (52.5%, n=198), “Community Centers that
serve my culture” (45.5%, n=161), “Public parks and recreation areas” (44%, 164), “Community
Centers” (43.3%, n=170), and “Public Transportation” (41.9%, n=164).

The percentages of caregivers whose need for public services were met are seen in the following
figure.

                                                                    GCCSA
                                                            Access to Public Services

                                              100

                                               90
                                               80
                      Percent of Caregivers




                                               70
                                               60
                                               50
                                               40

                                               30
                                               20
                                               10

                                                0
                                                    1   2     3    4       5      6        7   8   9   10
                                                                       Service Needs Met



                                         Public Service Needs Met
   1. Neighborhood Watch                       6. Churches
   2. Public parks and recreation areas        7. Public services (trash collection, street maintenance, etc.)
   3. Community Centers                        8. Recycling programs
   4. Public transportation                    9. Emergency response services
   5. Community Centers that serve my culture 10. Stores, restaurants, entertainment

Program Reach and Recruitment
Caregivers were asked whether they knew of families who would be eligible for either Head
Start or Early Head Start, but were not being served. More than two-thirds (71%, n=1,035) of
parents did not know of other families who were eligible for Head Start, but did not receive
services. Additionally, 73% (n=1,061) did not know any families eligible for Early Head Start,
that were not already enrolled. Parents were also asked if any social groups in their community
were not receiving appropriate services, such as specific cultural groups, elderly, or youth; 95%
(n=1,377) said they did not know of any groups.
However, of those who did, respondents said, elderly (17), Homeless (8) plus Star of Hope
shelter, Youth (11), and Hispanics and minorities (2). In addition, someone mentioned felons. A



                                                                                                                 222
respondent emphasized this group saying, “Help a felon find a job. Give them a second chance
for family (children), community and self.”
Greatest “Unmet” Needs
Using the Borda method of multi-decision making (see Methodology section), GCCSA parents
reported their three greatest “unmet” needs were:
                    (1) Employment        (2) Education          (3) Housing
         GCCSA Families                   Borda Score     Avg. Endorsement           SD
         1. Employment                           6383                 8.27          0.03
         2. Education                            5590                 8.44          0.03
         3. Housing                              4201                 8.11          0.04

Additional Comments
Caregivers were given an opportunity to provided additional comments regarding their needs,
responses included the need for employment (n=12), housing assistance (n=10), as well
assistance with basic needs support (n=7). Parents also highlighted that the elderly (n=20) and
youth (n=12) are not receiving the appropriate services.
Summary
Seventy five percent (75.5%, n=1,507) of the GCCSA Head Start/Early Head Start families
enrolled in the 2009-2010 program year completed the Family survey in January 2010. Caregiver
opinions were also gathered through a focus group with Policy Council parents held by staff of
the Research Institute of Texas in December 2009. Responses from both data collection events
highlight the service needs that were met (strengths) and those that were the most unmet (needs).
The majority of respondents (71% - 73%) did not know anyone eligible for HS or EHS services
and not receiving services. The majority (95%) also, did not know any special groups not
receiving appropriate services. However, of those who did, respondents said the groups included,
elderly, Homeless especially at the Star of Hope shelter, Youth (i.e. after school activities),
Hispanics and other cultural groups, and felons. Caregiver respondents three greatest unmet
needs in order of importance included: (1) Employment, (2) Education, and (3) Housing.
Reported strengths and unmet needs for each service category include the following:
      Transportation to Head Start: The majority (88%) of respondent families were able to
       easily bring their children to their Head Start program everyday with most (74%)
       dropping-off children in their own cars.
      Access to services overall: The majority (79%) of parents reported they found it very
       easy to somewhat easy to acquire services for their family.
Their greatest UNMET needs included the following:
    Education – Computer classes (54.0%, n=287), enroll/stay in college (51.2%, n=263),
       affordable child care (50.7%, n=288), marriage education (50.0%, n=217), personal
       finance programs (48.9%, n=244), GED/HS diploma (45.2%, n=237), parenting




                                                                                               223
       education (44.9%, n=218), literacy-building (43.7%, n=184), help with school work
       (42.1%, n=212), and ESL classes (41.9%, n=202)
      Employment – Accessing classes to learn a trade (62.3%, n=319), help finding and
       getting a good job (61.3, n=319), and help with resume, interview skills, and professional
       clothing (57.2%, n=269)
      Social Services – Access to a lawyer or legal advice (48.7%, n=186), help with
       immigration questions or concerns (48.7%, n=186), safe, affordable housing (43.5%,
       n=194), and help paying rent or other bills (42.9%, n=219)
      Health – Information on staying healthy, exercising, etc. (42.1%, n=182)
      Mental Health – Classes on handling stress (44.2%, n=175), counseling or therapy
       services (41%, n=155), and classes on handling anger (43.5%, n=154)
      Other Public Services – Neighborhood watch (40.1%, n=164).

Their greatest MET needs included the following:
    Education – Quality (85.7%, n=685), affordable early education (86.7%, n=737), GED
       classes or helping getting a HS diploma (41.6%, n=218), and fatherhood programs
       (40.6%, n=206).
    Social Services – Getting food for family (45.9%, n=242), services available in the
       caregivers’ language (43.8%, n=182), and help finding a shelter or other assistance
       (40.9%, n=150).
    Health – For their children: immunizations for their children (57%, n=262), assistance
       enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid (52.3%, n=274), and medical care for children (49.8%,
       n=232), medical care for pregnant women (45.9%, n=164), immunizations for adult
       family members (41.7%, n=172), and affordable fresh fruit and vegetables (39.7%,
       n=180).
    Mental Health – Help with domestic violence issues (40.4%, n=132) and treatment for
       drug alcohol problems (40.0.%, n=120)
    Disabilities – Special education services through the local public school (43.5%, n=153)
       and support for a family member with disabilities (41.6%, n=126)
    Other Public Services – Emergency response services (55.1%, n=201), churches
       (52.5%, n=198), public services (50.7%, n=192), businesses (47.4%, n=173), community
       centers that serve my culture (45.5%, n=161), public parks and recreation areas” (44%,
       n=164), community centers (43.3%, n=170), public transportation (41.9%, n=164), and
       recycling programs (41.3%, n=160)




                                                                                             224
Strengths and Needs: Community Partners Survey




                                                 225
Community Partners’ Survey:
Overall Harris County
Introduction
        The Community Assessment Team developed a survey to collect the views of grantees’
community partners who serve low income families eligible for HS/EHS services residing in
Harris County, TX. HCDE RIT staff designed the surveys in scan able and online format which
were distributed from November 2009 to February 2010. HCDE RIT staff also conducted a
group interview during a Community Partnership luncheon held by HCDE on February 19, 2010.
The results from these activities are presented as follows: first the quantitative and qualitative
results from the surveys; second the qualitative results from the Group interview; and finally, a
Summary covering both data collection events. Quantitative results disaggregated by community
partners primarily associated with each grantee follow the overall.
I. Surveys
A. Characteristics of Respondents
       Forty nine (49) Community partners who serve low income families in the Harris County
Head Start service area submitted either scan able or online needs assessment surveys.
Respondents designated the grantees’ service areas in which they particularly focused their
services with most serving more than one grantees’ area.

                         Community Representatives Serving the Grantees
                   Grantee                  N      Grantee                  N
                   AVANCE                  28      HCDE                     29
                   GCCSA                   25      NCI                      36

Of those that provided information on their service type, respondents represented the following
services:

                                Community Partners’ Agency Services
             Area                    N      %        Area                  N       %
             Business                 1     2.1      Mental Health         4       8.5
             Education               15    30.6      Government            5      10.6
             Health Services          8    17.0      Religion              1       2.1
                                                     Head Start
             Social/Family Services  12    25.5      Family Service        1      2.1




                                                                                              226
B. Service Needs
Responses from the Community Partners survey are displayed in the following tables by service
category:
Education- CP Overall
                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                                                 Somewhat                      Not
Service                     Needed     Met           met        Not met       needed   DK   Miss
                              N      N     %     N       %     N     %          N       N    N
Affordable, quality early     43
Education                            18      41.9   18    41.9   7    16.3      0      4     2
GED/ HS Diploma               39     10      25.6   25    64.1   4    10.3      0      7     3
Access to higher
education                     34     7       20.6   19    55.9    8   23.5      0      10    5
ESL Classes                   36     12      33.3   14    38.9   10   27.8      1       9    3
Fatherhood programs           34      7      20.6    9    26.5   18   52.9      0      12    3
Marriage Education            32      3       9.4   13    40.6   16   50.0      0      14    3
Literacy-building             34     8       23.5   20    58.8    6   17.6      0      11    4
Computer Classes              34     9       26.5   17    50.0    8   23.5      0      13    2
Personal finance
programs                      35     4       11.4   18    51.4   13   37.1      0      11    3
Parenting Education           41     11      26.8   22    53.7   8    19.5      0      5     3
Affordable before & after
school care                   38     4       10.4   16    42.1   18   47.4      0      9     2

Education Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Educational services listed
(except one for ESL) were needed by low income families in the Harris County service area. The
services with the greatest “unmet” need were Fatherhood programs (52.9%, n=18) and Marriage
education programs (50.0%, n=16). The respondents reported the remaining educational services
were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 38.9% (ESL classes) to 64.1% (GED/HS diploma).
The need for Affordable, quality early Education was mostly met/ somewhat met (each 41.9%,
n=18, 18). From four to fourteen respondents reported they did not know what the level of need
was across these services.
Employment- CP Overall
                                              Degree of Meeting Need
                                                  Somewhat                     Not
Service                     Needed        Met        met          Not met     needed   DK   Miss
                              N      N      %     N      %       N      %       N       N    N
Vocational Training           35     7     20.0   15    42.9     13    37.1      0     13    1
Job readiness assistance      34     8     23.5   15    44.1     11    32.4      0     12    3
Job Placement programs        33     6     18.2   14    42.4     13    39.4      0     14    2

Employment Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Employment services were
needed by low income families in the Harris County service area. Respondents reported that all
employment services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 42.4% (Job placement


                                                                                             227
    programs) to 44.1% (Job readiness assistance). From 12 to 14 respondents reported they were
    unaware of the need across these services.
Social Services- CP Overall
                                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                                                                    Somewhat                      Not
Service                           Needed             Met               met          Not met      needed         DK        Miss
                                    N           N          %        N      %       N     %         N             N         N
Crisis intervention                 40          12        30.0      18   45.0      10   25.0        0            7         2
Emergency assistance-food           40          11        27.5      20   50.0      9    22.5        0            7         2
Emergency assistance- rent,
utilities                             37        7         18.9      18    48.6     12   32.4          0         10         2
Assistance for homeless
families                              38        5         13.2      17    44.7     16   42.1          0         9          2
Safe, affordable housing              36        4         11.1      16    44.4     16   44.4          0         10         3
Public transportation                 38        8         21.1      17    44.7     13   34.2          0         9          2
Translation services                  39        8         20.5      19    48.7     12   30.8          0         7          3
Legal services                        35        4         11.4      19    54.3     12   34.3          0         12         2
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                            34        7         20.6      17    50.0     10   29.4          0         13         2
Programs for families with
incarcerated members                  30        1         3.3       11    36.7     18   60.0          0         17         2

    Social Service Needs
    As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Social services were needed
    by low income families in the Harris County service area. The greatest “unmet” need was
    Programs for families with incarcerated members (60%, n=18), though a third of respondents
    were unaware of the need. The respondents reported the remaining social services were mostly
    “somewhat met” ranging from 44.4% (Safe, affordable housing) to 50% (Emergency
    assistance-food and Immigration/naturalization assistance). From seven to seventeen
    respondents reported they were unaware of the need across these services.
Health/Nutrition- CP Overall
                                                            Degree of Meeting Need
                                                                  Somewhat                                 Not
Service                                Needed          Met            met         Not met                 needed     DK     Miss
                                         N           N     %      N       %      N     %                    N         N      N
Assistance enrolling in CHIP
or Medicaid                                42        19      45.2        18      42.9   5      11.9         0        5          2
Affordable health insurance
programs                                   40        10      25.0        11      27.5   19     47.5         0        7          2
Access to affordable quality health
care                                       42        12      28.6        14      33.3   16     38.1         0        5          2
Prenatal care                              39        11      28.2        18      46.2   10     25.6         0         8         2
Pediatric care                             41        11      26.8        20      48.8   10     24.4         0         7         1
Immunizations for children                 42        19      45.2        17      40.5    6     14.3         0         5         2
Immunizations for adults                   36         9      25.0        15      41.7   12     33.3         0        12         1
Dental care                                38        12      31.6        15      39.5   11     28.9         0         8         3
Nutrition education classes                35         4      11.4        14      40.0   17     48.6         0        12         2
Access to affordable fresh produce         35         6      17.1        16      45.7   13     37.1         0        12         2
Health education                           39         7      17.9        19      48.7   13     33.3         0         8         2


                                                                                                                          228
Health and Nutrition Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all health and nutrition services
were needed by low income families in the Harris County service area. The services with the
greatest “unmet” needs were affordable health insurance programs (47.5%, n=19), access to
affordable quality health care (38.1%, n=16), and Nutrition education classes (48.6%, n=17).
The services with the greatest “met” need were Assistance enrolling in CHIP/Medicaid (45.2%,
n=19) and Immunizations for children (45.2%, n=19). The respondents reported the remaining
health and nutrition services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 39.5% (dental care) to
48.8% (pediatric care). From five to twelve respondents reported they were unaware of the need
across these services

  Mental Health- CP Overall
                                            Degree of Meeting Need
                                                  Somewhat                       Not
 Service                   Needed       Met           met         Not met       Needed      DK        Miss
                             N        N     %      N       %     N     %          N          N         N
 Counseling services         39       7   17.9    19      48.7  13    33.3        0          8         2
 Specialized parenting
 education                    39      6     15.4    19     48.7    14   35.9       0         8         2
 Domestic violence
 services                     37      8     21.6    19     51.4    10   27.0       0        10         2
 Child abuse/neglect
 services                     41      10    24.4    22     53.7    9    22.0       0         6         2
 Substance abuse
 treatment                    37      8     21.6    14     37.8    15   40.5       0        10         2
 Respite care services        33      2      6.1    13     39.4    18   54.5       0        14         2
 Stress management
 training                     29      1     2.0      9     31.0    19   65.5       1        17         2
 Anger management
 training                     30      1     3.3     12     40.0    17   56.7       0        17         2

Mental Health Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all mental health services
(except one for Stress management training) were needed by low income families in the Harris
County service area. The services with the greatest unmet needs included Stress management
training (65.5%, n=19), Anger management training (56.7%, n=17), Respite care services
(54.5%, n=18), and Substance abuse treatment (40.5%, n=15). The respondents reported the
remaining mental health services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 48.7%
(Counseling services and Specialized parenting education) to 53.7% (Child abuse/neglect
services). From six to seventeen respondents reported they were unaware of the need across
these services.




                                                                                                 229
Disabilities- CP Overall
                                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                                                                 Somewhat
Service                                  Needed          Met         met      Not met         Not needed DK    Miss
                                           N           %   N     %       N    %    N              N       N     N
Screening for early detection of
disabilities                                 38    14       36.8    13    34.2    11   28.9       0      8         3
Public school’s provisions of special
education services                           37    13       35.1    17    45.9    7    18.9       0     10         2
Family support for members with
disabilities                                 34        7    20.6    12    35.3    15   44.1       0     11         4
Assistive technology services                33        6    18.2     9    27.3    18   54.5       0     14         2
Child care for children with
disabilities                                 32        7    21.9    10    31.3    15   46.9       0     15         2

Disabilities Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Disabilities services were
needed by low income families in the Harris County service area. The services with the greatest
unmet needs were “Child care for children with disabilities” (46.9%, n=15), “Assistive
technology services” (54.5%, n=18), and Family support for members with disabilities (44.1%,
n=15). Need for Screening for early detection of disabilities was mostly met, somewhat met
(36.8%, n=14/34.2%, n=13). Need for Public school’s provisions of special education services
was mostly “somewhat met” (45.9%, n=17). From eight to fifteen respondents reported they
were unaware of the need across these services.

Other Public Services- CP Overall
                                                        Degree of Meeting Need
                                                              Somewhat                          Not
Service                             Needed          Met           met       Not met            needed   DK         Miss
                                      N           %     N     %       N    %     N               N       N          N
Emergency response
services(police, fire, ambul. etc       40        20       50.0    15    37.5     5    12.5      0       6          3
Neighborhood watch programs             35         3        8.6    17    48.6    15    42.9      0      11          3
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                     37        12       32.4    17    45.9     8    21.6      0      9           3
Recycling programs                      38        3        7.9     13    34.2    22    57.9      0      8           3
Business community (stores,
restaur., entertainment)                36        11       30.6    18    50.0    7     19.4      0      9           4
Public Parks and recreation             39        14       35.9    20    51.3    5     12.8      0      6           4
Community Centers                       41        13       31.7    21    51.2    7     17.1      1      4           3
Churches/faith based services           38        23       60.5    11    28.9     4    10.5      0      8           3
Cultural community centers              39         9       23.1    20    40.8    10    25.6      0      7           3

Public Services Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Public services (except one
said Community Centers were not needed) were needed by low income families in the Harris
County service area. The service with the greatest unmet need was Recycling programs (57.9%,
n=22). The services with the greatest met need were Churches/faith based services (60.5%,
n=23) and Emergency response services (50%, n=20). The respondents reported the remaining


                                                                                                             230
public services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 51.3% (Public Parks and recreation)
to 40.8% (Cultural community centers). From four to eleven respondents reported they were
unaware of the need across these services.

C. Greatest Unmet Needs
Harris County Community partners were asked, at the survey’s conclusion, what their three
greatest “unmet” needs were. Based on their rankings and the Borda1 method of multi-decision
making to account for all values, the three greatest unmet needs for low income families
(HS/EHS eligible) in the Harris County service area were:

               (1) EMPLOYMENT             (2) MENTAL HEALTH            (3) HEALTH

                 Greatest Unmet needs according to Harris County Community Partners
           Need                               Borda Score         Avg. endorsement     SD
           1. Employment                               207                    7.14    2.19
           2. Mental health                            186                     7.15   1.99
           3. Health                                   163                    6.79    2.25
           4. Transportation                           131                    5.95    2.56
           5. Social/Family Services                   125                     5.68   2.53
           6. Food and Nutrition                       111                    5.29    2.69
           7. Housing                                  110                      5.5   2.65
           8. Education                                107                    5.63    3.22
           9. Disabilities                              77                     4.81   3.21
           10. Legal                                    75                    3.95    3.50

D. Knowledge of communities not receiving services:
The majority of Harris County community partners reported they did not know of any Head Start
(93.8%, n=45) or Early Head Start (81.3%, n=39) eligible families not receiving services.
However, of those who did, (6.3%, n=3) said families still need Head Start services living in the
NCI service area and 18.8% (n=9) said families still need EHS services living in communities of
Alief, Northeast, Cy-Fair, and the NCI and HCDE service areas as well as limited zip codes
(77009, 77011, 77023, 77003).
For specific population groups in the HCDE service area not receiving appropriate services,
about 29.2% (n=14) reported the Pakistan and Asian populations, Iraqi refugees, Latinas teens,
youth (more programs & after school activities especially for refugee subgroups), elderly in
refugee subgroups, homeless of various cultures, disabled, struggling families that make too
much to qualify for help, and those on a fixed income.

E. Comments from Survey
 Comments from the surveys are organized and summarized by topical themes (e.g. strengths,
challenges, and suggestions) by question:



1
    Described in Methodology section.


                                                                                             231
Strengths:

Strong Case Management
         Case workers traveling to the families’ homes, helping transport them to services, accepting clients
          who have no ability to pay at all.
         Case Management to sub group of students in at-risk situations at school settings, health and human
          service linkages.
         Helping to access their needed resources to help support the child and the family.
         Our family development workers have a hands-on approach with working with their families and
          they are able to meet their needs.
         Helping families to find strategies to make the most of their resources.
         Creation of small networks of support and processes to bring about lasting change through Adults in
          lives of children
         Well trained staff who search out the needs of the community that they serve

Offer Affordable or Free Services
         Accepting clients who have no ability to pay at all.
         Providing healthcare regardless of inability to pay.
         Our agency offers free counseling and legal referrals and assistance
         Services offered through county funding available
         Services are affordable
         Yes! All of our services are free and are very beneficial to that demographic
         Price
         A small repertoire of free resources, bilingual (Spanish/English) staff

Close Connection to Community
         Location
         The staff lives in and are members of the community we serve
         Close connection to community

Provide a Needed Service
          Investigation of child abuse/neglect. Protection of children
          Providing free/reduced breakfast/lunch
          Yes – we assist in strengthening the family/doctor relationship
          Providing 23/7 assistance
          Mobility
          They have a connection to knowing what their children could qualify for one they receive green
           card or get residency status.
          Having resources available to families in the community in which they live.
          Providing clinical health care, food and nutrition services, affordable/safe housing, promotion of
           public health education.
          Meeting the educational needs of young children.
          ability to share educational information and motivate adults to change
          Filling a need for nutritious foods and nutrition education
          Very experienced in providing mental health services to this population and therefore able to
           understand all of the relevant issues
          We take a collaborative family based approach to therapy that refuses labels and works to find a
           solution



                                                                                                           232
       Education – general & specialized, financial literacy, counseling (MH)
       Funded programs offering equal access to language, workforce skills, GED prep, computer and
        financial resources, classes and training
       Availability of medical services
       Services provided, types of services available
       Advocating
       Offer the opportunity to learn, participate in child’s education also GED, ESL, computer, parenting,
        healthy marriage and family services

Provide Comprehensive Info & Referral
       Service provision and assistance with provider (community, agency, faith-based) linkage…excellent
        information and referral
       We have lots of resources and referral information to other services
       Knowledge and variety of diverse programs offered throughout the city at center for all family
        members and circumstances
       Breadth of service


Challenges:

Meeting the needs of different cultural groups
       The Hispanic community doesn’t qualify for a lot of programs if they don’t have residency status or
        a green card, therefore we are not able to meet many of their needs.
       Not enough resources for the African and Arabic families.
       Finding enough providers that a bi-lingual
       Immigration status

Overcoming Different Barriers to Getting Services
(both external and internal to clients)
       Immigration status
       Getting them to the psychiatric appointment; helping them to appreciate the importance of
        our services so that they will be available for appointments and engage in services.
       Convincing them of the necessity of our services
       It’s hard to convince people in these communities that therapy isn’t negative and isn’t a
        luxury
       Motivating skills, educating parents
       Connecting them with outside services (housing, food, etc.)
       Sometimes accessing transportation to help families get to medical, educational
        appointments
       Transportation, stability through help
       Facility location, transportation
       Finding resources
       Low income families may not have the time or transportation to access our agency's services
       However, many times support for issues that can negatively affect mental health is lacking
       getting quality education resources to all families
       adults have not completed high school or have a GED
       Providing additional resources for community awareness
       Awareness, Hard to reach sometimes


                                                                                                      233
      Overwhelming numbers in need for a wide variety of services in the area which makes it
       hard for the staff and service entity to take care of them constantly and consistently at the
       high levels needed
      People often cannot get to our agency due to transportation or they may not know about our
       agency.
      Lack of case management support. Very high no-show rates which place a financial burden
       on the agency. Lack of resources in general for areas that can and do impact care e.g.
       transportation, housing, stable family environments
      Providing convenient time that fit into their already busy schedules
      Patients shop for specific services “cosmetic or glamour” services and neglect essential care.
       Want services, but don’t take maintenance meds or follow through with home care or
       behavior changes (nutrition, exercise)

Involvement of All Family Members
    Family involvement
    Reaching parents for parental involvement

Lack of Funding
    Not enough funding to address the needs
    So many, budget constraints
    The families are not the challenge, finding funding to continue to provide our services is!
    Still have to pay for services
    Not enough funding to meet increasing demand for more classes
    Lack of resources and staff to have greater community level presence

Serving a Transient population
    Finding them – these families tend to move or have discontinued numbers.

Lack of Collaboration and follow through among service providers
    Cooperation
    Not enough internal collaboration
    Attention by the agencies to incorporate the processes with rigor


 Suggestions

 Partner more with schools
     Families that are transitioning to schools, especially the undocumented families could
       benefit from our services.
     Work in collaboration with High School and Middle School teens to address needs of
       students who are parenting
     We already work with low income schools in K-12 programs to work on parenting,
       divorce, behavioral issues etc. We could extend that to Head Start programs as well


 Facilitate access to services by arranging times and visits by agencies to present and offer
 relevant services (info on HCHD, vaccinations, importance of mental health, etc.)


                                                                                               234
      Providing education to families about the importance of mental health issues.
      Potential cross-training opportunities (to share what it is we do/offer and vice versa)
      Yes. Would like to provide families with healthcare needs. Possibly allowing our
       organization to provide vaccine on site and information about HCHD facilities.
      Organize times and dates to provide services (Health)
      Yes. Medical Director that can provide alot of assistance to the program
      We can work with our students as volunteers in a service learning environment which
       will benefit both of us
      Need to give your agency more information about us, so that you may refer your families
       to us. Maybe have further discussions on ways we could better serve the communities
      We want programs at our location!
      We’d like to educate parent groups about financial literacy, beginning with free tax
       preparation
      Services are fragmented and access is problematic
      Continue to be open to contracting opportunities
      Addressing asthma education, smoking cessation

Be more involved with state (DFPS, Child Find) and local programs to help HS/EHS
families
    Assist DFPS with clarification of family and child needs when involved with Head Start.
    Child find – locating children who are in need of services before they start to school – so
       that services can be provided – early intervention services
    Work with the social workers and CASE managers that work directly with children and
       families. Specialized health and social services program
    The more Head Start can utilize the relevant resources of available agencies, the better!
    Greater participation and rigor
    Lots of Opportunities, Need for creation of small groups and processes to let the
       disadvantaged become involved in identifying their most important issues and then rigor
       and support to work on solving
    collaborating on grants
    We currently have HS/EHS collaboration within agency
    To open more center or do more collaborations

Keep Information on Needs and Resources Current
    Continue to provide updates of services needed
    Teachers and staff should stay current on resources available in the community

II. Community Partnership Luncheon
HCDE RIT conducted a group interview with Harris County Community Partners during a
Community Partnership luncheon held at Harris County Department of Education in February
2010. Even though an attendance roster is unavailable, attendees most likely served all Harris
County HS/EHS grantees in some way and their service types were similar to those completing
the Needs Assessment surveys. Attendees were asked to comment on either of the following
topics:




                                                                                             235
1. Vocational education - degree of unmet need in the community, demand for certified
   employees for local jobs, reasons why parents/families don’t access vocational or adult
   education, and suggestions for engaging them.

   Attendees focused on why families do not access adult education and how to engage
   them. They suggested in order for families to participate in adult education or vocational
   trainings:
        Families need to see/understand the value their participation in education and
           trainings would add to the quality of their lives.
        Agencies need to help them by removing barriers to their participation (i.e. providing
           reduced cost of child care for all age groups while they are attending classes &
           holding classes in convenient locations such as libraries) and providing incentives,
           such as free meals.
        Getting the word out about what’s offered through advertising across the
           communities in all relevant languages could also help.

2. Things their agency could do to further develop partnerships with Head Start for
   serving special population groups (i.e. Homeless, children with disabilities, and other
   cultural groups). Attendees suggested:

   To reach out to homeless families and children:
       Go to the shelters and other centers serving homeless children and families (i.e.
         House of Tiny Treasures) and presenting on services offered and the benefits of
         enrollment in Head Start. Some actually provide a service such as Southern Dental
         which brings dentists to shelters who offer screenings and give out dental supplies.
       Support the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (updated July 2004) that
         requires school districts to provide transportation for homeless children attending
         preschool

    To reach out to families with children with disabilities:
       Outreach to ECI (Early Childhood Intervention) programs and health fairs throughout
          Harris County would help families of children with disabilities be aware of Head
          Start as their children age out. ECI has wait lists so letting families know about Early
          Head Start programs can also help families be aware of other options. Evaluation
          teams from ECI could also be scheduled to come and assess Early Head Start children
          for their eligibility in their program as well as call attention to EHS children with
          developmental delays.

    To reach out to other population groups:
       Promote access to other population groups such as Migrant families and children and
          other cultural groups by joining with others in outreach (i.e. Harris County Hospital
          District goes out into the community and shares information on applying for Gold
          Cards with migrant families) or go where cultural groups meet such as the Parker
          Williams Library which has programs on Saturday of special interest to the
          Vietnamese community.



                                                                                              236
Summary
Two different data collection events were conducted with Community partners to gather their
views on the strengths (met needs) and unmet needs of HS/EHS eligible families as well as ideas
for how Head Start programs can collaborate with community agencies to help meet these needs.
Data collection events included a Needs assessment survey that was distributed to community
partners either through scanable hard copy or online from November 2009- February 2010. The
second event was a group interview with community partners who attended an appreciation
luncheon in February 2010.

Forty nine (49) Community partners who serve the Harris County Head Start service area
submitted either scan able or online needs assessment surveys. They represented the fields of
Business, Education, Health Services, Social/Family Services, Mental Health, Government, and
Religion.

Across service categories, they felt the three greatest unmet needs of HS/EHS eligible families
in the Harris County service area were Employment, Mental Health, and Health.

Closer examination of service categories shows partners report HS/EHS eligible families in
the Harris County service area greatest “unmet” needs included the following:

          Education- Fatherhood programs (52.9%, n=18) and Marriage education programs
           (50.0%, n=16).
          Social Services - Programs for families with incarcerated members (60%, n=18)
          Health- affordable health insurance programs (47.5%, n=19), access to affordable
           quality health care (38.1%, n=16), and Nutrition education classes (48.6%, n=17)
          Mental health - Stress management training (65.5%, n=19), Anger management
           training (56.7%, n=17), Respite care services (54.5%, n=18), and Substance abuse
           treatment (40.5%, n=15)
          Disabilities - “Child care for children with disabilities” (46.9%, n=15), “Assistive
           technology services” (54.5%, n=18), and Family support for members with
           disabilities (44.1%, n=15)
          Public services - Recycling programs (57.9%, n=22)

Closer examination of service categories shows partners report HS/EHS eligible families in
the Harris County service area greatest “met” needs included the following:

          Education- Affordable, quality early Education was mostly met/ somewhat met (each
           41.9%, n=18, 18)
          Health- Assistance enrolling in CHIP/Medicaid (45.2%, n=19) and Immunizations for
           children (45.2%, n=19)
          Public Services - Churches/faith based services (60.5%, n=23) and Emergency
           response services (50%, n=20)




                                                                                              237
Need and Recruitment of Other Groups
Of the respondents who thought HS/EHS eligible families still needed Head Start services,
(6.3%, n=3) suggested families living in the NCI service area and 18.8% (n=9) thought those
who still needed EHS services lived in communities of Alief, Northeast, Cy-Fair, and HCDE
service areas as well as limited zip codes (77009, 77011, 77023, 77003).

For specific population groups in the HCDE service area not receiving appropriate services,
29.2% (n=14) reported groups such as Pakistan and Asian populations, Iraqi refugees, Latinas
teens, youth (more programs & after school activities especially for refugee subgroups), elderly
in refugee subgroups, homeless of various cultures, disabled, struggling families that make too
much to qualify for help, and those on a fixed income.

Community partners attending the Appreciation luncheon made suggestions for how to find other
groups needing services and help increase awareness, saying:
     Provide outreach to homeless shelters, ECI programs, health fairs, and attend places (i.e.
       libraries) where regular events are held for other cultural groups in the service area
     Partner with other agencies and bring them to the Head Start centers to present on and
       offer their services

Agencies’ Strengths and Challenges for providing services to families

HCDE Community partners reported their agencies’ strengths for providing services to low
income/Head Start/EHS eligible families include offering the following:

   Strong Case Management
   Affordable or free services
   Close connection to the community
   Needed services
   Comprehensive information and referral

Agencies’ challenges for providing services to low income/Head Start/EHS eligible families
include:

   Meeting the needs of different cultural groups
   Overcoming different barriers to getting services (both external and internal to clients, i.e.
    helping them see the value)
   Involving family members
   Lack of funding
   Serving transient populations
   Lack of collaboration and follow through among service providers




                                                                                                     238
Suggested Ways to Collaborate

Community Partner suggested ways in which Head Start/Early Head Start programs could
collaborate or partner with their agency to better meet the needs of low-income children and
families. These ideas included:
 Partner more with schools (especially to increase access to undocumented families and teen
    parents)
 Facilitate access to services by arranging times and visits by agencies to present and offer
    relevant services (i.e. info. on HC Hospital District, vaccinations, importance of mental
    health, assess for disabilities)
 Increase involvement with state (i.e. DFPS, Child Find) and local programs to help HS/EHS
    families
 Keep information on families’ needs and resources current




                                                                                           239
Community Partners’ Survey:
Harris County Department of Education (HCDE)
Introduction
The views of community partners who serve low income families eligible for HS/EHS services
were solicited through scanable or online surveys from November 2009- February 2010 and a
group interview event in February 2010. Herein are the disaggregated quantitative results of
community partners primarily associated with HCDE. See the previous overall section for
combined quantitative results and qualitative comments collected through surveys and the group
interview.
I. Surveys

A. Characteristics of Respondents
       According to a list of formal partnerships for 2008-2009, HCDE had 39 formal partners
supporting its programming. They represented Administration, Nutrition, Health services,
Education, Disabilities, Mental wellness, and Family Services. Twenty-nine (29) Community
partners who serve low income families in the HCDE Head Start service area submitted either
scan able or online needs assessment surveys. They represented the following service areas:
                               Community Partners’ Agency Type
             Area                  %   N        Area                    %       N
             Education           32.1  9        Mental Health           7.1     2
             Health Services     21.4  6        Government             14.3     4
             Social/Family
             Services             25     7        Religion              2.1      1

B. Service Needs
Responses from the Community Partners survey are displayed in the following tables by service
category:
Education Service Needs
According to the above table, most of HCDE’s community partners reported that all Educational
services listed (except ESL for one person) were needed by low income families in the HCDE’s
service area. The service with the highest “unmet” need was Fatherhood programs with 58.8%
(n=10). Affordable, quality early Education was the highest met need with 44% (n=11), though
overall it was mostly “somewhat met” with 48% (n=12). Respondents reported the remaining
educational services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 44% (personal finance
programs) to 84% (literacy building). From two to eleven respondents reported they were
unaware of the need across these services.




                                                                                           240
 Education - HCDE
                                             Degree of Meeting Need
                                                   Somewhat                          Not
                              Total        Met         met      Not met             needed   DK   Miss
                               N         N    %    N       %    N    %                N       N    N
 Affordable, quality early
 education                      25       11     44.0       12   48.0    2     8       0      2     2
 GED/ HS Diploma                22        5     22.7       17   77.3    0     0       0      4     3
 Access to higher education     20        3     15.0       14   70.0    3    15       0      6     3
 ESL Classes                    20        6     30.0       12   60.0    2   10.0      1       5    3
 Fatherhood programs            17        2     11.8        5   29.4   10   58.8      0      9     3
 Marriage Education             15        1      6.7        8   53.3    6   40.0      0      11    3
 Literacy-building              19        2     10.5       16   84.2    1    5.3      0      7     3
 Computer Classes               17        3     17.6       12   70.6    2   11.8      0      10    2
 Personal finance programs      18        3     16.7        8   44.4    7   38.9      0       8    3
 Parenting Education            23        7     30.4       12   52.2    4   17.4      0       3    3
 Affordable before & after
 school care                    22       3      13.6       11   50.0   8    36.4      0      5     2

Employment Service Needs
According to the above table, most of the respondents reported that all Employment services
were needed by low income families in the HCDE’s service area. Respondents reported that all
employment services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 44% (Job placement
programs) to 55%% (Vocational training). From seven to nine respondents reported they were
unaware of the need across these services.

 Employment - HCDE
                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                                                 Somewhat                  Not
 Service                Total          Met           met        Not met   needed             DK   Miss
                         N           N     %      N      %       N    %     N                 N    N
 Vocational Training     20          4   20.0     11    55.0     5   25.0    0                8    1
 Job readiness
 assistance              20          4       20.0      10       50.0   6     30.0     0      7     2
 Job Placement
 programs                18          3       16.7      8        44.4   7     38.9     0      9     2

Social Service Needs
According to the above table, most of the respondents reported that all Social services were
needed by low income families in the HCDE’s service area. The respondents reported these
social services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 47.6% (Assistance for homeless
families) to 68.4% (legal services). From four to twelve respondents reported they were unaware
of the need across these services.




                                                                                                    241
    Social Services- HCDE
                                                             Degree of Meeting Need
                                                                       Somewhat                             Not
    Service                           Total          Met                  met                Not met       needed   DK      Miss
                                       N         N         %           N      %            N       %         N       N       N
    Crisis intervention                23        7        30.4         12   52.2           4      17.4        0      4       2
    Emergency assistance-food          22        6        27.3         12   54.5           4      18.2        0      5       2
    Emergency assistance- rent,
    utilities                          20        3        15.0         11        55.0      6        30.0     0      7        2
    Assistance for homeless
    families                           21        3        14.3         10        47.6      8        38.1     0      6        2
    Safe, affordable housing           20        1         5.0         11        55.0      8        40.0     0      7        2
    Public transportation              20        2        10.0         10        50.0      8        40.0     0      7        2
    Translation services               22        4        18.2         11        50.0      7        31.8     0      4        3
    Legal services                     19        1        5.3          13        68.4      5        26.3     0      8        2
    Immigration/naturalization
    assistance                         18        2        11.1         10        55.6      6        33.3     0      9        2
    Programs for families with
    incarcerated members               15        1        6.7          8         53.3      6        40.0     0      12       2

    Health and Nutrition Service Needs
    According to the above table, most of the respondents reported that all health and nutrition
    services were needed by low income families in the HCDE’s service area. The services with the
    highest “unmet” needs were Affordable health insurance programs (52.4%, n=11) and Access to
    affordable quality health care (43.5%, n=10). Access to affordable fresh produce was equally
    somewhat met/unmet (50%, n=9, 9) for families (nine said “don’t know”). The service with
    the highest “met” need was Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid (47.8%, n=11). The
    respondents reported the remaining health and nutrition services were mostly “somewhat met”
    ranging from 40.9% (dental care) to 60.9% (pediatric care). From two to nine respondents
    reported they were unaware of the need across these services.
Health/Nutrition- HCDE
                                                         Degree of Meeting Need
                                                           Somewhat                                         Not
Service                                  Total       Met      met           Not met                        Needed    DK          Miss
                                          N          N   %     N      %      N      %                       N        N           N
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
Medicaid                                    23       11         47.8        10      43.5       2     8.7     0          4        2
Affordable health insurance
programs                                    21       4          19.0        6       28.6       11   52.4     0          6        2
Access to affordable quality health
care                                        23       5          21.7         8      34.8       10   43.5     0          4        2
Prenatal care                               22        5         22.7        12      54.5       5    22.7     0          5        2
Pediatric care                              23        4         17.4        14      60.9       5    21.7     0          5        1
Immunizations for children                  25       11         44.0        12      48.0       2    8.0      0          2        2
Immunizations for adults                    21       4          19.0        10      47.6       7    33.3     0          7        1
Dental care                                 22       5          22.7         9      40.9        8   36.4     0          5        2
Nutrition education classes                 20        1          5.0        10      50.0       9    45.0     0          7        2
Access to affordable fresh produce          18        0          0.0        9       50.0       9    50.0     0          9        2
Health education                            22       3          13.6        11      50.0       8    36.4     0          5        2



                                                                                                                            242
Mental Health Service Needs
According to the above table, most of the respondents reported that all listed mental health
services were needed by low income families in the HCDE’s service area. The services with the
highest unmet needs were “Stress management training” (53.3%, n=15) and “Respite care
services” (47.1%, n=8). The respondents reported the remaining mental health services were
mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 45% (domestic violence services and substance abuse
treatment) to 63.6% (Child abuse/neglect services). From five to twelve respondents reported
they were unaware of the need across these services.
Mental Health- HCDE
                                             Degree of Meeting Need
                                                 Somewhat                                      Not
Service                          Total   Met        met         Not met                       Needed   DK   Miss
                                  N    N   %      N      %      N      %                        N       N
Counseling services               22   6 27.3     11 50.0       5     22.7                      0       5    2
Specialized parenting
education                          22     3     13.6      13        59.1      6        27.3     0       5    2
Domestic violence services         20     4     20.0       9        45.0      7        35.0     0       7    2
Child abuse/neglect services       22     5     22.7      14        63.6      3        13.6     0       5    2
Substance abuse treatment          20     5     25.0       9        45.0      6        30.0     0       7    2
Respite care services              17     2     11.8       7        41.2      8        47.1     0      10    2
Stress management training         15     0      0         7        46.7      8        53.3     0      12    2
Anger management training          15     0      0         9        60.0      6        40.0     0      12    2

Disabilities Service Needs
According to the above table, most of the respondents reported that all Disabilities services were
needed by low income families in the HCDE’s service area. The services with the highest unmet
needs were Child care for children with disabilities (50%, n=10) and Assistive technology
services (45%, n=9). The respondents reported the remaining disabilities services were mostly
“somewhat met” ranging from 45.5% (Screening for early detection of disabilities) to 52.2%
(Public school’s provisions of special education services). From four to seven respondents
reported they were unaware of the need across these services.

Disabilities- HCDE
                                                   Degree of Meeting Need
                                                        Somewhat                               Not
Service                                 Total    Met        met       Not met                 needed   DK   Miss
                                         N      N %     N       %     N    %                    N       N
Screening for early detection of
disabilities                             22     7      31.8    10      45.5       5    22.7     0      4     3
Public school’s provisions of special
education services                       23     7      30.4    12      52.2       4    17.4     0      4     2
Family support for members with
disabilities                             21     3      14.3    10      47.6       8    38.1     0      5     3
Assistive technology services            20     3      15.0     8      40.0       9    45.0     0      7     2
Child care for children with
disabilities                             20     3      15.0    7       35.0       10   50.0     0      7     2




                                                                                                            243
  Other Public Services Needs
  According to the above table, most of the respondents reported that all Public services (except
  Community centers for one person) were needed by low income families in the HCDE’s service
  area. The service with the highest “unmet” need was “recycling programs” (60%, n=12). The
  services with the highest met need were “Churches/faith based services” (60%, n=12) and
  “Emergency response services” (50%, n=11). The respondents reported the remaining public
  services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 47.1% (“Business community”) to 68.4%
  (“Cultural community centers”). From four to eight respondents reported they were unaware of
  the need across these services.
Other Public services-HCDE
                                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                                                               Somewhat                     Not
Service                                   Total        Met         met         Not met     needed   DK Miss
                                           N      N       %      N     %      N      %       N      n
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambulance etc)              22     11     50.0    8    36.4    3     13.6     0      4     3
Neighborhood watch programs                19      1      5.3   11    57.9    7     36.8     0      7     3
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                        22     7      31.8   11    50.0     4    18.2     0      4     3
Recycling programs                         20     3      15.0    5    25.0    12    60.0     0      6     3
Business community (stores,
restaurant, entertainment)                 17      6     35.3   8     47.1    3     17.6     0      8     4
Public Parks and recreation                22      6     27.3   14    63.6    2     9.1      0      4     3
Community Centers                          21      6     28.6   14    66.7    1     4.8      1      4     3
Churches/faith based services              20     12     60.0   7     35.0    1     5.0      0      6     3
Cultural community centers                 19      3     15.8   13    68.4    3     15.8     0      7     3

  C. Greatest Unmet Needs
  HCDE’s community partners were asked, at the survey’s conclusion, what were the top three
  greatest “unmet” needs of HS/EHS eligible families living in HCDE’s service area. Based on
  their rankings and the Borda2 method of multi-decision making to account for all values, the
  three greatest unmet needs for low income families (HS/EHS eligible) in the HCDE service
  area were:

                 (1) EMPLOYMENT                        (2) MENTAL HEALTH           (3) HEALTH




  2
      Described in Methodology section.


                                                                                                        244
                 Greatest Unmet needs according to HCDE Community Partners
       Need                          Borda Score      Avg. endorsement              SD
       1. Employment                          164                 7.45             1.68
       2. Mental health                       107                  6.69            1.99
       3. Health                              102                 6.38             2.42
       4. Food and Nutrition                   93                 5.81             2.43
       5. Transportation                       91                 6.07             2.84
       6. Social/Family Services               75                  5.36            2.56
       7. Education                            63                 5.73             3.66
       8. Housing                              60                   5.0            2.80
       9. Disabilities                         45                   4.5            3.14
       10. Legal                               18                   2.0            2.35

Summary
According to a list of partnerships for 2008-2009, HCDE had 39 formal partners supporting its
Head Start programming. During the time period from November 2009- February 2010, 29
Community partners who serve the HCDE Head Start service area submitted either scanable or
online needs assessment surveys. They represented the fields of Education, Health Services,
Social/Family Services, Mental Health, Government, and Religion.
Across service categories, partners ranked the top three greatest unmet needs of HS/EHS
eligible families in the AVANCE service area were Employment, Mental Health, and Health.
Closer examination of services across seven main categories shows partners reported the
greatest “unmet” needs of HS/EHS eligible families in the HCDE service area included the
following:
      Education- Fatherhood programs (58.8%, n=10)
      Health- Affordable health insurance programs (52.4%, n=11), Access to affordable
       quality health care (43.5%, n=10)
      Mental health - Stress management training (46.7% somewhat met, 53.3% not met,
       n=15); Anger Management training (60% somewhat met, 40% not met, n=15); and
       Respite care services (47.1%, n=8)
      Disabilities - Child care for children with disabilities (50%, n=10) and Assistive
       technology services (45%, n=9)
      Public services - Recycling programs (60%, n=12)

Closer examination of services across seven main categories shows partners reported the
greatest “met” needs of HS/EHS eligible families in the HCDE service area included the
following:
      Health- Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid” (47.8%, n=11).
      Public Services - Churches/faith based services (60%, n=12) and Emergency response
       services (50%, n=11)




                                                                                            245
Community Partners’ Survey:
AVANCE

Introduction
The views of community partners who serve low income families eligible for HS/EHS services
were solicited through scanable or online surveys from November 2009- February 2010 and a
group interview event in February 2010. Herein are the disaggregated quantitative results of
community partners primarily associated with AVANCE. See the previous overall section for
combined quantitative results and qualitative comments collected through surveys and the group
interview.

I. Surveys

A. Characteristics of Respondents
According to a list of partnerships for 2008-2009, AVANCE had 63 formal and informal
partners supporting its programming. Twenty-eight (28) of these partners who serve low income
families in the AVANCE HS/EHS service area submitted either scanable or online needs
assessment surveys. They represented the following service areas:

                                 Community Partners’ Agency Type
               Area                   N %           Area                N      %
               Education              6    22.2     Mental Health       2      7.4
               Health Services        7    25.9     Government          4      14.8
               Social/Family Services 8    29.6     No answer           1

B. Service Needs
Responses from the Community Partners survey are displayed in the following tables by service
category:

Education Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Educational services listed
(except for ESL classes for one) were needed by low income families in the AVANCE service
area. The services with the greatest “unmet” need were Fatherhood programs (50%, n=9), and
Affordable before & after school care (42.9%, n=9). The greatest “met” needs were Affordable,
quality early education (50%, n=12) and Parenting Education (40.9%, n=9). The respondents
reported the remaining educational services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 43.8%
(Marriage Education) to 81% (GED/HS diploma). From two to nine respondents reported they
were unaware of the need across these services.




                                                                                              246
Education - AVANCE
                                              Degree of Meeting Need
                                                   Somewhat                             Not
                                   Total     Met       met       Not met               needed    DK      Miss
                                    N      N     %   N     %    N     %                  N        N       N
Affordable, quality early
Education                           24     12     50.0   10   41.7       2      8.3         0       2        2
GED/ HS Diploma                     21      4     19.0   17   81.0       0      0.0         0       4        3
Access to higher education          19      4     21.1   12   63.2       3     15.8         0       6        3
ESL Classes                         19      5     26.3   11   57.9       3     15.8         1       5        3
Fatherhood programs                 18      4     22.2    5   27.8       9     50.0         0       7        3
Marriage Education                  16      3     18.8    7   43.8       6     37.5         0       9        3
Literacy-building                   19      3     15.8   15   78.9       1      5.3         0       5        4
Computer Classes                    19      5     26.3   12   63.2       2     10.5         0       7        2
Personal finance programs           18      2     11.1    9   50.0       7     38.9         0       7        3
Parenting Education                 22      9     40.9    8   36.4       5     22.7         0       3        3
Affordable before & after school
care                                21     4      19.0   8    38.1       9     42.9         0       5        2

Employment Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Employment services were
needed by low income families in the AVANCE service area. The service with the greatest
“unmet” need was for Job Placement programs (41.2%, n=7). Respondents reported the
remaining employment services at 47.4% (Vocational training and Job readiness assistance) were
mostly “somewhat met.” From seven to nine respondents reported they were unaware of the
need across these services.

Employment - AVANCE
                                         Degree of Meeting Need
                                               Somewhat                                Not
                           Total       Met         met       Not met                  needed    DK      Miss
                            N        N    %    N       %    N     %                     N        N       N
Vocational Training         19       4     21.1     9     47.4       6       31.6       0       8        1
Job readiness assistance    19       4     21.1     9     47.4       6       31.6       0       7        2
Job Placement programs      17       4     23.5     6     35.3       7       41.2       0       9        2

Social Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Social services were needed
by low income families in the AVANCE service area. The greatest “unmet” needs were for
Assistance for homeless families (45%, n=9), Safe, affordable housing (45%, n=9), Public
transportation (42.9%, n=9), and Programs for families with incarcerated members (57.1%, n=8).
The respondents reported the remaining social services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging
from 45% (Translation services) to 52.9% (Immigration/naturalization assistance). From four to
twelve respondents reported they were unaware of the need across these services.




                                                                                                             247
Social Services - AVANCE
                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                                                 Somewhat                     Not
                              Total       Met        met      Not met        needed   DK    Miss
                               N        N     %   N      %   N     %           N       N     N
Crisis intervention             22       7    31.8   10   45.5   5    22.7     0       4      2
Emergency assistance-food       22       6    27.3   11   50.0   5    22.7     0       4      2
Emergency assistance- rent,
utilities                       21       2    9.5    11   52.4   8    38.1     0       5      2
Assistance for homeless
families                        20       3    15.0   8    40.0   9    45.0     0       6      2
Safe, affordable housing        20       2    10.0   9    45.0   9    45.0     0       5      3
Public transportation           21       3    14.3   9    42.9   9    42.9     0       5      2
Translation services            20       4    20.0   9    45.0   7    35.0     0       5      3
Legal services                  18       4    22.2   9    50.0   5    27.8     0       8      2
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                      17       3    17.6   9    52.9   5    29.4     0       9      2
Programs for families with
incarcerated members            14       1    7.1    5    35.7   8    57.1     0       12     2

Health and Nutrition Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all health and nutrition services
were needed by low income families in the AVANCE service area. The services with the greatest
“unmet” needs were Affordable health insurance programs (54.2%, n=13), Access to affordable
quality health care (45.8%, n=11), Nutrition education classes (57.9%, n=11), Access to
affordable fresh produce (52.6%, n=10) and Health education (45%, n=9). Services with the
greatest “met” needs included Assistance enrolling in CHIP/Medicaid (50%, n=12) and
Immunizations for children (47.8%, n=11). The respondents reported the remaining health and
nutrition services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 42.9% (Immunizations for adults)
to 52.2% (pediatric care). From two to seven respondents reported they were unaware of the
need across these services




                                                                                               248
Health/Nutrition - AVANCE
                                               Degree of Meeting Need
                                                    Somewhat                      Not
                                Total         Met       met       Not met        needed    DK   Miss
                                 N          N    %   N      %     N    %           N        N    N
Assistance enrolling in CHIP
or Medicaid                       24        12   50.0   9    37.5   3    12.5      0       2     2
Affordable health insurance
programs                          24        5    20.8   6    25.0   13   54.2      0       2     2
Access to affordable quality
health care                       24         5   20.8    8   33.3   11   45.8      0       2     2
Prenatal care                     22         5   22.7   11   50.0    6   27.3      0       4     2
Pediatric care                    23         5   21.7   12   52.2    6   26.1      0       4     1
Immunizations for children        23        11   47.8   10   43.5    2    8.7      0       3     2
Immunizations for adults          21         4   19.0    9   42.9    8   38.1      0       6     1
Dental care                       21         6   28.6    7   33.3    8   38.1      0       5     2
Nutrition education classes       19         1    5.3    7   36.8   11   57.9      0       7     2
Access to affordable fresh
produce                           19        2    10.5   7    36.8   10   52.6      0       7     2
Health education                  20        3    15.0   8    40.0    9   45.0      0       6     2

Mental Health Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all mental health services were
needed by low income families in the AVANCE service area. The services with the greatest
“unmet” needs included Stress management training (57.1%, n=8) and Respite care services
(47.1%, n=8). Anger management training (46.7%, n=7, 7) and Substance abuse treatment
(36.8%, n=7, 7) were equally mostly “somewhat met/unmet.” The respondents reported the
remaining mental health services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 40% (Domestic
Violence services) to 59.1% (Child abuse/neglect services). From four to eleven respondents
reported they were unaware of the need across these services.

Mental Health - AVANCE
                                            Degree of Meeting Need
                                                  Somewhat               Not
                               Total      Met         met       Not met needed DK Miss
                                N       N    %     N      %    N     %    N     N  N
Counseling services             21      5   23.8   11 52.4      5   23.8   0    5  2
Specialized parenting
education                       21      4        19.0   12   57.1    5    23.8         0    5    2
Domestic violence services      20      6        30.0    8   40.0    6    30.0         0    6    2
Child abuse/neglect services    22      6        27.3   13   59.1    3    13.6         0    4    2
Substance abuse treatment       19      5        26.3    7   36.8    7    36.8         0    7    2
Respite care services           17      2        11.8    7   41.2    8    47.1         0    9    2
Stress management training      14      1         7.1    5   35.7    8    57.1         1   11    2
Anger management training       15      1         6.7    7   46.7    7    46.7         0   11    2




                                                                                                     249
Disabilities Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Disabilities services were
needed by low income families in the AVANCE service area. The services with the greatest
“unmet” needs were Assistive technology services (61.1%, n=11), Child care for children with
disabilities (52.9%, n=9), and Family support for members with disabilities (45%, n=9).
Respondents reported Screening for early detection of disabilities (42.9%, n=9) was mostly
“met” and Public school’s provisions of special education services (45.5%, n=10) was mostly
“somewhat met.” From four to nine respondents reported they were unaware of the need across
these services.

Disabilities - AVANCE
                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                                                Somewhat                    Not
                               Total     Met        met       Not met      needed   DK    Miss
                                N      N    %    N      %     N    %         N       N     N
Screening for early
detection of disabilities       21     9   42.9   8    38.1    4    19.0     0       4      3
Public school’s provisions
of special education
services                        22     8   36.4   10   45.5    4    18.2     0       4      2
Family support for
members with disabilities       20     4   20.0   7    35.0    9    45.0     0       5      3
Assistive technology
services                        18     3   16.7   4    22.2    11   61.1     0       8      2
Child care for children with
disabilities                    17     5   29.4   3    17.6    9    52.9     0       9      2

Other Public Services Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Public services (except one
for Community Centers) were needed by low income families in the AVANCE service area. The
service with the greatest “unmet” need was Recycling programs (57.9%, n=11). The services
with the greatest “met” needs were Churches/faith based services (65%, n=13) and Emergency
response services (50%, n=11). Respondents reported the remaining public services were mostly
“somewhat met” ranging from 42.9% (Public services) to 61.3% (Public Parks and recreation).
From two to seven respondents reported they were unaware of the need across these services.




                                                                                                250
Other Public Services - AVANCE
                                                   Degree of Meeting Need
                                                       Somewhat                      Not
                                        Total    Met      met        Not met        needed DK     Miss
                                         N      N %     N     %      N    %           N     N      N
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambulance, etc)           22     11 50.0      8   36.4   3    13.6     0    3       3
Neighborhood watch programs              19      1 5.3      11   57.9   7    36.8     0    6       3
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                      21     8 38.1      9    42.9    4   19.0     0    4       3
Recycling programs                       19     2 10.5      6    31.5   11   57.9     0    6       3
Business community (stores,
restaurant., entertainment)              17      6   35.3    8   47.1   3    17.6     0    7       4
Public Parks and recreation              21      7   33.3   13   61.3   1    4.8      0    3       4
Community Centers                        22      8   36.4   12   54.5   2    9.1      1    2       3
Churches/faith based services            20     13   65.0    6   30.0   1     5.0     0    5       3
Cultural community centers               20      4   20.0   12   60.0   4    20.0     0    5       3

C. Greatest Unmet Needs
AVANCE’S community partners were asked, at the survey’s conclusion, what were the top three
greatest “unmet” needs of HS/EHS eligible families living in AVANCE’s service area. Based on
their rankings and the Borda3 method of multi-decision making to account for all values, the
three greatest unmet needs for low income families (HS/EHS eligible) in the AVANCE service
area were:
        (1) EMPLOYMENT              (2) HEALTH             3) MENTAL HEALTH

                   Greatest Unmet needs according to AVANCE Community Partners
           Need                           Borda Score    Avg. Endorsement                   SD
           1. Employment                          140                  7.0                 2.47
           2. Health                              114                7.60                  1.40
           3. Mental Health                        91                  7.0                 2.04
           4. Transportation                       82                5.86                  2.51
           5. Social/Family Services               76                 6.33                 1.87
           6. Food and Nutrition                   70                5.83                  2.44
           7 Education                             53                5.89                  3.14
           8. Housing                              51                4.64                  3.01
           9. Disabilities                         32                  4.0                 3.12
           10. Legal                               25                3.13                  3.04


Summary
According to a list of partnerships for 2008-2009, AVANCE had 63 formal and informal
partners supporting its programming. During the time period from November 2009- February
2010, 28 Community partners who serve the AVANCE Head Start service area submitted either


3
    Described in Methodology section.


                                                                                                       251
scanable or online needs assessment surveys. Their services represented the fields of Education,
Health Services, Social/Family Services, Mental Health, and Government.
Across service categories, partners ranked the top three greatest unmet needs of HS/EHS
eligible families in the AVANCE service area were Employment, Health, and Mental Health.

Closer examination of services across seven main categories shows partners reported the
greatest “unmet” needs of HS/EHS eligible families in the AVANCE service area included
the following:

      Education- Fatherhood programs (50%, n=9), and Affordable before & after school care
       (42.9%, n=9)
      Employment – Job Placement programs (41.2%, n=7)
      Social Services - Assistance for homeless families (45%, n=9), Safe, affordable housing
       (45%, n=9), Public transportation (42.9%, n=9), and Programs for families with
       incarcerated members (57.1%, n=8)
      Health-Affordable health insurance programs (54.2%, n=13), Access to affordable quality
       health care (45.8%, n=11), Nutrition education classes (57.9%, n=11), Access to
       affordable fresh produce (52.6%, n=10) and Health education (45%, n=9)
      Mental health - Stress management training (57.1%, n=8) and Respite care services
       (47.1%, n=8)
      Disabilities - Assistive technology services (61.1%, n=11), Child care for children with
       disabilities (52.9%, n=9), and Family support for members with disabilities (45%, n=9)
      Public services - Recycling programs (57.9%, n=11)

Closer examination of services across seven main categories shows partners reported the
greatest “met” needs of HS/EHS eligible families in the AVANCE service area included the
following:

      Education - Affordable, quality early education (50%, n=12) and Parenting Education
       (40.9%, n=9).
      Health - Assistance enrolling in CHIP/Medicaid (50%, n=12) and Immunizations for
       children (47.8%, n=11)
      Disabilities - Screening for early detection of disabilities (42.9%, n=9)
      Public Services - Churches/faith based services (65%, n=13) and Emergency response
       services (50%, n=11)




                                                                                             252
Community Partners’ Survey:
Neighborhood Centers, Inc.

Introduction
The views of community partners who serve low income families eligible for HS/EHS services
were solicited through scanable or online surveys from November 2009- February 2010 and a
group interview event in February 2010. Herein are the disaggregated quantitative results of
community partners primarily associated with Neighborhood Centers, Inc. (NCI). See the
previous overall section for combined quantitative results and qualitative comments collected
through surveys and a group interview.
I. Surveys
A. Characteristics of Respondents
According to information on formal partnerships from 2008-2009, NCI had 45 partners
supporting its HS/EHS programming. They represent Operational Partners, Facilities, Personnel,
Child development/Educational services, Disabilities & Mental Wellness, Health &
Nutrition/Family wellness, Family and Community Partnerships, and others. Thirty six (36) of
these partners who serve low income families in the NCI HS/EHS service area submitted either
scanable or online needs assessment surveys. They represented the following service areas:

                        Community Partners’ Agency Type (No answer=2)
    Area                    N     %           Area                               N      %
    Education               9     26.5        Mental Health                      3      8.8
    Health Services         8     23.5        Business                           1      2.9
    Social/Family Services  7     20.6        Head Start Family Services         1      2.9
    Government              4     11.8        Religion                           1      2.9

B. Service needs of low income HS/EHS eligible families in the NCI service area –
Responses from the Community Partners survey are displayed in the following tables by service
category:

Education Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Educational services listed
(except for one for ESL) were needed by low income families in the NCI service area. The
services with the greatest “unmet” need were Fatherhood programs (64.0%, n=16), Marriage
education programs (52.2%, n=12), and Affordable before & after school care (51.9%, n=14).
Affordable, quality early Education was the highest met need with 38.7% (n=12) though overall
it was mostly somewhat met with 41.9% (n=13). The respondents reported the remaining
educational services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 40% (ESL classes) to 67.9%
(GED/HS diploma). From three to ten respondents reported they were unaware of the need
across these services.




                                                                                              253
Education - Neighborhood Centers
                                            Degree of Meeting Need
                                                  Somewhat                    Not
                                 Total     Met        met      Not met       needed   DK      Miss
                                  N      N    %    N     %     N    %          N       N       N
Affordable, quality early
education                         31     12   38.7   13   41.9    6   19.4      0       3       2
GED/ HS Diploma                   28      5   17.9   19   67.9    4   14.3      0       5       3
Access to higher education        25      4   16.0   15   60.0    6   24.0      0       6       5
ESL Classes                       25      7   28.0   10   40.0    8   32.0      1       7       3
Fatherhood programs               25      1    4.0    8   32.0   16   64.0      0       8       3
Marriage Education                23      1    4.3   10   43.5   12   52.2      0      10       3
Literacy-building                 25      4   16.0   15   60.0    6   24.0      0       8       3
Computer Classes                  25      5   20.0   13   52.0    7   25.8      0       9       2
Personal finance programs         25      3   12.0   12   48.0   10   40.0      0       8       3
Parenting Education               28      7   25.0   15   53.6    6   21.4      0       5       3
Affordable before & after
school care                       27     3    11.1   10   37.0   14   51.9      0         7     2

Employment Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Employment services were
needed by low income families in the NCI service area. The service with the greatest “unmet”
need was Job Placement programs (48%, n=12) and Job readiness assistance was equally
“somewhat met and unmet” (42.3%, n=11, 11). Respondents reported the Vocational training
(44.4%, n=12) was mostly “somewhat met.” From eight to nine respondents reported they
were unaware of the need across these services.

Employment - Neighborhood Centers
                                               Degree of Meeting Need
                                                 Somewhat Not         Not
Service                         Total     Met      met       met    needed           DK       Miss
                                 N        N    %      N       % N       %           N     N    N
Vocational Training              27       5   18.5    12    44.4 10 37.0            0     8    1
Job readiness assistance         26       4   15.4    11    42.3 11 42.3            0     7    3
Job Placement programs           25       3   12.0    10    40.0 12 48.0            0     9    2

Social Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Social services were needed
by low income families in the NCI service area. The greatest “unmet” needs were for Safe,
affordable housing (51.9%, n=14), Assistance for homeless families (50%, n=14) and Programs
for families with incarcerated members (56.5%, n=13). The respondents reported the remaining
social services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 44.4% (Public transportation) to
60% (Legal services). From two to eleven respondents reported they were unaware of the need
across these services.




                                                                                                254
Social Services -Neighborhood Centers
                                            Degree of Meeting Need
                                                   Somewhat                     Not
Service                        Total       Met        met       Not met        needed   DK    Miss
                                N        N    %    N    %       N    %           N       N     N
Crisis intervention              28      6    21.4   14    50.0     8   28.6     0       6     2
Emergency assistance-food        28      5    17.9   15    53.6     8   28.6     0       6     2
Emergency assistance- rent,
utilities                        27      4    14.8   13    48.1    10   37.0     0       7     2
Assistance for homeless
families                         28      3    10.7   11    39.3    14   50.0     0       6     2
Safe, affordable housing         27      1     3.7   12    44.4    14   51.9     0       7     2
Public transportation            27      5    18.5   12    44.4    10   37.0     0       2     9
Translation services             27      4    14.8   14    51.9     9   33.3     0       6     3
Legal services                   25      1     4.0   15    60.0     9   36.0     0       9     2
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                       24      4    16.7   13    54.2     7   29.2     0      10     2
Programs for families with
incarcerated members             23      1     4.3    9    39.1    13   56.5     0      11     2

Health and Nutrition Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all health and nutrition services
were needed by low income families in the NCI service area. The services with the greatest
“unmet” needs were Affordable health insurance programs (43.3%, n=13), Access to affordable
quality health care (40%, n=12), Nutrition education classes (46.2%, n=12), Access to affordable
fresh produce (45.8%, n=11) and Health education (44.4%, n=12). Assistance enrolling in
CHIP/Medicaid (46.7%, n=14) was “mostly met” and Immunizations for children (43.3%, n=13,
13) was “equally met and somewhat met.” The respondents reported the remaining health and
nutrition services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 42.3% (Immunizations for adults)
to 55.2% (pediatric care). From four to ten respondents reported they were unaware of the need
across these services.




                                                                                               255
Health/Nutrition - Neighborhood Centers
                                                    Degree of Meeting Need
                                                        Somewhat                             Not
Service                                    Total  Met      met        Not met               needed   DK     Miss
                                            N    N %    N      %      N    %                  N       N      N
Assistance enrolling in
CHIP or Medicaid                             30       14 46.7      12    40.0   4    13.3     0       4         2
Affordable health
insurance programs                           30       7 23.3       10    33.3   13   43.3     0       4         2
Access to affordable
quality health care                          30        8   26.7    10    33.3   12   40.0     0        4        2
Prenatal care                                27       7    25.9    13    48.1    7   25.9     0        7        2
Pediatric care                               29       6    20.7    16    55.2    7   24.1     0        6        1
Immunizations for children                   30       13   43.3    13    43.3    4   13.3     0        4        2
Immunizations for adults                     26        7   26.9    11    42.3    8   30.8     0        9        1
Dental care                                  27       7    25.9    10    37.0   10   37.0     0        6        3
Nutrition education classes                  26        4   15.4    10    38.5   12   46.2     0        8        2
Access to affordable fresh produce           24       4    16.7     9    37.5   11   45.8     0       10        2
Health education                             27       5    18.5    10    37.0   12   44.4     0        7        2

 Mental Health Service Needs
 As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all mental health services were
 needed by low income families in the NCI service area. The services with the greatest “unmet”
 needs included Stress management training (71.4%, n=15), Respite care services (62.5%, n=15),
 Anger management training (61.9%, n=13), and Substance abuse treatment (40.7%, n=11). The
 respondents reported the remaining mental health services were mostly “somewhat met”
 ranging from 46.4% (Specialized parenting education) to 51.7% (Child abuse/neglect services).
 From five to thirteen of respondents reported they were unaware of the need across these
 services.

 Mental Health - Neighborhood Centers
                                                      Degree of Meeting Need
                                                           Somewhat               Not
 Service                             Total          Met       met        Not met needed DK                 Miss
                                      N           N  %     N      %      N    %    N     N                  N
 Counseling services                  28          4 14.3 14      50.0    10 35.7    0    6                  2
 Specialized parenting
 education                            28          5    17.9       13    46.4    10   35.7    0        6     2
 Domestic violence services           26          4    15.4       13    50.0     9   34.6    0        8     2
 Child abuse/neglect services         29          5    17.2       15    51.7     9   31.0    0        5     2
 Substance abuse treatment            27          6    22.2       10    37.0    11   40.7    0        7     2
 Respite care services                24          2     8.3        7    29.2    15   62.5    0       10     2
 Stress management training           21          0     0.0        6    28.6    15   71.4    0       13     2
 Anger management training            21          0     0.0        8    38.1    13   61.9    0       13     2




                                                                                                            256
Disabilities Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Disabilities services were
needed by low income families in the NCI service area. The services with the greatest “unmet”
needs were Assistive technology services (64%, n=16), Child care for children with disabilities
(60.9%, n=14), and Family support for members with disabilities (52%, n=13). Screening for
early detection of disabilities (34.6%, n=9, 9) was equally “somewhat met and unmet. ”
Respondents reported Public school’s provisions of special education services (46.2%, n=12)
was mostly “somewhat met.” From seven to eleven respondents reported they were unaware of
the need across these services.

Disabilities - Neighborhood Centers
                                              Degree of Meeting Need
                                                   Somewhat                    Not
Service                            Total     Met       met      Not met       needed   DK   Miss
                                    N      N   %     N     %    N    %          N       N    N
Screening for early detection of
disabilities                        26     8   30.8   9    34.6   9    34.6     0      7      3
Public school’s provisions of
special education services          26     8   30.8   12   46.2   6    23.1     0      8      2
Family support for members
with disabilities                   25     4   16.0   8    32.0   13   52.0     0      7      4
Assistive technology services       25     4   16.0   5    20.0   16   64.0     0      9      2
Child care for children with
disabilities                        23     5   21.7   4    17.4   14   60.9     0      11     2

Other Public Services Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Public services (except one
for Community Centers) were needed by low income families in the NCI service area. The
service with the greatest “unmet” need was Recycling programs (60.7%, n=17). The service
with the greatest “met” need was Churches/faith based services (51.9%, n=14). Emergency
response services (41.4%, n=12, 12) was equally mostly “met/somewhat met.” Respondents
reported the remaining public services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 44.4%
(Public services) to 55.2% (Public Parks and recreation). From three to seven respondents
reported they were unaware of the need across these services.




                                                                                               257
Other Public Services - Neighborhood Centers
                                                     Degree of Meeting Need
                                                          Somewhat                    Not
Service                                 Total      Met        met       Not met      needed DK Miss
                                         N       N   %    N      %     N     %         N     N  N
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambulance, etc)           29     12 41.4     12   41.4     5   17.2     0    4     3
Neighborhood watch programs              26      1 3.8      13   50.0    12   46.2     0    7     3
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                      27      7   25.9   12   44.4     8   29.6     0    6     3
Recycling programs                       28      2   7.1    9    32.1    17   60.7     0    5     3
Business community (stores,
restaurant, entertainment)               26      7   26.9   14   53.8     5   19.2     0    6     4
Public Parks and recreation              29      9   31.0   16   55.2     4   13.8     0    4     3
Community Centers                        29      8   27.6   14   48.3     7   24.1     1    3     3
Churches/faith based services            27     14   51.9    9   33.3     4   14.8     0    6     3
Cultural community centers               27      6   22.2   13   48.1     8   29.6     0    6     3

C. Greatest Unmet Needs
Community partners were asked, at the survey’s conclusion, what were the top three greatest
“unmet” needs of HS/EHS eligible families living in NCI’s service area. Based on their rankings
and the Borda4 method of multi-decision making to account for all values, the three greatest
unmet needs for low income families (HS/EHS eligible) in the NCI service area were:

             (1) EMPLOYMENT                     (2) HEALTH              (3) MENTAL HEALTH

                       Greatest Unmet Needs according to NCI Community Partners
           Need                             Borda Score     Avg. endorsement                SD
           1. Employment                            150                 7.14               2.37
           2. Health                                128                 7.53               1.66
           3. Mental Health                         125                  6.94              2.01
           4. Social/Family Services                 91                  6.50              2.35
           5. Education                              89                 6.85               1.99
           6. Food and Nutrition                     78                 5.57               3.06
           7. Transportation                         62                 5.17               2.76
           8. Housing                                59                 5.36               2.84
           9. Disabilities                           52                  5.20              3.12
           10. Legal                                 38                 4.22               3.49

Summary
According to information on formal partnerships from 2008-2009, NCI had 45 partners
supporting its programming. During the time period from November 2009- February 2010, 36
Community partners who serve the NCI Head Start service area submitted either scanable or
online needs assessment surveys. Their services represented the fields of Business, Education,
Health Services, Social/Family Services, Mental Health, Religion, Government, and Head Start
Family Services.

4
    Described in Methodology section.


                                                                                                  258
Across service categories, partners ranked the top three greatest unmet needs of HS/EHS
eligible families in the NCI service area were Employment, Health, and Mental Health.

Closer examination of services across seven main categories shows partners reported the
greatest “unmet” needs of HS/EHS eligible families in the NCI service area included the
following:

      Education- Fatherhood programs (64.0%, n=16), Marriage education programs
       (52.2%,n=12), and Affordable before & after school care (51.9%, n=14)
      Employment – Job Placement programs (48%, n=12)
      Social Services - Safe, affordable housing (51.9%, n=14), Assistance for homeless
       families (50%, n=14) and Programs for families with incarcerated members (56.5%,
       n=13)
      Health-Affordable health insurance programs (43.3%, n=13), Access to affordable quality
       health care (40%, n=12), Nutrition education classes (46.2%, n=12), Access to affordable
       fresh produce (45.8%, n=11) and Health education (44.4%, n=12)
      Mental health - Stress management training (71.4%, n=15), Respite care services (62.5%,
       n=15), Anger management training (61.9%, n=13), and Substance abuse treatment
       (40.7%, n=11)
      Disabilities - Assistive technology services (64%, n=16), Child care for children with
       disabilities (60.9%, n=14), and Family support for members with disabilities (52%, n=13)
      Public services - Recycling programs (60.7%, n=17)

Closer examination of services across seven main categories shows partners reported the
greatest “met” needs of HS/EHS eligible families in the NCI service area included the
following:

      Health - Assistance enrolling in CHIP/Medicaid (46.7%, n=14)
      Public Services - Churches/faith based services (51.9%, n=14)




                                                                                           259
Community Partners’ Survey
Gulf Coast Community Services Association

Introduction
The views of community partners who serve low income families eligible for HS/EHS services
were solicited through scanable or online surveys from November 2009- February 2010 and a
group interview event in February 2010. Herein are the disaggregated quantitative results of
community partners primarily associated with Gulf Coast Community Services Association
(GCCSA). See the previous overall section for combined quantitative and qualitative comments
collected through surveys and a group interview.

I. Surveys
A. Characteristics of respondents
Based on the Annual Report for 2008, GCCSA had 184 formal and informal partners supporting
its programming. Twenty-five of these partners who serve low income families in the GCCSA
HS/EHS service area submitted either scanable or online needs assessment surveys. They
represented the following service areas:

                                 Community Partners’ Agency Type
               Area                   N      %      Area                   N      %
               Education               6 25.0       Mental Health          2     8.3
               Health Services         6 25.0       Government             3    12.5
               Social/Family Services  7 29.2

B. Service needs of low income HS/EHS eligible families in the GCCSA service area

Responses from the Community Partners survey are displayed in the following tables by service
category:
Education Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Educational services listed
were needed by low income families in the GCCSA service area. The services with the greatest
“unmet” need were Fatherhood programs (57.1%, n=8), Marriage education programs (58.3%,
n=7), and Affordable before & after school care (55%, n=11). The greatest “met” need was for
Affordable, quality early education (47.6%, n=10). The respondents reported the remaining
educational services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 44.4% (ESL classes) to 73.7%
(GED/HS diploma). From two to ten respondents reported they were unaware of the level of
need across these services.




                                                                                              260
Education - GCCSA
                                                 Degree of Meeting Need
                                                       Somewhat             Not
Service                                  Total  Met        met     Not met needed           DK   Miss
                                          N    N %     N       %    N %      N               N    N
Affordable, quality early Education       21 10 47.6 8       38.1 3 14.3      0              2    2
GED/ HS Diploma                           19   5 26.3 14 73.7 0 0.0           0              3    3
Access to higher education                18   3 16.7 11 61.1 4 22.2          0              4    3
ESL Classes                               18   7 38.9 8      44.4 3 16.7      0              4    3
Fatherhood programs                       14   3 21.4 3      21.4 8 57.1      0              8    3
Marriage Education                        12   1 8.3    4    33.3 7 58.3      0             10    3
Literacy-building                         16   5 31.3 10 62.5 1 6.3           0              6    3
Computer Classes                          15   5 33.3 7      46.7 3 20.0      0              8    2
Personal finance programs                 16   3 18.8 8      50.0 5 31.3      0              6    3
Parenting Education                       19   6 31.6 10 52.6 3 15.8          0              3    3
Affordable before & after
school care                                  20     2 10.0   7      35.0   11 55.0     0     3     2

 Employment Service Needs
 As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Employment services were
 needed by low income families in the GCCSA service area. The service with the greatest
 “unmet” need was for Job Placement programs (47.1%, n=8). Respondents reported the
 remaining employment services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 47.4% (Vocational
 training) to 42.1% (Job readiness assistance). From four to six respondents reported they were
 unaware of the need across these services.

 Employment-      GCCSA
                                             Degree of Meeting Need
                                                   Somewhat                           Not
 Service                         Total     Met         met       Not met             needed DK   Miss
                                  N      N    %    N       %    N     %                N     N    N
 Vocational Training              19     3        15.8   9   47.4      7    36.8       0    5     1
 Job readiness assistance         19     5        26.3   8   42.1      6    31.6       0    4     2
 Job Placement programs           17     2        11.8   7   41.2      8    47.1       0    6     2

 Social Service Needs
 As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Social services were needed
 by low income families in the GCCSA service area. The greatest “unmet” needs were for Safe,
 affordable housing (55.6%, n=10) and Programs for families with incarcerated members (71.4%,
 n=10). Public transportation (47.4%, n=9, 9) and Translation services (42.1%, n=8, 8) are
 “equally somewhat met/unmet.” The respondents reported the remaining social services were
 mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 62.5% (Legal services) to 44.8% (Emergency assistance-
 rent, utilities). From three to nine respondents reported they were unaware of the need across
 these services.




                                                                                                  261
 Social Services - GCCSA
                                                      Degree of Meeting Need
                                                           Somewhat                      Not
                                      Total       Met          met        Not met       needed   DK      Miss
                                       N        N   %      N       %     N     %          N       N       N
 Crisis intervention                   20       7 35.0     9     45.0    4    20.0         0      3       2
 Emergency assistance-food             20       6 30.0     10    50.0    4    20.0         0      3       2
 Emergency assistance- rent,
 utilities                             18       4       22.2     8   44.4    6   33.3     0      5        2
 Assistance for homeless families      19       2       10.5    9    47.4    8   42.1     0      4        2
 Safe, affordable housing              18       1        5.6     7   38.9   10   55.6     0      5        2
 Public transportation                 19       1       5.3     9    47.4   9    47.4     0      4        2
 Translation services                  19       3       15.8     8   42.1    8   42.1     0      3        3
 Legal services                        16       1       6.3     10   62.5    5   31.3     0      7        2
 Immigration/naturalization
 assistance                            16       2       12.5    8    50.0   6    37.5     0      7        2
 Programs for families with
 incarcerated members                  14       1       7.1     3    21.4   10   71.4     0      9        2

 Health and Nutrition Service Needs
 As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all health and nutrition services
 were needed by low income families in the GCCSA service area. The services with the greatest
 “unmet” needs were Affordable health insurance programs (66.7%, n=14), access to affordable
 quality health care (57.1%, n=12), Nutrition education classes (64.7%, n=11), Immunizations for
 adults (52.6%, n=10) and Dental care (47.4%, n=9). Access to affordable fresh produce (50%,
 n=8, 8) and Health education (42.1%, n=8, 8) are “equally somewhat met/unmet.” The
 respondents reported the remaining health and nutrition services were mostly “somewhat met”
 ranging from 42.9% (Immunizations for children) to 47.6% (Assistance enrolling in
 CHIP/Medicaid & pediatric care). From two to seven respondents reported they were unaware
 of the need across these services.
Health/Nutrition - GCCSA
                                                       Degree of Meeting Need
                                                            Somewhat                     Not
                                        Total      Met         met         Not met      needed   DK       Miss
                                         N       N   %      N      %      N     %         N       N        N
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
Medicaid                                 21         8    38.1   10   47.6    3   14.3      0         2        2
Affordable health insurance
programs                                 21         3    14.3    4   19.0   14   66.7      0         2        2
Access to affordable quality health
care                                     21         3    14.3    6   28.6   12   57.1      0         2        2
Prenatal care                            20         3    15.0   9    45.0    8   40.0      0         3        2
Pediatric care                           21         3    14.3   10   47.6    8   38.1      0         3        1
Immunizations for children               21         8    38.1    9   42.9    4   19.0      0         2        2
Immunizations for adults                 19         2    10.5    7   36.8   10   52.6      0         5        1
Dental care                              19         3    15.8    7   36.8   9    47.4      0         4        2
Nutrition education classes              17         1    5.9     5   29.4   11   64.7      0         6        2
Access to affordable fresh produce       16         0    0.0    8    50.0   8    50.0      0         7        2
Health education                         19         3    15.8    8   42.1    8   42.1      0         4        2



                                                                                                          262
Mental Health Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all mental health services were
needed by low income families in the GCCSA service area. The services with the greatest
“unmet” needs included Stress management training (76.9%, n=10), Anger management
training (61.5%, n=8), Respite care services (56.3%, n=9), and Substance abuse treatment
(44.4%, n=8). The respondents reported the remaining mental health services were mostly
“somewhat met” ranging from 63.2% (Child abuse/neglect services) to 47.4% (Counseling
services and Specialized parenting education). From four to ten of respondents reported they
were unaware of the need across these services.
Mental Health - GCCSA
                                                  Degree of Meeting Need
                                                        Somewhat                               Not
Service                        Total          Met           met        Not met                needed   DK   Miss
                                N           N     %     N       %     N      %                  N       N    N
Counseling services             19          4   21.1    9     47.4     6    31.6                 0      4    2
Specialized parenting
education                       19          3    15.8      9        47.4      7       36.8      0       4    2
Domestic violence services      18          3    16.7      10       55.6      5       27.8      0       5    2
Child abuse/neglect services    19          4    21.1      12       63.2      3       15.8      0       4    2
Substance abuse treatment       18          4    22.2       6       33.3      8       44.4      0       5    2
Respite care services           16          2    12.5       5       31.3     9        56.3      0      7     2
Stress management training      13          0     0.0       3       23.1     10       76.9      0      10    2
Anger management training       13          0    0.0        5       38.5     8        61.5      0      10    2

Disabilities Service Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Disabilities services were
needed by low income families in the GCCSA service area. The services with the greatest
“unmet” needs were Assistive technology services (60%, n=9), Child care for children with
disabilities (50%, n=8), and Family support for members with disabilities (46.7%, n=7). Need for
Screening for early detection of disabilities was mostly “met”, (44.4%, n=8). Need for Public
school’s provisions of special education services was mostly “somewhat met” (50%, n=9).
From four to eight respondents reported they were unaware of the need across these services.

Disabilities - GCCSA
                                                    Degree of Meeting Need
                                                          Somewhat                             Not
Service                              Total        Met         met      Not met                needed   DK    Miss
                                      N         N    %     N      %    N     %                  N       N     N
Screening for early detection of
disabilities                           18        8      44.4    6     33.3        4    22.2      0      4        3
Public school’s provisions of
special education services             18        6      33.3    9     50.0        3    16.7      0      5        2
Family support for members
with disabilities                      15        2      13.3    6     40.0        7    46.7      0      7        3
Assistive technology services          15        3      20.0    3     20.0        9    60.0      0      8        2
Child care for children with
disabilities                           16        2      12.5    6     37.5        8    50.0      0      7        2


                                                                                                             263
Other Public Services Needs
As seen in the table above, most of the respondents reported that all Public services (except one
for Community Centers) were needed by low income families in the GCCSA service area. The
service with the greatest “unmet” need was Recycling programs (52.9%, n=9). The services with
the greatest “met” need were Churches/faith based services (64.7%, n=11), Emergency response
services (52.6%, n=10), and Public services (47.5%, n=9). The respondents reported the
remaining public services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 64.7% (Cultural
community centers) to 52.6% (Public Parks and recreation). From two to eight respondents
reported they were unaware of the need across these services.
Other Public Services - GCCSA
                                                   Degree of Meeting Need
                                                        Somewhat                    Not
Service                                 Total     Met      met       Not met       needed   DK         Miss
                                         N      N   % N       %      N    %          N       N          N
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambulance etc)            19     10 52.6     7   36.8   2   10.5      0      3           3
Neighborhood watch programs              14      1 7.1      9   64.3   4   28.6      0      8           3
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                      19     9    47.4   7   36.8   3   15.8      0      3           3
Recycling programs                       17     3    17.6   5   29.4   9   52.9      0      5           3
Business community (stores,
restaurant, entertainment)               15      5   33.3 8     53.3   2   13.3      0      6           4
Public Parks and recreation              19      8   42.1 10    52.6   1   5.3       0      3           3
Community Centers                        19      6   31.6 12    63.2   1   5.3       1      2           3
Churches/faith based services            17     11   64.7 5     29.4   1   5.9       0      5           3
Cultural community centers               17      3   17.6 11    64.7   3   17.6      0      5           3

C. Greatest Unmet Needs
GCCSA Community partners were asked, at the survey’s conclusion, what their three greatest
“unmet” needs were. Based on their rankings and the Borda5 method of multi-decision making to
account for all values, the three greatest unmet needs for low income families (HS/EHS
eligible) in the GCCSA service area were:
               (1) EMPLOYMENT                       (2) MENTAL HEALTH             (3) HEALTH
                         Greatest Unmet needs according to GCCSA Community Partners
           Need                                 Borda Score      Avg. Endorsement                SD
           1. Employment                                 116                 7.25               2.02
           2. Mental health                               89                 7.42               1.98
           3. Health                                      76                  7.6               1.65
           4. Social/Family Services                      70                  7.0               1.05
           5. Transportation                              70                 6.36               2.94
           6. Food and Nutrition                          64                  6.4               2.55
           7. Education                                   38                 6.33               2.94
           8. Housing                                     37                 5.29               2.69
           9. Legal                                       35                  5.0               3.27
           10. Disabilities                               22                  4.4               2.79

5
    Described in Methodology section.


                                                                                                            264
Summary
According to the 2008 Annual Report, GCCSA had 184 formal and informal partners supporting
its programming. During the time period from November 2009- February 2010, 25 Community
partners who serve the GCCSA Head Start service area submitted either scan able or online
needs assessment surveys. Their services represented the fields of Education, Health Services,
Social/Family Services, Mental Health, and Government.
Across service categories, partners ranked the three greatest unmet needs of HS/EHS eligible
families in the GCCSA service area were Employment, Mental Health, and Health.

On closer examination of services across seven main categories, partners reported the
greatest “unmet” needs of HS/EHS eligible families in the GCCSA service area included
the following:
     Education- Fatherhood programs (57.1%, n=8), Marriage education programs (58.3%,
        n=7), and Affordable before & after school care (55%, n=11)
     Employment – Job Placement programs (47.1%, n=8)
     Social Services - Safe, affordable housing (55.6%, n=10) and Programs for families with
        incarcerated members (71.4%, n=10)
     Health-Affordable health insurance programs (66.7%, n=14), access to affordable quality
        health care (57.1%, n=12), Nutrition education classes (64.7%, n=11), Immunizations for
        adults (52.6%, n=10) and Dental care (47.4%, n=9)
     Mental health - Stress management training (76.9%, n=10), Anger management training
        (61.5%, n=8), Respite care services (56.3%, n=9), and Substance abuse treatment (44.4%,
        n=8)
     Disabilities - Assistive technology services (60%, n=9), Child care for children with
        disabilities (50%, n=8), and Family support for members with disabilities (46.7%, n=7)
     Public services - Recycling programs (52.9%, n=9)

On closer examination of services across seven main categories, partners reported the
greatest “met” needs of HS/EHS eligible families in the GCCSA service area included the
following:
     Education- Affordable, quality early education (47.6%, n=10)
     Disabilities – Screening for early detection of disabilities (44.4%, n=8)
     Public Services - Churches/faith based services (64.7%, n=11), Emergency response
       services (52.6%, n=10), and Public services (47.5%, n=9)




                                                                                           265
Strengths and Needs: Family Service Providers Survey




                                                       266
Family Service Provider/Development Worker Survey:
Overall Harris County
Introduction
The Community Assessment (CA) Team developed a survey to collect the views of grantees’
Family Service Providers/Family Development Workers (FSP/FDW) who serve HS/EHS
families residing in Harris County, TX. HCDE RIT staff designed the surveys in scan able
format which were distributed by CA Team members of each grantee from November 2009 to
February 2010. The survey results are presented as follows: First, combined quantitative data
across all grantees is displayed in tables for each service category with degree of reported need
along with a short narrative that highlights the highest unmet/met needs (by 50% or more). Next,
are described their combined view of the top three greatest needs of families, other groups still
needing services, and finally, a Summary covering the highlights of each category of service.
Quantitative results disaggregated by grantee follow the “overall” along with their associated
qualitative comments from respondents and separate summaries.
I. Surveys:
A. Characteristics of respondents
Twenty-two (22) Family Service Providers/Development Workers who serve HS/EHS
families enrolled in the Harris County Head Start/Early Head Start grantees’ programs submitted
scanable needs assessment surveys. In addition to their associated grantee most respondents also
designated the particular service areas in which the families they served resided. Respondents
reported serving 24 communities through their grantee programs.

                    Number of Family Service Providers/Development
                         Workers Respondents per Grantee
                 Grantee                N      Grantee             N
                 AVANCE                  4     HCDE               11
                 GCCSA                   3     NCI                 4

B. Service needs of low income HS/EHS eligible families in the Harris County service area
Responses from the FSP/FDW survey are displayed in the following tables by service category:
Education Service Needs
The majority of Harris County grantees’ FSP/FDWs reported that all Educational services were
needed by HS/EHS families in their service areas. The services with the highest unmet need are
Fatherhood programs (65%, n=13), and Personal Finance programs (65%, n=13). Service with
the highest met need is Access to higher education (50%, n=10). Services with needs that are
mostly somewhat met include “Affordable, quality early Education” (52.4%, n=11), ‘GED/ HS
Diploma” (50%,n=11), “Computer classes” (54.5%, n=12) and “Affordable before & after
school care” (54.5%, n=12).




                                                                                             267
 Education- Harris County FSP/FDWs Overall
                                         Degree of Meeting Need
                                               Somewhat                       Not
 Service                    Total    Met           met        Not met        needed DK Miss
                             N    N     %     N        %     N     %           N     N N
 Affordable, quality early
 Education                   21   4    19.0 11       52.4     6   28.6          0      0    1
 GED/ HS Diploma             22    8   36.4 11       50.0     3   13.6          0      0    0
 Access to higher education  20   10 50.0      6     30.0     4   20.0          0      0    2
 ESL Classes                 21    9   42.9    8     38.1     4   19.0          0      0    1
 Fatherhood programs         20    3   15.0    4     20.0    13 65.0            0      2    0
 Marriage Education          21    3   14.3    8     38.1    10 47.6            0      1    0
 Literacy-building           21    6   28.6 10       47.6     5   23.8          0      1    0
 Computer Classes            22    6   27.3 12       54.5     4   18.2          0      0    0
 Personal finance programs   20    1    5.0    6     30.0    13 65.0            0      2    0
 Parenting Education         20    4   20.0    9     45.0     7   35.0          0      1    1
 Affordable before & after
 school care                 22    0     0    12     54.5    10 45.5            0      0    0

Employment Service Needs
Most of Harris County grantee FSP/FDWs reported that all Employment services were needed
by HS/EHS families in their service areas. The services with the highest unmet need are
Vocational Trainings (54.5%, n=12) and Job placement programs (50%, n=11). No service is
highly met or somewhat met.

 Employment- Harris County FSP/FDWs Overall

                                             Degree of Meeting Need
                                                  Somewhat                    Not
 Service                     Total       Met          met        Not met     needed DK Miss
                              N      N      %     N       %      N    %        N     N N
 Vocational Training          22     4     18.2    6    27.3    12   54.5       0    0  0
 Job Readiness assistance     20     2     10.0    9    45.0     9   45.0       0    1  1
 Job Placement programs       22     2     9.1     9    40.9    11   50.0       0    0  0

Social Service Needs
Most of Harris County grantee FSP/FDWs reported that all Social services were needed by
HS/EHS families in their service areas. The respondents reported the services with the highest
unmet needs include Legal Services (70%, n=14) and Programs for families with incarcerated
members (70%, n=12), Safe, affordable housing (54.5%, n=12), Immigration/naturalization
assistance (52.4%, n=11) and Crisis intervention (52.6%, n=10). Need for Emergency
assistance- rent, utilities (52.4%, n=11) is mostly somewhat met. Five respondents were
unaware of the status of need for “Programs for families with incarcerated members.”




                                                                                             268
Social Services - Harris County FSP/FDWs Overall
                                          Degree of Meeting Need
                                               Somewhat                     Not
Service                     Total    Met          met          Not met     needed   DK Miss
                             N     N    %     N       %       N      %       N       N  N
Crisis intervention          19    2   10.5    7     36.8     10    52.6      0      1  2
Emergency assistance-food    21    8   38.1 10       47.6      3    14.3      0      0  1
Emergency assistance- rent,
utilities                    21    2   9.5    11     52.4      8    38.1      0      0    1
Assistance for homeless
families                     21    2   9.5     9     42.9     10    47.6      0      0    1
Safe, affordable housing     22    4   18.2    6     27.3     12    54.5      0      0    0
Public transportation        22    9   40.9    3     13.6     10    45.5      0      0    0
Translation services         21    6   28.6    7     33.3      8    38.1      0      1    0
Legal services               20    1    5.0    5     25.0     14    70.0      0      2    0
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                   21    1    4.8    9     42.9     11    52.4      0      1    0
Programs for families with
incarcerated members         17    0     0     5     29.4     12    70.6      0      5    0

Health and Nutrition Service Needs
Most of Harris County grantee FSP/FDWs reported that all Health and Nutrition services were
needed by HS/EHS families in their service areas. Need for these services are mostly met with
the highest including Immunizations for Children (86.4%, n=19), Pediatric care (68.2%, n=15),
Prenatal care (66.7%, n=14), Dental care (63.6%, n=14), Immunizations for adults (61.9%,
n=13), and Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid (59.1%, n=13). Need for Health education
is mostly somewhat met (57.1%, n=12)

Health/Nutrition - Harris County FSP/FDWs Overall
                                             Degree of Meeting Need
                                                 Somewhat                   Not
Service                             Total  Met      met        Not met     needed DK Miss
                                     N    N % N        %      N      %       N     N  N
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
Medicaid                             22 13 59.1 8 36.4        1      4.5      0      0    0
Affordable health insurance
programs                             22   8 36.4 8 36.4       6     27.3      0      0    0
Access to affordable quality health
care                                 22 10 45.5 7 31.8        5     22.7      0      0    0
Prenatal care                        21 14 66.7 6 26.6        1      4.8      0      1    0
Pediatric care                       22 15 68.2 6 27.3        1      4.5      0      0    0
Immunizations for children           22 19 86.4 3 13.6        0       0       0      0    0
Immunizations for adults             21 13 61.9 5 23.8        3     14.3      0      0    1
Dental care                          22 14 63.6 7 31.8        1      4.5      0      0    0
Nutrition education classes          20   5 25.0 6 30.0       9     45.0      0      2    0
Access to affordable fresh produce   21   7 33.3 8 38.1       6     28.6      0      0    1
Health education                     21   4 19.0 12 57.1      5     23.8      0      1    0




                                                                                          269
Mental Health Service Needs
Most of Harris County grantee FSP/FDWs reported that all Mental Health services were needed
by HS/EHS families in their service areas. However, one said substance abuse treatment was not
needed and one said that respite care services were not needed. Services with the highest unmet
needs included, Anger management training (84.2%, n=16) Stress management training (83.3%,
n=15), Respite care services (58.8%, n=10), and Specialized parenting education (50%, n=10).
The service mostly somewhat met includes Substance Abuse Treatment (57.9%, n=11).

Mental Health - Harris County FSP/FDWs Overall
                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                                              Somewhat                   Not
Service                         Total  Met       met          Not met   needed         DK    Miss
                                 N    N %      N      %      N      %     N             N     N
Counseling services              22   6 27.3 7       31.8     9    40.9    0            0     0
Specialized parenting education  20   3 15.0 7       35.0    10    50.0    0            2     0
Domestic violence services       22   5 22.7 8       36.4     9    40.9    0            0     0
Child abuse/neglect services     22 10 45.5 6        27.3     6    27.3    0            0     0
Substance abuse treatment        19   1 5.3 11       57.9     7    36.8    1            2     0
Respite care services            17   1 5.9    6     35.3    10    58.8    1            4     0
Stress management training       18   0   0    3     16.7    15    83.3    0            3     1
Anger management training        19   0   0    3     15.8    16    84.2    0            3     0

Disabilities Service Needs
Most of Harris County grantee FSP/FDWs reported that all Disability services were needed by
HS/EHS families in their service areas. The service with the highest unmet need was Assistive
technology services (50%, n=8). Services with needs that are mostly met include Screening for
early detection of disabilities (68.2%, n=15) and Public school’s provisions of special education
services (66.7%, n=14). The need for Family support for members with disabilities (63.2%,
n=12) is mostly somewhat met.

Disabilities - Harris County FSP/FDWs Overall
                                         Degree of Meeting Need
                                               Somewhat                       Not
Service                       Total    Met         met       Not met         needed    DK    Miss
                               N    N     %     N      %    N     %            N        N
Screening for early detection
of disabilities                22   15 68.2     5    22.7   2     9.1           0       0      0
Public school’s provisions of
special education services     21   14 66.7     6    28.6   1     4.8           0       1      0
Family support for members
with disabilities              29    2   10.5 12 63.2       5    26.3           0       3      0
Assistive technology services 16     1    6.3   7    43.8   8    50.0           0       6      0
Child care for children with
disabilities                   20    7   35.0   6    30.0   7    35.0           0       2      0




                                                                                              270
Public Services Needs
Most of Harris County grantee FSP/FDWs reported that all other Public Services were needed by
HS/EHS families in their service areas. These respondents felt families have few unmet needs
for public services, though some were unaware of the need, especially for “Neighborhood Watch
programs” and “Recycling programs.” Services they thought were mostly met included
Emergency response services (86.4%, n=19), Churches/faith based services (86.4%, n=19),
Public Parks and Recreation (86.4%, n=19), Business community (81.8%, n=18), Community
centers (72.7%, n=16), and Public Services (71.4%, n=15). Need for “Cultural community
Centers” (50%, n=11) was seen as mostly somewhat met.

Other Public services - Harris County FSP/FDWs Overall
                                             Degree of Meeting Need
                                                    Somewhat                  Not
Service                          Total    Met          met        Not met    needed   DK Miss
                                  N    N     %       N     %     N     %       N       N  N
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambulance etc)     22   19   86.4     1    4.5    2     9.1     0       0     0
Neighborhood watch
programs                          17    5   29.4     8   47.1    4    23.5     0       4     1
Public services (trash collect,,
street maintenance)               21   15   71.4     4   19.0    2     9.5     0       1     0
Recycling programs                18    7   38.9     5   27.8    6    33.3     0       3     1
Business community (stores,
restaurant, entertainment)        22   18   81.8     2    9.1    2     9.1     0       0     0
Public Parks and recreation       22   19   86.4     1    4.5    2     9.1     0       0     0
Community Centers                 22   16   72.7     4   18.2    2     9.1     0       0     0
Churches/faith based services 22       19   86.4     2    9.1    1     4.5     0       0     0
Cultural community centers        22    6   27.3    11 50.0      5    22.7     0       0     0

C. Greatest Unmet Needs
Harris County grantee FSP/FDWs ranked the top three greatest unmet needs of HS/EHS families
in their areas. The multi-decision making method used is based on the majority or most common
choice or mode. Therefore, these respondents said the THREE GREATEST UNMET NEEDS
Head Start/Early Head Start families in Harris County (based on the modes for first, second, and
third ranked service categories) are:
(1) EMPLOYMENT-11 counts
(2) HOUSING-5 counts
(3) MENTAL HEALTH-5 counts

D. Eligible children & families and other groups not being served: Across all grantees-
    Slightly more than a fourth (27.3%, n=6) of the FSP/FDW respondents reported knowing
       communities with Head Start eligible children and their families that are not being
       served by a Head Start program. These areas included Alief, Katy, Clear Lake/Webster,
       South Park, and Sunnyside
    More than a third (38.1%, n=8) of the FSP/FDW respondents reported knowing
       communities with Early Head Start eligible children and their families that are not being
       served by an EHS program. These areas included Alief, Baytown, Shelden, North forest,


                                                                                            271
        Spring, Acres homes, Inwood Forest, 290/610/45 area, South Park, Sunnyside, Foster
        Place.
       More than half (52.4%, n=11) of the FSP/FDW respondents reported knowing specific
        groups in their communities that were not receiving appropriate services. These groups
        included the homeless, different cultural groups (Aisan, Hispanic), children with
        disabilities, pregnant teens, children of incarcerated parents, elderly, and individuals
        needing assistance due to the economy.

E. Summary
Twenty-two (22) Family Service Providers/Development Workers who serve HS/EHS
families enrolled in the Harris County Head Start/Early Head Start grantees’ programs submitted
needs assessment surveys. They represented 24 communities in Harris County served by
grantees. Across service categories, they felt the top three greatest unmet needs across HS/EHS
children and families in Harris County were (1) Employment (2) Housing (3) Mental Health.

According to the FSP/FDW’s responses, the greatest Unmet and Met Needs of Harris County
Head Start/Early Head Start Families include the following:

Greatest Unmet Needs
    Education- Fatherhood programs (65%, n=13), and Personal Finance programs (65%,
      n=13)
    Employment – Vocational Trainings (54.5%, n=12) and Job placement programs (50%,
      n=11)
    Social Services – Legal Services (70%, n=14) and Programs for families with
      incarcerated members (70%, n=12), Safe, affordable housing (54.5%, n=12),
      Immigration/naturalization assistance (52.4%, n=11) and Crisis intervention (52.6%,
      n=10
    Mental health- Anger management training (84.2%, n=16) Stress management training
      (83.3%, n=15), Respite care services (58.8%, n=10), and Specialized parenting education
      (50%, n=10)
    Disabilities - Assistive technology services (50%, n=8)

Greatest Met Needs
    Education- Access to higher education (50%, n=10)
    Health & Nutrition- Immunizations for Children (86.4%, n=19), Pediatric care (68.2%,
      n=15), Prenatal care (66.7%, n=14), Dental care (63.6%, n=14), Immunizations for adults
      (61.9%, n=13), and Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid (59.1%, n=13)
    Disabilities – Screening for early detection of disabilities (68.2%, n=15) and Public
      school’s provisions of special education services (66.7%, n=14)
    Public Services - Emergency response services (86.4%, n=19), Churches/faith based
      services (86.4%, n=19), Public Parks and Recreation (86.4%, n=19), Business
      community (81.8%, n=18), Community centers (72.7%, n=16), and Public Services
      (71.4%, n=15)




                                                                                              272
Communities/Groups Not Served
   More than a fourth (27.3%, n=6) of the FSP/FDWs reported that Head Start eligible
    children and their families not being served by a Head Start program live in Alief, Katy,
    Clear Lake/Webster, South Park, and Sunnyside
   More than a third (38.1%, n=8) of the FSP/FDWs reported that Early Head Start eligible
    children and their families not being served by an EHS program live in Alief, Baytown,
    Shelden, North forest, Spring, Acres homes, Inwood Forest, 290/610/45 area, South Park,
    Sunnyside, Foster Place.
   More than half (52.4%, n=11) of the FSP/FDWs reported specific groups in their
    communities not receiving appropriate services included the homeless, different cultural
    groups (Aisan, Hispanic), children with disabilities, pregnant teens, children of
    incarcerated parents, elderly, and individuals needing assistance due to the economy




                                                                                         273
Family Service Providers’ Survey:
Harris County Department of Education (HCDE)
A. Characteristics of respondents
Eleven (11) surveys were received from Family Service Providers (FSP) who serve families
enrolled in the Head Start program conducted by Harris County Department of Education
(HCDE). HCDE serves 14 communities, which include Kashmere Gardens and North Forest,
along with the communities served by the FSPs who responded to the survey (see following
table).

                 HCDE Head Start Communities Represented in FSP Surveys
          Baytown            Denver Harbor               LaPorte
          Crosby             Fifth Ward                  Port of Houston
          Channelview        Galena Park/Pasadena        Seabrook
          Cloverleaf         Humble                      Sheldon

B. Service needs of low income HS/EHS eligible families in the HCDE service area
Responses from the FSP survey are displayed in the following tables by service category:
Education Service Needs
The majority of HCDE’s FSP reported that all Educational services listed were needed by Head
Start families in HCDE’s service area. The service with the highest unmet need was
“Fatherhood programs” with 88.9% (n=8). The need for “Marriage Education” was equally
(50%, n= 5, 5) somewhat met and unmet. The services with the highest met need were
GED/HS Diploma (63.6, n=7) and ESL Classes (72.7%, n=8). The respondents reported the
remaining educational services were mostly “somewhat met” ranging from 50% (Affordable,
quality early education) to 63.6% (Affordable before & after school care). From none to two
respondents reported they did not know what the level of need was across these services.

Education – HCDE Family Service Providers
                                             Degree of Meeting Need
                                                   Somewhat                   Not
Service                      Total        Met          met        Not met    Needed   DK Miss
                              N         N     %    N       %     N     %       N       N  N
Affordable, quality early
Education                      10       2    20.0   5     50.0   3    30.0     0       0   1
GED/ HS Diploma                11       7    63.6   3     27.3   1    9.1      0       0   0
Access to higher education     11       5    45.5   4     36.4   2    18.2     0       0   0
ESL Classes                    11       8    72.7   1     9.1    2    18.2     0       0   0
Fatherhood programs             9       0     0.0   1     11.1   8    88.9     0       2   0
Marriage Education             10       0    0.0    5     50.0   5    50.0     0       1   0
Literacy-building              10       3    30.0   5     50.0   2    20.0     0       1   0
Computer Classes               11       4    36.4   6     54.5   1    9.1      0       0   0
Personal finance programs       9       0     0.0   5     55.6   4    44.4     0       2   0
Parenting Education            10       1    10.0   5     50.0   4    40.0     0       1   0
Affordable before & after
school care                    11       0    0.0    7     63.6   4    36.4     0       0   0


                                                                                           274
 Employment Service Needs
 All FSP respondents reported that all Employment services were needed by HCDE HS families.
 The service with the highest unmet need was Vocational Training (54.5%, n=6). Respondents
 reported the remaining employment services that were mostly “somewhat met” ranged from
 54.5% (Job placement programs) to 63.6% (Job readiness assistance).

Employment – HCDE Family Service Providers
                                       Degree of Meeting Need
                                            Somewhat                        Not
Service                  Total    Met           met        Not met         needed    DK    Miss
                          N     N     %     N       %      N     %           N        N     N
Vocational Training       11    3    27.3    2    18.2     6    54.5          0       0     0
Job readiness assistance  11    1     9.1    7    63.6     3    27.3          0       0     0
Job placement programs    11    2    18.2    6    54.5     3    27.2          0       0     0

 Social Service Needs
 The majority of FSP respondents reported that all Social services were needed by HCDE HS
 families. The respondents reported the services with the highest unmet needs are “Crisis
 intervention” (50%, n=4), “Public transportation” (54.5%, n=6), “Legal services” (55.6%, n=5),
 and “Programs for families with incarcerated members” (62.5%, n=5). The need for food
 emergency assistance (50%, n=5, 5) was equally “met” and “somewhat met”. The remaining
 services that were mostly “somewhat met” ranged from 50% (Emergency assistance- rent,
 utilities) to 60% (Immigration/naturalization assistance). From none to three respondents
 reported they did not know what the level of need was across these services.

Social Services – HCDE Family Service Providers
                                            Degree of Meeting Need
                                                 Somewhat                    Not
Service                      Total      Met          met        Not met     needed   DK     Miss
                               N      N    %      N      %     N     %        N       N
Crisis intervention            8      2   25.0    2    25.0    4    50.0       0      1      2
Emergency assistance-food     10      5   50.0    5    50.0    0     0.0       0      0      1
Emergency assistance- rent,
utilities                     10      1   10.0    5    50.0    4    40.0       0             1
Assistance for homeless
families                      11      1    9.1    5    45.5    5    45.5       0      0      0
Safe, affordable housing      11      4   36.4    4    36.4    3    27.3       0      0      0
Public transportation         11      4   36.4    1     9.1    6    54.5       0      0      0
Translation services          10      3   30.0    5    50.0    2    20.0       0      1      0
Legal services                 9      1   11.1    3    33.3    5    55.6       0      2      0
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                    10      0    0.0    6    60.0    4    40.0       0      1      0
Programs for families with
incarcerated members           8      0     0     3    37.5    5    62.5       0      3      0




                                                                                            275
Health and Nutrition Service Needs
The majority of FSP respondents reported that all Health and Nutrition services were needed by
HCDE HS families. Services were mostly met including “Prenatal care” (90%, n=9),
“Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid” (81.8%, n=9), “Pediatric Care” (81.8%, n=9),
“Immunizations for Children” (81.8%, n=9), “Immunizations for adults” (80%, n=8), “Dental
care” (72.7%, n=8), “Affordable health insurance programs” (54.5%, n=6), and “Access to
affordable, quality health care” (54.5%, n=6). The need for “Health Education” was mostly
somewhat met. From none to two respondents reported they did not know what the level of need
was across these services.

Health/Nutrition – HCDE Family Service Providers
                                              Degree of Meeting Need
                                                     Somewhat                  Not
Service                           Total     Met         met        Not met    needed   DK   Miss
                                   N      N    %      N     %     N     %       N       N    N
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
Medicaid                           11     9    81.8    2    18.2   0   0.0      0      0     0
Affordable health insurance
programs                           11     6    54.5    4    36.4   1   9.1      0      0     0
Access to affordable quality
health care                        11     6    54.5    3    27.3   2   18.2     0      0     0
Prenatal care                      10     9    90.0    1    10.0   0    0.0     0      1     0
Pediatric care                     11     9    81.8    2    18.2   0    0.0     0      0     0
Immunizations for children         11     9    81.8    2    18.2   0    0.0     0      0     0
Immunizations for adults           10     8    80.0    2    20.0   0    0.0     0      0     1
Dental care                        11     8    72.7    3    27.3   0    0.0     0      0     0
Nutrition education classes         9     4    44.4    4    44.4   1   11.1     0      2     0
Access to affordable fresh
produce                            11     5    45.5    5    45.5   1    9.1     0      0     0
Health education                   11     3    27.3    6    54.5   2   18.2     0      0     0

Mental Health Service Needs
The majority of FSP respondents reported that all Mental Health services were needed by HCDE
HS families. Needs for most services were mostly unmet including, “Anger management
training” (87.5%, n=7), “Stress management training” (75%, n=6), Respite care services (62.5%,
n=5), and “Domestic violence services” (54.5%, n=6). The service with the highest met need
was “Child abuse/neglect services” (54.5%, n=6). The need for substance abuse treatment was
mostly somewhat met. From none to three respondents reported they did not know what the
level of need was across these services.




                                                                                            276
Mental Health – HCDE Family Service Providers
                                          Degree of Meeting Need
Service                      Total    Met     Somewhat        Not met         Not   DK       Miss
                                                  met                        Needed
                              N    N     %    N       %      N      %          N     N         N
Counseling services           11    2 18.2     5     45.5    4     36.4        0     0         0
Specialized parenting         9    1 11.1      4     44.4    4     44.4        0     2         0
education
Domestic violence services    11    2 18.2     3     27.3    6     54.5            0    0      0
Child abuse/neglect services  11   6 54.5      1      9.1    4     36.4            0    0      0
Substance abuse treatment     9    0           6     66.7    3     33.3            1    1      0
Respite care services          8    1 12.5     2     25.0    5     62.5            1    2      0
Stress management training     8    0   0.0    2     25.0    6     75.0            0    3      0
Anger management training      8    0   0.0    1     12.5    7     87.5            0    3      0

Disabilities Service Needs
The majority of FSP respondents reported that all Disabilities services were needed by HCDE
HS families. The service with the highest unmet need was “Assistive technology services”
(66.7%, n=4), though five respondents reported they did not know what the level of need was
across these services. Services with the highest met needs included “Screening for early
detection of disabilities” (81.8%, n=9) and “Public school’s provisions of special education
services” (80%, n=8). The need for “Family support for members with disabilities” (55.6%, n=5) was
mostly somewhat met.

Disabilities – HCDE Family Service Providers
                                          Degree of Meeting Need
                                                Somewhat                     Not
Service                       Total    Met          met       Not met       needed     DK    Miss
                               N    N     %     N       %    N     %          N         N     N
Screening for early detection
of disabilities                11   9    81.8    1     9.1    1    9.1         0       0      0
Public school’s provisions of
special education services     10   8    80.0    1    10.0    1   10.0         0       1      0
Family support for members
with disabilities               9   1    11.1    5    55.6    3   33.3         0       2      0
Assistive technology services   6   1    16.7    1    16.7    4   66.7         0       5      0
Child care for children with
disabilities                    9   4    44.4    2    22.2    3   33.3         0       2      0

Public Services Needs
The FSP respondents reported that all Public Services were needed by HCDE HS families. They
also reported that public services for HS families were mostly met including “Public parks and
recreation (100%, n=11), “Emergency response services” (90.0%, n=10), “Churches/faith based
services” (90.0%, n=11), “Public services” (81.8%, n=9), “Business community” (81.8%, n=9),
“Community centers” (81.8%, n=9), and Recycling programs (55.6%, n=5).




                                                                                              277
Other Public Services - HCDE Family Service Providers
                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                            Total      Met        Somewhat     Not met         Not     DK   Miss
Service                                               met                     needed
                              N      N      %     N       %    N    %           N      N      N
Emergency response services        11   10   90.9    0    0.0    1     9.1      0      0      0
(police, fire, ambulance etc
Neighborhood watch programs         8   4    50.0    3   37.5    1     12.5     0      2      1
Public services (trash collect.,   11   9    81.8    1    9.1    1      9.1     0      0      0
street maintenance)
Recycling programs                  9   5    55.6    3   33.3    1     11.1     0      2      0
Business community (stores,        11   9    81.8    2   18.2    0      0.0     0      0      0
restaurant, entertainment)
Public Parks and recreation        11   11   100.0   0   0.0     0     0.0      0      0      0
Community Centers                  11    9    81.8   1   9.1     1     9.1      0      0      0
Churches/faith based services      11   10    90.9   1   9.1     0     0.0      0      0      0
Cultural community centers         11    5    45.5   4   36.4    2     18.2     0      0      0

C. Greatest Unmet Needs
FSP respondents were asked to rank the top three greatest unmet needs of HS families served by
HCDE. The multi-decision making method used is based on the majority or most common
choice or mode. Therefore, HCDE’s FSPs said the THREE GREATEST UNMET NEEDS for
HCDE Head Start families based on the modes for first, second, and third ranks for the top 3
most endorsed service categories:

        (1) TRANSPORTATION              (2) HOUSING        (3) MENTAL HEALTH

D. Eligible children & families and other groups not being served:
    The majority (81.8%, n=9) of HCDE FSPs did not know any communities with Head
       Start eligible children and their families that are not being served by a Head Start
       program. One of those who did reported the Clear Lake/Webster area.
    The majority (72.7%, n=8) of HCDE FSPs did not know any communities with Early
       Head Start eligible children and their families that are not being served by a Head Start
       program. Those who did said Baytown, Sheldon, and North Forest.
    The majority (81.8%, n=9) of HCDE Community Partners did not know any specific
       groups in your community that were not receiving appropriate services. No groups were
       named.

E. Family Service Providers felt their agency’s Strengths when working with low income
families included the following (followed by actual comments):
     Provide/connect families to needed services
           o Providing services and assist families that expressed a need or a need was
               identified.
           o Working families to resources in the community
           o Knowledge of services available to provide referrals to families
           o .. work with families


                                                                                             278
          o Able to link families to community service organization.
          o We have many resources for our families to help them in many areas of their
              lives.
          o …providing referrals to meet families’ needs.
          o Provide support for education like ESL and GED for families that need it.
      Provide free, quality education for young children
          o Children education
          o Provide a comprehensive development program for children
          o We are able to offer free quality early childhood education
          o Providing free childcare to low-income families and offering more than just
              childcare but health, nutrition, disabilities, mental wellness
      Support for children with disabilities
          o providing support for children with disabilities
      Centers located convenient to families
          o Flexibility
          o Head Start Center is located where families can access the service

F. Family Service Providers felt their agency’s Challenges when working with low income
families included the following (followed by actual comments):
     Lack of transportation and services in service area
           o The challenges that we encounter is transportation and the lack of services in the
               Pasadena Area.
           o Our area has a lot of transportation challenges and the income demographics are
               changing in that area due to new neighborhoods being constructing and on influx
               of higher educated people.
           o Transportation
           o being able to provide transportation
           o Transportation to school campus; Extended day

      Being able to provide/connect families to insurance and other services who do not qualify
          o Most of our families are unemployed and there are many that are not yet citizens.
              Sometimes with increased finances our families disqualify them from needed
              services.
          o Being able to provide health insurance.
          o Getting insurance for non documented children attending the Center

      More slots needed for children in Baytown, especially for an Early Head Start program
         o Providing more slots for children in the Head Start program throughout Baytown
              area
         o 0-3 Head Start program for the Baytown area

      Program needs to offer more services
          o Not enough services offered within the agency
          o Not enough bi-lingual employees




                                                                                            279
G. Family Service Providers suggested the following ideas for how Head Start/Early Head
Start could collaborate or partner with other agencies in order to better meet the need of
low-income children and families:
    Bring services into the centers
           o Bring services into the centers
           o Holding GED, ESL, Parenting, etc. classes at the Center.
           o We really need a community center or multi-service center in the Pasadena area
              that has a wealth of social/family services for families in that area.
    Partner with other social service agencies to identify eligible children and families
           o During recruitment establish a close partnership with Social Service agency to
              identify low income families.

H. Summary
Eleven (11) Family Service Providers (FSP) who serve HCDE’s Head Start children and families
submitted needs assessment surveys. They represented the areas Baytown/Fifth Ward, Denver
Harbor /Port of Houston, Galena Park, Seabrook/LaPorte, Pasadena, Sheldon, Crosby,
Channelview/Cloverleaf, Humble. Across service categories, they felt the top three greatest
unmet needs of HCDE’s Head Start children and families were Transportation, Housing, and
Mental health.

According to the FSP’s responses the greatest Unmet and Met Needs of HCDE’s Head Start
Families include the following:

Greatest unmet needs-
    Education- Fatherhood programs (88.9%, n=8). The need for “Marriage Education” was
       equally (50%, n= 5, 5) “somewhat met” and “unmet”.
    Employment – Vocational Training (54.5%, n=6)
    Social Services – Crisis intervention (50%, n=4), Public transportation (54.5%, n=6),
       Legal services (55.6%, n=5), and Programs for families with incarcerated members
       (62.5%, n=5).
    Mental health- Anger management (87.5%, n=7), Stress management trainings
       (75%,n=6), Respite care services (62.5%, n=5), and domestic violence services (54.5%,
       n=6)
    Disabilities - Assistive technology services (66.7%, n=4)

Greatest met needs-
    Education- GED/HS Diploma (63.6, n=7) and ESL Classes (72.7%, n=8).
    Social Services - Food emergency assistance (50%, n=5,5) (met/somewhat met)
    Health- Prenatal care (90%, n=10), Assistance enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid (81.8%,
       n=9), Pediatric care (81.8%, n=9 ), Immunizations for children (81.8%, n=9),
       Immunizations for adults (80%, n= 8), Dental care (72.7%, n=8), Affordable quality
       healthcare (54.5%, n=6), Affordable health insurance programs (54.5%, n=6)
    Mental Health – Child abuse/neglect services (54.5%, n=6)
    Disabilities – Screening for early detection of disabilities (81.8%, n=9) and Public
       school’s provisions of special education services (80%, n=8)


                                                                                         280
      Public Services - Public Parks and recreation (100%, n=11), Churches/faith based
       services (90.9%, n=10), Emergency response services (police, fire, ambulance etc.
       (90.0%, n=10), Public         services (trash collect., street maintenance) (81.8%, n=9),
       Business community (stores, restaurants, entertainment) (81.8%, n=9), and Community
       Centers (81.8%, n=9)

Communities/Groups Not Served
   Majority of HCDE FSPs reported not knowing any Head Start (81.8%) or EHS (72.7%)
    eligible families not receiving services
   Remaining few said HS eligible families may live in Clear Lake/Webster and EHS
    eligible families may live in Baytown, Sheldon, and North Forest.
   The majority (81.8%, n=9) of HCDE FSPs did not know any specific groups in HCDE’s
    service area not receiving appropriate services.

Strengths, Challenges, and Suggestions

Their program’s strengths include:
    Provide/connect families to needed services
    Provide free, quality education for young children
    Support for children with disabilities
    Centers located convenient to families

Their program’s challenges include:
    Lack of transportation and services in service area
    Being able to provide/connect families to insurance and other services who do not qualify
    More slots needed for children in Baytown, especially for an Early Head Start program
    Program needs to offer more services

Suggestions include:
    Bring services into the centers
    Partner with other social service agencies to identify eligible children and families




                                                                                              281
Family Service Providers’ Survey:
AVANCE

A. Characteristics of respondents
Four (4) surveys were completed by Family Service Workers (FSW) who serve families enrolled
in the Head Start/Early Head Start program conducted by AVANCE. AVANCE serves seven
main communities. In addition to Aldine, Cy-Fair, Jersey Village, and the Heights, AVANCE
FSWs who responded to the survey serve families in the following communities:

                          AVANCE Head Start/Early Head Start
                       Communities Represented in FSW Responses
             Airline/Northline       Acres Homes          Tomball/Spring

B. Service needs of low income HS/EHS eligible families in the AVANCE service area
Responses from the FSW survey are displayed in the following tables by service category:

Education Service Needs
The majority of the AVANCE FSW respondents reported that all Educational services were
needed by HS/EHS families in AVANCE’s service area. The service with the highest unmet
need is Personal finance programs (100%, n=4). Services with needs that are mostly somewhat
met include GED/ HS Diploma (100%, n=4), ESL classes (66.7%, n=2), and Affordable before
& after school care (75%, n=3). The services with the highest met needs include “Access to
higher education” (100%, n=3), Fatherhood programs (75%, n=3), and Marriage Education
(75%, n=3).

Education - AVANCE Family Service Workers
                                      Degree of Meeting Need
                                           Somewhat                  Not
Service                    Total   Met         met        Not met   needed DK Miss
                            N    N    %     N      %     N      %     N     N  N
Affordable, quality early
Educ.                       4    0    0.0   2    50.0    2     50.0    0    0  0
GED/ HS Diploma             4    0    0.0   4 100.0      0     0.0     0    0  0
Access to higher education  3    3 100.0 0        0.0    0      0.0    0    0  1
ESL Classes                 3    0    0.0   2    66.7    1     33.3    0    0  1
Fatherhood programs         4    3   75.0   1    25.0    0      0.0    0    0  0
Marriage Education          4    3   75.0   1    25.0    0      0.0    0    0  0
Literacy-building           4    2   50.0   2    50.0    0      0.0    0    0  0
Computer Classes            4    1   25.0   3    75.0    0      0.0    0    0  0
Personal finance programs   4    0    0.0   0     0.0    4    100.0    0    0  0
Parenting Education         4    2   50.0   2    50.0    0      0.0    0    0  0
Affordable before & after
School care                 4    0    0.0   3    75.0    1     25.0    0    0  0




                                                                                           282
Employment Service Needs
All FSW respondents reported that all Employment services were needed by AVANCE families.
The service with the highest unmet need is Job placement programs (75%, n=3). No service was
fully met.

 Employment - AVANCE Family Service Workers
                                   Degree of Meeting Need
                          Total   Met     Somewhat Not met             Not      DK      Miss
 Service                                      met                     needed
                           N    N     %    N     %     N %              N       N        N
 Vocational Training       4    1   25.0   1   25.0 2 50.0              0       0        0
 Job readiness assistance  4    1   25.0   1   25.0 2 50.0              0       0        0
 Job Placement programs    4    0    0.0   1   25.0 3 75.0              0       0        0

Social Service Needs
Most FSW respondents reported that all Social Services were needed by AVANCE families. The
services with the highest unmet needs are “Safe, affordable housing” (75%, n=3),
“Immigration/naturalization assistance” (75%, n=3), and “Programs for families with
incarcerated members” (75%, n=3). Services with needs mostly somewhat met include “Crisis
Intervention” (100%, n=4), “Emergency assistance of food” (75%, n=3), “Emergency assistance
of rent, utilities, etc.” (100%, n=4), and “Assistance for Homeless Families” (100%, n=3). The
services with the highest met needs include “Public Transportation” (75%, n=3) and
“Translation services” (75%, n=3).

 Social Services - AVANCE Family Service Workers
                                         Degree of Meeting Need
                                              Somewhat                     Not
 Service                     Total   Met          met       Not met       needed DK Miss
                              N    N     %     N      %     N    %          N     N  N
 Crisis intervention          4    0     0.0   4    100.0   0    0.0         0    0  0
 Emergency assistance-food    4    1    25.0   3     75.0   0    0.0         0    0  0
 Emergency assistance- rent,
 utilities                    4    0     0.0   4    100.0   0    0.0        0       0    0
 Assistance for homeless
 families                     3    0     0.0   3    100.0   0    0.0        0       0    1
 Safe, affordable housing     4    0     0.0   1     25.0   3   75.0        0       0    0
 Public transportation        4    3    75.0   0      0.0   1   25.0        0       0    0
 Translation services         4    3    75.0   1     25.0   0    0.0        0       0    0
 Legal services               4    0     0.0   2     50.0   2   50.0        0       0    0
 Immigration/naturalization
 assistance                   4    1    25.0   0      0.0   3   75.0        0       0    0
 Programs for families with
 incarcerated members         4    0     0.0   1     25.0   3   75.0        0       0    0




                                                                                             283
Health and Nutrition Service Needs
All of FSW respondents reported that all Health and Nutrition services were needed by
AVANCE families. The service with the most unmet need was “Nutrition education classes”
(100%). Services that are mostly somewhat met include “Assistance enrolling in Medicaid and
CHIP” (75%, n=3) and Health Education (100%, n=4). Services with the highest met needs
include “Pediatric Care” (100%, n=4), “Immunizations for children” (100%, n=4), and “Dental
care” (75%, n=3).

Health/Nutrition - AVANCE Family Service Workers
                                              Degree of Meeting Need
                                                   Somewhat                 Not
Service                             Total   Met        met       Not met   needed DK Miss
                                     N    N   %      N     %     N     %     N     N  N
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
Medicaid                             4    1  25.0    3   75.0    0     0.0    0    0  0
Affordable health insurance
programs                             4    1  25.0    1   25.0    2    50.0    0    0  0
Access to affordable quality health
care                                 4    2  50.0    1   25.0    1    25.0    0    0  0
Prenatal care                        4    2  50.0    2   50.0    0     0.0    0    0  0
Pediatric care                       4    4 100.0 0       0.0    0     0.0    0    0  0
Immunizations for children           4    4 100.0 0       0.0    0     0.0    0    0  0
Immunizations for adults             4    1  25.0    2   50.0    1    25.0    0    0  0
Dental care                          4    3  75.0    1   25.0    0     0.0    0    0  0
Nutrition education classes          4    0   0.0    0    0.0    4 100.0      0    0  0
Access to affordable fresh produce   4    2  50.0    2   50.0    0     0.0    0    0  0
Health education                     4    0    0     4 100.0 0        0.0     0    0  0

Mental Health Service Needs
Most of FSW respondents reported that all Mental Health services were needed by AVANCE
families. The service with the greatest unmet need is “Stress management training” (100%,
n=4). Service needs that are mostly somewhat met include “Specialized parenting education”
(75%, n=3), “Substance abuse treatment” (75%, n=3), and “Respite care services” (100%, n=3).
Services with the highest met need include “Counseling Services” (100%, n=4), “Child
abuse/neglect services” (100%, n=4), and Domestic Violence services (75%, n=3).




                                                                                           284
Mental Health - AVANCE Family Service Workers
                                         Degree of Meeting Need
                                               Somewhat                     Not
Service                      Total    Met          met       Not met       needed DK          Miss
                              N    N     %      N      %    N     %          N     N           N
Counseling services           4    4 100.0 0         0.0    0     0.0         0    0           0
Specialized parenting
education                     4    1    25.0    3    75.0   0     0.0          0        0        0
Domestic violence services    4    3    75.0    1    25.0   0     0.0          0        0        0
Child abuse/neglect services  4    4 100.0 0         0.0    0     0.0          0        0        0
Substance abuse treatment     4    1    25.0    3    75.0   0     0.0          0        0        0
Respite care services         3    0     0.0    3 100.0 0        0.0           0        1        0
Stress management training    4    0     0.0    0     0.0   4 100.0            0        0        0
Anger management training     4    0     0.0    2    50.0   2    50.0          0        0        0

Disabilities Service Needs
All FSW respondents reported that all Disabilities services were needed by AVANCE families.
No services were reported to have a fully unmet need. Needs for “Assistive technology services”
(100%, n=4) and “Family Support for members with disabilities” (100%, n=4) were mostly
somewhat met. Services with the highest met need include “Screening for early detection of
disabilities” (100%, n=4) and “Child care for children with disabilities” (75%, n=3).

Disabilities - AVANCE Family Service Workers
                                        Degree of Meeting Need
                                              Somewhat                   Not
Service                       Total    Met        met      Not met      needed     DK       Miss
                               N    N    %     N      %    N    %         N         N        N
Screening for early detection
 of disabilities               4     4 100.0 0      0.0    0    0.0        0       0         0
Public school’s provisions of
special education services     4     2 50.0    2    50.0   0    0.0        0       0         0
Family support for members
with disabilities              4     0   0.0   4 100.0 0        0.0        0       0         0
Assistive technology services  4     0   0.0   4 100.0 0        0.0        0       0         0
Child care for children with
disabilities                   4     3 75.0    1    25.0   0    0.0        0       0         0

Public Services Needs
Most FSW respondents reported that all Public Services were needed by AVANCE families.
“Recycling programs” was the highest unmet need for only half of the respondents (50%, n=2).
They report, that overall public services for HS/EHS families are mostly met and include
“Emergency response services (police, fire, ambul. etc)” (100%, n=4), “Public Services” (100%,
n=4), “Business community (stores, restaurants, & entertainment” (100%, n=4), “Public parks
and recreation” (100%, n=4), Community Centers” (75%, n=3), and “Churches/faith based
services” (100%, n=4). Need for “Cultural community centers” (100%, n=4) and “Neighborhood
Watch programs” (66.7%, n=2) are mostly somewhat met.



                                                                                                 285
Other Public services - AVANCE Family Service Workers
                                        Degree of Meeting Need
                                              Somewhat                     Not
Service                      Total    Met         met      Not met        needed DK   Miss
                              N    N     %     N    %     N     %           N     N    N
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambul. etc     4    4 100.0 0        0.0    0   0.0          0    0     0
Neighborhood watch programs        3   1   33.3    2   66.7    0   0.0      0    1     0
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                4   4   100.0   0   0.0     0    0.0     0    0     0
Recycling programs                 4   1    25.0   1   25.0    2   50.0     0    0     0
Business community (stores,
restaur., entertainment)           4   4   100.0   0    0.0    0   0.0      0    0     0
Public Parks and recreation        4   4   100.0   0    0.0    0   0.0      0    0     0
Community Centers                  4   3   75.0    1   25.0    0   0.0      0    0     0
Churches/faith based services      4   4   100.0   0    0.0    0   0.0      0    0     0
Cultural community centers         4   0    0.0    4   100.0   0   0.0      0    0     0

C. Greatest Unmet Needs
FSW respondents were asked to rank the top three greatest unmet needs of HS/EHS families
served by AVANCE. The multi-decision making method used is based on the majority or most
common choice or mode. Therefore, AVANCE’s FSWs said the THREE GREATEST
UNMET NEEDS for AVANCE Head Start/Early Head Start families based on the modes for
first, second, and third ranks for the top 3 service categories are:

(1) EMPLOYMENT
(2) EDUCATION/LEGAL SERVICES/TRANSPORTATION/SOCIAL/FAMILY SERVICES
(3) EDUCATION/FOOD & NUTRITION/HOUSING/ SOCIAL/FAMILY SERVICES

D. Eligible children & families and other groups not being served:
        None of AVANCE’S FSW respondents knew communities with Head Start eligible
          children and their families that are not being served by a Head Start program.
        The majority of AVANCE’S FSW respondents (75%, n=3) reported they knew
          communities with Early Head Start eligible children and their families that are not
          being served by a Head Start program. These included Spring, Acres Homes (golf),
          Acres Homes, Inwood Forest, 290/610/45 area.
        All FSWs responding (100%, n=4) reported they knew specific groups in these
          communities that were not receiving appropriate services. These included more
          services for adults, especially the elderly and youth. They also reported, “More
          individuals needing assistance due to current economy. People in community should
          trust us more.”

E. AVANCE Family Service Workers felt their agency’s Strengths, when working with low
income families, included the following (followed by actual comments):
    Provides comprehensive services to all families and staff
         o Avance provides many services to all families to meet their needs and also to their
             staff.


                                                                                             286
          o Family services are provided to all families
          o Being able to provide services to the families
      Children are prepared to transition into K-12
          o Children are prepared to enter into K-12 partnerships with local agencies.
          o Children are prepared to transition into K-12,
          o Children are prepared to attend K-12.
      Provides a safe, learning environment for children while their parents work.

F. AVANCE Family Service Workers felt their agency’s Challenges, when working with
low income families, included the following (followed by actual comments):
     Families are reluctant to participate in services because of health requirements
          o The reluctance of families to participate in our programs due to many reasons –
              getting dentals, physicals and shots due to health issues – Medicaid.
     Transportation
          o Transportation to the services being referenced
          o Transportation
          o Transportation to services provided to families
     Follow-up with families to make sure they received services from referrals
     We need to make sure they follow through on some of the services we refer them to. Also
       making sure all the agencies are providing the services our parents need.
     Insufficient bilingual services
     Not having enough bilingual services
     Not being able to provide enough bilingual services

G. AVANCE Family Service Workers suggested the following ideas for how Head
Start/Early Head Start could collaborate or partner with other agencies to better meet the
needs of low-income children and families:
    More community meetings to share their families needs and how agencies can help
    More meetings with agencies in community to discuss our families’ needs and what they
       are able to provide for our families.

H. Summary
Four (4) Family Service Workers (FSWs) who serve AVANCE’s Head Start/Early Head Start
children and families submitted needs assessment surveys. AVANCE serves Acres Homes,
Airline/Northline, Tomball/Spring, Aldine, Cy-Fair, Jersey Village, and the Heights. Responses
relevant to the first three locations are represented in this report. Across service categories, FSWs
felt the top three greatest unmet needs of AVANCE’S Head Start/Early Head Start children and
families were (1) Employment, (2) (equally) Education/legal
services/transportation/social/family services, and (3) (equally) Education/food &
nutrition/housing/ social/family services

According to the FSWs’ survey responses, the greatest Unmet and Met Needs of AVANCE’s
Head Start/Early Head Start Families included the following:




                                                                                                 287
Greatest Unmet Needs
    Education- Personal finance programs (100%)
    Employment – Job placement programs (75%)
    Social Services – Safe, affordable housing (75%), Immigration/naturalization assistance
      (75%), and Programs for families with incarcerated members (75%)
    Health & Nutrition - Nutrition education classes (100%)
    Mental health- Stress management training (100%)
    Other Public Services - Recycling programs (50%)

Greatest Met Needs
    Education- Access to higher education (100%), Fatherhood programs (75%), and
      Marriage Education (75%).
    Social Services – Public Transportation” (75%, n=3) and “Translation services” (75%,
      n=3)
    Health& Nutrition- Pediatric Care (100%), Immunizations for children (100%), and
      Dental care (75%)
    Mental health- Counseling Services (100%), Child abuse/neglect services (100%), and
      Domestic Violence services (75%)
    Disabilities – Screening for early detection of disabilities (100%) and Child care for
      children with disabilities (75%)
    Public Services – Emergency response services (police, fire, ambul. etc) (100%), Public
      Services (100%), Business community (stores, restaurants, & entertainment (100%),
      Public parks and recreation (100%), Community Centers (75%), and Churches/faith
      based services (100%)

 Communities/Groups Not Served
    None of AVANCE’S FSW respondents knew communities with Head Start eligible
     children and their families that are not being served by a Head Start program.
    Communities with Early Head Start eligible children and their families not being served
     by a Head Start program included Spring, Acres Homes (golf), Acres Homes, Inwood
     Forest, 290/610/45 area.
    Specific groups in these communities not receiving appropriate services included more
     services for adults, especially the elderly and youth and individuals needing assistance
     due to current economy.

Strengths, Challenges, and Suggestions

Their program’s strengths include:
    Provides comprehensive services to all families and staff
    Children are prepared to transition into K-12
    Provides a safe, learning environment for children while their parents work.

Their program’s challenges include:
    Families are reluctant to participate in services because of health requirements
    Transportation


                                                                                          288
      Follow-up with families to make sure they received services from referrals
      Insufficient bilingual services

Suggestions include:
    More community meetings to share their families needs and how agencies can help




                                                                                       289
 Family Development Workers Surveys:
 Neighborhood Centers, Inc.

 A. Characteristics of respondents
 Four (4) surveys were received from Family Development Workers (FDW) who serve families
 enrolled in the Head Start/Early Start program conducted by Neighborhood Centers, Inc, (NCI).
 NCI serves four communities, which include Hiram-Clarke in addition to the communities
 served by the FDWs who responded to the survey (see following table).

                               NCI Head Start/Early Head Start
                          Communities Represented in FDW Surveys
                    Spring branch              Gulfton/Sharpstown
                    Alief                      Jersey Village (?)

 B. Service needs of low income HS/EHS eligible families in the NCI service area
 Responses from the FDW survey are displayed in the following tables by service category:

 Education Service Needs
 The majority of NCI’s FDWs reported that all Educational services were needed by HS/EHS
 families in NCI’s service area. The service with the highest unmet need is “Affordable before &
 after school care” (75%, n=3). Services that are equally unmet/somewhat met include
 “Fatherhood programs” (50% each, n=2, 2), and “Marriage Education” (50% each, n=2, 2).
 Services with needs that are mostly somewhat met include “Affordable, quality early education”
 (75%, n=3), “GED/HS Diploma” (75%, n=3), “ESL classes” (75%, n=3), “Access to higher
 education” (66.7%, n=2), “Literacy building” (50%, n=2), and “Computer classes” (50%, n=2).

Education – Neighborhood Centers Family Development Workers
                                                Degree of Meeting Need
                                                     Somewhat                  Not
Service                               Total   Met        met       Not met    Needed   DK Miss
                                       N    N   %    N       %     N    %       N       N  N
Affordable, quality early Education    4    1 25.0   3     75.0    0    0       0       0  0
GED/ HS Diploma                        4    0   0    3     75.0    1 25.0       0       0  0
Access to higher education             3    0   0    2     66.7    1 33.3       0       0  1
ESL Classes                            4    1 25.0   3     75.0    0    0       0       0  0
Fatherhood programs                    4    0   0    2     50.0    2 50.0       0       0  0
Marriage Education                     4    0   0    2     50.0    2 50.0       0       0  0
Literacy-building                      4    1 25.0   2     50.0    1 25.0       0       0  0
Computer Classes                       4    1 25.0   2     50.0    1 25.0       0       0  0
Personal finance programs              4    1 25.0   1     25.0    2 50.0       0       0  0
Parenting Education                    3    1 33.3   1     33.3    1 33.3       0       0  0
Affordable before & after school care  4    0   0    1     25.0    3 75.0       0       0  0




                                                                                            290
Employment Service Needs
Most FDW respondents reported that all Employment services were needed by NCI families.
The service with the highest unmet need was Job readiness assistance (66.7%, n=2), though one
reported “don’t know.” Need for Vocational Training (50%, n=2) and Job placement programs
(50%, n=2) was equally unmet and somewhat met.

Employment – Neighborhood Centers Family Development Workers
                                        Degree of Meeting Need
                                             Somewhat                       Not
Service                  Total      Met          met        Not met        needed   DK   Miss
                          N      N     %     N       %      N     %          N       N    N
Vocational Training        4      0   0.0     2    50.0     2    50.0         0      0    0
Job readiness assistance   3      0   0.0     1    33.3     2    66.7         0      1    0
Job placement programs     4      0   0.0     2    50.0     2    50.0         0      0    0

Social Service Needs
The majority of FDW respondents reported that all Social services were needed by NCI families.
The respondents reported the services with the highest unmet needs include “Translation
services” (100%, n=4), “Legal Services” (100%, n=4), “Crisis intervention” (75%, n=3),
“Assistance for homeless families” (75%, n=3), “Safe, affordable housing” (75%, n=3), and
“Emergency assistance for food and rent/utilities” (each at 50%, n=2).
“Immigration/naturalization assistance” was mostly somewhat met (75%, n=3).
Social Services – Neighborhood Centers Family Development Workers
                                            Degree of Meeting Need
                                                  Somewhat                  Not
Service                       Total      Met         met        Not met    needed   DK     Miss
                                N     N     %     N      %     N     %       N       N      N
Crisis intervention             4      0   0.0    1    25.0    3    75.0      0      0      0
Emergency assistance-food       4      1  25.0    1    25.0    2    50.0      0      0      0
Emergency assistance- rent,
utilities                       4      1  25.0    1    25.0    2    50.0      0      0      0
Assistance for homeless
families                        4      1  25.0    0     0.0    3    75.0      0      0      0
Safe, affordable housing        4      0   0.0    1    25.0    3    75.0      0      0      0
Public transportation           4      1  25.0    2    50.0    1    25.0      0      0      0
Translation services            4      0   0.0    0     0.0    4 100.0        0      0      0
Legal services                  4      0   0.0    0     0.0    4 100.0        0      0      0
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                      4      0   0.0    3    75.0    1    25.0      0      0      0
Programs for families with
incarcerated members            2      0   0.0    1    50.0    1    50.0      0      2      0

Health and Nutrition Service Needs
The majority of FDW respondents reported that all Health and Nutrition services were needed by
NCI families. Services with the highest unmet need include “Access to affordable fresh
produce” (66.7%, n=2) and Health Education (50%, n=2). The service need that was mostly met


                                                                                          291
“Immunizations for Children” (75%, n=3). Services that are equally met/somewhat met
includes “Dental care” (50%, n=2) and Prenatal care” (50%, n=2). Services that are mostly
somewhat met include “Pediatric care” (75%, n=3), “Affordable health insurance programs”
(50%, n=2), “Access to affordable quality health care”, (50%, n=2), and Nutrition education
classes (50%, n=2)

 Health/Nutrition – Neighborhood Centers Family Development Workers
                                               Degree of Meeting Need
                                                      Somewhat                  Not
 Service                           Total     Met         met        Not met    needed   DK     Miss
                                    N      N    %      N     %     N     %       N       N      N
 Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
 Medicaid                           4      2    50.0    1    25.0   1   25.0     0       0          0
 Affordable health insurance
 programs                           4      1    25.0    2    50.0   1   25.0     0       0          0
 Access to affordable quality
 health care                        4      1    25.0    2    50.0   1   25.0     0       0          0
 Prenatal care                      4      2    50.0    2    50.0   0   0.0      0       0          0
 Pediatric care                     4      1    25.0    3    75.0   0   0.0      0       0          0
 Immunizations for children         4      3    75.0    1    25.0   0    0.0     0       0          0
 Immunizations for adults           4      2    50.0    1    25.0   1   25.0     0       0          0
 Dental care                        4      2    50.0    2    50.0   0   0.0      0       0          0
 Nutrition education classes        4      1    25.0    2    50.0   1   25.0     0       0          0
 Access to affordable fresh
 produce                            3      0    0.0     1    33.3   2   66.7     0       0          1
 Health education                   4      1    25.0    1    25.0   2   50.0     0       0          0

Mental Health Service Needs
The majority of FDW respondents reported that all Mental Health services were needed by NCI
families. Needs for most services were mostly unmet including, “Anger management training”
(100%, n=4), “Specialized parenting education” (75%, n=3), “Stress management training”
(66.7%, n=2), Respite care services (66.7%, n=2), and “Substance abuse treatment” (66.7%,
n=2). “Counseling Services” are equally unmet/somewhat met. Services that are mostly
somewhat met include “Domestic violence services” (75%, n=3) and “Child abuse/neglect
services” (75%, n=3).




                                                                                              292
  Mental Health – NCI Family Development Workers
                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                                               Somewhat                   Not
  Service                      Total   Met         met         Not met   Needed DK             Miss
                                N    N    %    N       %      N      %     N     N              N
  Counseling services           4    0    0.0   2     50.0    2     50.0   0     0              0
  Specialized parenting
  education                     4    1 25.0     0      0.0    3     75.0   0     0               0
  Domestic violence services    4    0    0.0   3     75.0    1     25.0   0     0               0
  Child abuse/neglect services  4    0    0.0   3     75.0    1     25.0   0     0               0
  Substance abuse treatment     3    0    0.0   1     33.3    2     66.7   0     1               0
  Respite care services         3    0    0.0   1     33.3    2     66.7   0     1               0
  Stress management training    3    0    0.0   1     33.3    2     66.7   0     0               1
  Anger management training     4    0    0.0   0      0.0    4    100.0   0     0               0

  Disabilities Service Needs
  The majority of FDW respondents reported that all Disabilities services were needed by NCI
  families. The service with the highest unmet need was “Child care for children with disabilities”
  (75%, n=3). Services that are equally met/somewhat met include “Screening for early detection
  of disabilities” (50% each, n=2, 2) and “Public school’s provisions of special education services”
  (50% each, n=2, 2). The need for “Assistive technology services” (66.7%, n=2) is mostly
  somewhat met.

Disabilities – NCI Family Development Workers
                                                Degree of Meeting Need
                                                      Somewhat                   Not
Service                            Total     Met          met       Not met     needed    DK     Miss
                                    N      N   %      N       %    N     %        N        N      N
Screening for early detection of
disabilities                        4      2   50.0    2    50.0    0     0.0      0       0         0
Public school’s provisions of
special education services          4      2   50.0    2    50.0    0     0.0      0       0         0
Family support for members with
disabilities                        3      1   33.3    1    33.3    1    33.3      0       1         0
Assistive technology services       3      0   0.0     2    66.7    1    33.3      0       1         0
Child care for children with
disabilities                        4      0    0.0    1    25.0    3    75.0      0       0         0

  Public Services Needs
  The majority of FDW respondents reported that all Public Services were needed by NCI
  families. These families have few unmet needs for public services, though some FDWs were
  unaware of the need, especially for “Recycling programs.” Services that were mostly met
  included “Business community” (100%, n=4), “Emergency response services” (75%, n=3), and
  “Churches/faith based services” (75%, n=4). Need for “Community centers” (50%, n=2, 2) was
  equally met/somewhat met).




                                                                                                293
Other Public Services - NCI Family Development Workers
                                           Degree of Meeting Need
                                                 Somewhat                    Not
Service                       Total      Met         met       Not met      needed   DK   Miss
                                   N   N    %      N     %      N     %       N      N       N
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambulance etc)      4   3   75.0    1    25.0    0    0.0      0      0       0
Neighborhood watch programs        3   0    0.0    2    66.7    1    33.3     0      1       0
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                3   1   33.3    2    66.7    0     0.0     0      1       0
Recycling programs                 2   1   50.0    0     0.0    1    50.0     0      1       1
Business community (stores,
restaurant, entertainment)         4   4   100.0   0    0.0     0    0.0      0      0       0
Public Parks and recreation        4   2    50.0   1    25.0    1    25.0     0      0       0
Community Centers                  4   2    50.0   2    50.0    0    0.0      0      0       0
Churches/faith based services      4   3    75.0   1    25.0    0     0.0     0      0       0
Cultural community centers         4   1    25.0   2    50.0    1    25.0     0      0       0

C. Greatest Unmet Needs
FDW respondents were asked to rank the top three greatest unmet needs of HS/EHS families
served by Neighborhood Centers, Inc. The multi-decision making method used is based on the
majority or most common choice or mode. Therefore, NCI’s FDWs said the THREE
GREATEST UNMET NEEDS for NCI Head Start/Early Head Start families based on the
modes for first, second, and third ranked service categories are:

(1) EMPLOYMENT
(2) TRANSPORTATION/DISABILITIES/HEALTH/HOUSING
(3) LEGAL SERVICES/FOOD & NUTRITION/HOUSING/MENTAL HEALTH

D. Eligible children & families and other groups not being served:
    Half of NCI’s FDWs said they knew communities with Head Start eligible children and
       their families that are not being served by a Head Start program. These included Alief
       (with 200 children on waiting list) and Katy, TX with only one home based program.
    One of NCI’s FDWs said he/she knew a community with Early Head Start eligible
       children and their families that are not being served by an EHS program. This
       community was Alief.
    The majority (75%, n=3) of NCI’s FDWs reported that specific groups existed in their
       communities that were not receiving appropriate services. These groups included the
       Homeless, different cultural groups, and children with disabilities.

E. Family Development Workers felt their agency’s Strengths when working with low
income families included the following (followed by actual comments):
     Provide current and available resources to families
          o Being able to link with available resources in the community
          o Able to provide resources and support to the families we serve.



                                                                                          294
           o Our agency’s strengths are our current and available resources, provide job
             readiness to our parents (volunteering in the center in various positions), plan
             family activities (FRED, Literacy Night, etc.), and provide nutritious meals to the
             children daily.
           o Empowerment of families to reach their full potential

      Works well with families of different cultures
         o Services to all low income families regardless religious beliefs, race, nationality
         o Work well with families with different culture and background
         o The ability to establish rapport with our clients, being able to create a comfortable
            atmosphere, build trust, be non-judgmental and treat people with dignity and
            respect.

F. Family Development Workers felt their agency’s Challenges when working with low
income families included the following (followed by actual comments):
     Serving families in crisis
          o To serve families in crisis such as lack of dwelling due to an emergency
          o Recent involvement in difficulties before any rapport has been built.
          o Provide services to “Hard to reach families”. Resources
     Lack of parental follow through /involvement
          o Inability to follow through by some parents. Lack of interest on some parents to
             participate or be involved in their children’s education.
     Barriers to service
          o Due to our diverse campus, we often run into language barriers. Space availability
             is also a problem – we can only accept a certain number of children per center.

G. Family Service Providers suggested the following ideas for how Head Start/Early Head
Start could collaborate or partner with other agencies in order to better meet the need of
low-income children and families:
    Focus on increasing families’ self sufficiency
           o Help families to become self sufficient so they are not having to revisit agencies.
           o For assistance numerous times, help families find employment and offer
              affordable child care.
    Networking and more deliberate collaboration
           o By networking, inter-agency meetings, attending fairs and exchanging resources.
           o Collaborations amongst various agencies that will allow in-house referrals, the
              process of transferring from one agency to another in a timely fashion, and
              various focus groups.
           o The collaborators must access their means for collaborating and their strengths.
              This is an ongoing process, not a one-time deal. They must identify action steps
              for reaching these goals (serve families).




                                                                                             295
H. Summary
Four (4) Family Development Workers (FDW) who serve NCI’s HS/EHS children and families
submitted needs assessment surveys. They represented the areas Alief, Spring Branch,
Gulfton/Sharpstown, and Jersey Village. Across service categories, they felt the top three
greatest unmet needs of NCI’s HS/EHS children and families were (1)Employment, (2)
Transportation /Disabilities/Health/Housing, and (3) Legal services/Food &
Nutrition/Housing/Mental Health

According to the FDW’s responses, the greatest Unmet and Met Needs of NCI’s Head
Start/Early Head Start Families include the following:

Greatest Unmet Needs
    Education- Affordable before & after school care (75%). Services that are equally (50%)
      unmet/somewhat met include Fatherhood programs and Marriage Education
    Employment – Job readiness assistance (66.7%). Services that are equally (50%)
      unmet/somewhat met include Vocational Training and Job placement programs
    Social Services – Translation services (100%), Legal Services (100%), Crisis intervention
      (75%), Assistance for homeless families (75%), Safe, affordable housing (75%), and
      Emergency assistance for food (50%) and rent/utilities (50%).
    Health & Nutrition - Access to affordable fresh produce (66.7%) and Health Education
      (50%)
    Mental health- Anger management training (100%), Specialized parenting education
      (75%), Stress management training (66.7%), Respite care services (66.7%), and
      Substance abuse treatment (66.7%). Counseling Services are equally (50%)
      unmet/somewhat met.
    Disabilities - Child care for children with disabilities (75%)

Greatest Met Needs
    Health & Nutrition- “Immunizations for Children” (75%). Services that are equally
      (50%) met/somewhat met include Dental care and Prenatal care
    Disabilities – Services that are equally (50%) met/somewhat met include Screening for
      early detection of disabilities and Public school’s provisions of special education services
    Public Services - Business community (100%), Emergency response services (75%), and
      Churches/faith based services (75%). Need for Community centers (50%) was equally
      met/somewhat met).

Communities/Groups Not Served
   Half of NCI’s FDWs reported that Head Start eligible children and their families not
    being served by a Head Start program live in Alief and Katy, TX
   One of NCI’s FDWs reported that Early Head Start eligible children and their families
    not being served by an EHS program live in Alief
   The majority (75%) of NCI’s FDWs reported specific groups in their communities not
    receiving appropriate services included the Homeless, different cultural groups, and
    children with disabilities.



                                                                                              296
Strengths, Challenges, and Suggestions

Their program’s strengths include:
    Provide current and available resources to families
    Works well with families of different cultures

Their program’s challenges include:
    Serving families in crisis
    Lack of parental follow through /involvement
    Barriers to service

Suggestions include:
    Focus on increasing families’ self sufficiency
    Networking and more deliberate collaboration




                                                           297
Family Service Providers’ Survey:
Gulf Coast Community Services Association (GCCSA)

 A. Characteristics of respondents
 Three (3) surveys were completed by Family Service Workers (FSW) who serve families
 enrolled in the Head Start/Early Head Start program conducted by Gulf Coast Community
 Services Association (GCCSA). Even though none of the respondents checked serving a
 particular community, GCCSA serves families in the following communities:

                            Communities served by GCCSA for
                                Head Start/Early Head Start
                            East End            Third Ward
                            Pasadena            Sunnyside

B. Service needs of low income HS/EHS eligible families in the GCCSA service area –
Responses from the FSW survey are displayed in the following tables by service category:

Education Service Needs
All of the GCCSA FSW respondents reported that all Educational services listed were needed by
HS/EHS families in GCCSA’s service area. The services with the highest unmet need are
“Personal finance programs” (100%, n=3), “Literacy Building” (66.7%), “Computer classes”
(66.7%), “Parenting Education” (66.7%), and “Affordable before and after school care” (66.7%).
The need for “ESL” was 66.7% somewhat met and a third unmet. The service with the highest
met need was “Access to higher education” (66.7%, n=2).

 Education - GCCSA Family Service Workers
                                         Degree of Meeting Need
                                               Somewhat                    Not
 Service                    Total      Met         met      Not met       needed   DK Miss
                              N      N    %    N       %   N    %           N       N  N
 Affordable, quality early
 Education                    3      1 33.3 1        33.3 1 33.3             0      0      0
 GED/ HS Diploma              3      1 33.3 1        33.3 1 33.3             0      0      0
 Access to higher education   3      2 66.7 0         0.0   1 33.3           0      0      0
 ESL Classes                  3      0    0.0   2    66.7 1 33.3             0      0      0
 Fatherhood programs          3      0    0.0   0     0.0   3 100.0          0      0      0
 Marriage Education           3      0    0.0   0     0.0   3 100.0          0      0      0
 Literacy-building            3      0    0.0   1    33.3 2 66.7             0      0      0
 Computer Classes             3      0    0.0   1    33.3 2 66.7             0      0      0
 Personal finance programs    3      0    0.0   0     0.0   3 100.0          0      0      0
 Parenting Education          3      0    0.0   1    33.3 2 66.7             0      0      0
 Affordable before & after
 school care                  3      0    0.0   1    33.3 2 66.7             0      0      0




                                                                                           298
Employment Service Needs
All FSW respondents reported that all Employment services were needed by GCCSA families.
The services with the highest unmet need are Job readiness assistance (100.0%), Job placement
programs (100.0%), and Vocational Training (66.7%) with none fully met.

   Employment - GCCSA Family Service Workers
                                     Degree of Meeting Need
   Service                                Somewhat                       Not
                            Total  Met       met       Not met          needed   DK    Miss
                             N    N %      N     %     N    %             N       N     N
   Vocational Training       3    0 0.0    1    33.3 2     66.7            0      0     0
   Job readiness assistance  2    0 0.0    0     0.0   2 100.0             0      0     1
   Job Placement programs    3    0 0.0    0     0.0   3 100.0             0      0     0

Social Service Needs
All FSW respondents reported that all Social Services were needed by GCCSA families. The
services with the highest unmet needs are “Crisis intervention” (100%), “Safe, affordable
housing” (100%), “Legal services” (100%), “Immigration/naturalization assistance” (100%), and
“Programs for families with incarcerated members” (100%). “Emergency assistance of rent,
utilities, etc.”, “Assistance for Homeless Families”, and “Translation services” are mostly unmet
(66.7%). “Food Emergency assistance” was mostly met with 33.3% met and 33.3% somewhat
met.

 Social Services - GCCSA Family Service Workers
                                          Degree of Meeting Need
                                                Somewhat               Not
 Service                      Total     Met         met      Not met  needed DK Miss
                                N     N     %    N      %    N    %     N     N  N
 Crisis intervention            3     0    0.0    0     0.0  3 100.0     0    0  0
 Emergency assistance-food      3     1   33.3    1   33.3 1     33.3    0    0  0
 Emergency assistance- rent,
 utilities                      3     0    0.0    1   33.3 2     66.7    0    0  0
 Assistance for homeless
 families                       3     0    0.0    1   33.3 2     66.7    0    0  0
 Safe, affordable housing       3     0    0.0    0     0.0  3 100.0     0    0  0
 Public transportation          3     1   33.3    0     0.0  2   66.7    0    0  0
 Translation services           3     0    0.0    1   33.3 2     66.7    0    0  0
 Legal services                 3     0    0.0    0     0.0  3 100.0     0    0  0
 Immigration/naturalization
 assistance                     3     0    0.0    0     0.0  3 100.0     0    0  0
 Programs for families with
 incarcerated members           3     0    0.0    0     0.0  3 100.0     0    0  0

Health and Nutrition Service Needs
The majority of FSW respondents reported that all Health and Nutrition services were needed by
GCCSA families. Services with the most unmet needs were “Nutrition education classes”
(100%) and “Access to affordable fresh produce” (100%). “Affordable health insurance” was


                                                                                              299
mostly unmet (66.7%) and “Assistance enrolling in Medicaid and CHIP” was mostly somewhat
met (66.7%). “Immunizations for children” is the highest met need (100%), while
“Immunizations for adults” are mostly met (66.7%).

Health/Nutrition - GCCSA Family Service Workers
                                              Degree of Meeting Need
Service                                            Somewhat                 Not
                                    Total   Met        met       Not met   needed DK Miss
                                     N    N   %      N     %     N     %     N     N  N
Assistance enrolling in CHIP or
Medicaid                             3    1  33.3    2   66.7    0     0.0    0    0  0
Affordable health insurance
programs                             3    0   0.0    1   33.3    2    66.7    0    0  0
Access to affordable quality health
care                                 3    1  33.3    1   33.3    1    33.3    0    0  0
Prenatal care                        3    1  33.3    1   33.3    1    33.3    0    0  0
Pediatric care                       3    1  33.3    1   33.3    1    33.3    0    0  0
Immunizations for children           3    3 100.0 0       0.0    0     0.0    0    0  0
Immunizations for adults             3    2  66.7    0    0.0    1    33.3    0    0  0
Dental care                          3    1  33.3    1   33.3    1    33.3    0    0  0
Nutrition education classes          3    0   0.0    0    0.0    3 100.0      0    0  0
Access to affordable fresh produce   3    0   0.0    0    0.0    3 100.0      0    0  0
Health education                     3    0   0.0    1   33.3    1    33.3    0    1  0

Mental Health Service Needs
All of FSW respondents reported that all Mental Health services were needed by GCCSA
families. All (100%) of respondents reported most services were unmet including, “Counseling
Services”, “Specialized parenting education”, “Respite care services”, and Stress and Anger
management trainings.” Services mostly unmet (66.7%) include “Domestic violence services”
and “Substance abuse treatment.” Child abuse/neglect services (66.7%, n=2) were mostly
somewhat met.

Mental Health - GCCSA Family Service Workers
                                         Degree of Meeting Need
Service                      Total   Met     Somewhat        Not met       Not   DK Miss
                                                 met                      needed
                              N    N    %     N      %      N     %         N     N  N
Counseling services           3    0   0.0    0      0.0    3    100.0       0    0  0
Specialized parenting         3    0   0.0    0      0.0    3    100.0       0    0  0
education
Domestic violence services    3    0   0.0    1     33.3    2    66.7        0      0    0
Child abuse/neglect services  3    0   0.0    2     66.7    1    33.3        0      0    0
Substance abuse treatment     3    0   0.0    1     33.3    2    66.7        0      0    0
Respite care services         3    0   0.0    0      0.0    3    100.0       0      0    0
Stress management training    3    0   0.0    0      0.0    3    100.0       0      0    0
Anger management training     3    0   0.0    0      0.0    3    100.0       0      0    0




                                                                                          300
Disabilities Service Needs
All FSW respondents reported that all Disabilities services were needed by GCCSA families.
The service with the highest unmet need was “Assistive technology services” (100%, n=3).
Service needs that are mostly somewhat met (66.7%, n=2) include “Screening for early detection
of disabilities”, “Family support for members with disabilities”, and “Child care for children
with disabilities.” Service with the highest met need included “Public school’s provisions of
special education services” (66.7%, n=2).

Disabilities -  GCCSA Family Service Workers
                                             Degree of Meeting Need
                                                     Somewhat                                      Not
Service                               Total   Met        met       Not met                        needed    DK       Miss
                                       N    N   %      N     %    N      %                          N        N        N
Screening for early detection
of disabilities                        3    0   0.0    2 66.7 1         33.3                            0       0        0
Public school’s provisions of special
education services                     3    2 66.7 1 33.3 0             0.0                             0       0        0
Family support for members with
disabilities                           3    0   0.0    2 66.7 1         33.3                            0       0        0
Assistive technology services          3    0   0.0    0    0.0   3    100.0                            0       0        0
Child care for children with disabilities       3       0        0.0       2    66.7   1   33.3         0       0        0

Public Services Needs
All FSW respondents reported that all Public Services were needed by GCCSA families. The
public services for HS/EHS families mostly unmet (66.7%, n=2) included “Neighborhood watch
programs”, “Recycling programs”, “Business community (stores, restaurants, & entertainment”,
and “Cultural community centers.” The public services for HS/EHS families that are mostly met
(66.7%, n=2) include “Emergency response services (police, fire, ambul. etc)”, “Public parks and
recreation”, “Community Centers”, and “Churches/faith based services.”

 Other Public Services - GCCSA Family Service Workers
                                            Degree of Meeting Need
                                                  Somewhat                                         Not
 Service                       Total     Met         met        Not met                           needed DK         Miss
                                                                                                    N
                                        N           N        %         N        %      N    %             N          N
 Emergency response services
 (police, fire, ambul. etc                  3       2       66.7       0       0.0     1   33.3     0       0        0
 Neighborhood watch programs                3       0        0.0       1       33.3    2   66.7     0       0        0
 Public services (trash collect.,
 street maintenance)                        3       1       33.3       1       33.3    1   33.3     0       0        0
 Recycling programs                         3       0       0.0        1       33.3    2   66.7     0       0        0
 Business community (stores,
 restaur., entertainment)                   3       1       33.3       0        0.0    2   66.7     0       0        0
 Public Parks and recreation                3       2       66.7       0       0.0     1   33.3     0       0        0
 Community Centers                          3       2       66.7       0       0.0     1   33.3     0       0        0
 Churches/faith based services              3       2       66.7       1       33.3    0   0.0      0       0        0
 Cultural community centers                 3       0        0.0       1       33.3    2   66.7     0       0        0



                                                                                                                         301
C. Greatest Unmet Needs
FSW respondents were asked to rank the top three greatest unmet needs of HS/EHS families
served by GCCSA. The multi-decision making method used is based on the majority or most
common choice or mode. Therefore, GCCSA’s FSWs said the THREE GREATEST UNMET
NEEDS for GCCSA Head Start/Early Head Start families based on the modes for first, second,
and third ranks for the top 3 service categories are:


(1) EMPLOYMENT
(2) SOCIAL/FAMILY SERVICES
(3) FOOD & NUTRITION/HOUSING /MENTAL HEALTH

D. Eligible children & families and other groups not being served:
     The majority (66.7%, n=2) of GCCSA FSWs reported they knew communities with
       Head
        Start eligible children and their families that are not being served by a Head Start
       program.
        These included South Park, Sunnyside, and homeless families.
     Only one GCCSA FSW reported they knew communities with Early Head Start eligible
       children and their families that are not being served by a Head Start program. These
       included South Park, Sunnyside, and Foster Place
     All FSWs responding (100%, n=3) reported they knew specific groups in these
       communities that were not receiving appropriate services. These included pregnant
       teens, homeless & of a different culture (Asia, Hispanic), and children of incarcerated
       parents, homeless, and youth. They also said “We need prevention for children getting
       along with Gang members” and “After school care / Early Childhood program.”

E. Family Service Workers felt their agency’s Strengths when working with low income
families included the following (followed by actual comments):
     Excellent service. Excellent staff. Excellent Management.
     Providing Head Start Services to families.
     Provide services that meet families’ emotional, social, and educational needs to help them
       to be independent.

F. Family Service Workers felt their agency’s Challenges when working with low income
families included the following (followed by actual comments):
     More classrooms. More teachers.
     Income/money – needed to expand, location availability.
     Transportation, lack of motivation or commitment from parent.

G. Family Service Workers suggested the following ideas for how Head Start/Early Head
Start could collaborate or partner with other agencies to better meet the needs of low-
income children and families:
    By providing resources and materials for the workers like good offices and desk supplies.
    (Open) another Head Center in the area.


                                                                                            302
       (Open another) Early Head Center in the area.
       Have meetings with all service providers to discuss the needs not met and also meet
        families to share their concerns.
H. Summary
Three (3) Family Service Workers (FSW) who serve GCCSA’s Head Start/Early Head Start
children and families submitted needs assessment surveys. GCCSA serves the East End,
Pasadena, Third Ward, and Sunnyside. Across service categories, they felt the top three greatest
unmet needs of GCCSA’s Head Start/Early Head Start children and families were Employment,
Social/family services, and Food & nutrition/housing /mental health.

According to the FSWs’ survey responses, the greatest Unmet and Met Needs of GCCSA’s Head
Start/Early Head Start Families included the following:

Greatest Unmet Needs
    Education- Personal finance programs (100%), Literacy Building (66.7%), Computer
      classes (66.7%), Parenting Education (66.7%), and Affordable before and after school
      care (66.7%).
    Employment – Job readiness assistance (100.0%), Job placement programs (100.0%), and
      Vocational Training (66.7%)
    Social Services – Crisis intervention (100%), Safe, affordable housing (100%), Legal
      services (100%), Immigration/naturalization assistance (100%), and Programs for
      families with incarcerated members (100%). Services that are mostly unmet (66.7%)
      include Emergency assistance of rent, utilities, etc., Assistance for Homeless Families,
      and Translation services.
    Health & Nutrition - Nutrition education classes, Access to affordable fresh produce
      (100%), and Affordable health insurance (66.7%)
    Mental health- Counseling Services (100%), Specialized parenting education (100%),
      Respite care services (100%), and Stress and Anger management trainings (100%).
      Services mostly unmet (66.7%) include Domestic violence services and Substance abuse
      treatment.
    Disabilities -Assistive technology services (100%)
    Other Public Services - Neighborhood watch programs (66.7%), Recycling programs
      (66.7%), Business community (stores, restaurants, & entertainment) (66.7%), and
      Cultural community centers (66.7%).

Greatest Met Needs
    Education- Access to higher education (66.7%)
    Health& Nutrition- Immunizations for children (100%) and Immunizations for adults
      (66.7%)
    Disabilities – Public school’s provisions of special education services (66.7%)
      Public Services – Emergency response services (police, fire, ambul. etc) (66.7%), Public
      parks and recreation (66.7%), Community Centers (66.7%), and Churches/faith based
      services (66.7%)




                                                                                              303
Communities/Groups Not Served
   Communities with HS eligible children and their families not being served by a Head
    Start program included: South Park, Sunnyside, and homeless families.
   Communities with Early Head Start eligible children and their families not being served
    by a Head Start program included South Park, Sunnyside, and Foster Place.
   Specific groups in these communities not receiving appropriate services included
    pregnant teens, homeless & of a different culture (Asia, Hispanic), and children of
    incarcerated parents, homeless, and youth. Also needed is prevention for children to get
    along with Gang members, After-school care, and an Early Childhood program.

Strengths, Challenges, and Suggestions

Their program’s strengths include:
    Provide excellent service, staff, and Management
    Provide services that meet families’ emotional, social, and educational needs to help them
       to be independent.

Their program’s challenges include:
    Insufficient classrooms and teachers
    Insufficient Income/money to expand available locations
    Lack of transportation
    Parents lack of motivation or commitment

Suggestions include:
    Provide resources and materials for the workers like good offices and desk supplies
    (Open) another Head Center in the area.
    (Open another) Early Head Center in the area.
    Have meetings with all service providers to discuss the needs not met and also meet
      families to share their concerns.




                                                                                           304
Strengths and Needs: Comparison of Respondent Views




                                                      305
Comparison of Respondent Views:
Harris County

Compare and contrast the views of families with views of family service providers, and
community partners

Views of the strengths (“met needs”) and needs (“unmet needs”) of HS/EHS eligible families
were collected from 3,354 Harris County grantee parents/caregivers, 22 grantee Family service
providers/development workers, and 49 Community partners through scanable and online needs
assessment surveys distributed between November 2009-February 2010. Through the surveys,
individuals of the three respondent groups identified their highest met and unmet needs for 56-57
services organized across seven service categories (Education, Employment, Social Services,
Health & Nutrition, Mental Health, Disabilities, and Other Public Services). Met and unmet
needs by service that were identified by approximately 40% or more of individuals in each group
(our level of significance). As statistical comparison could not be performed due to very different
sample sizes across respondent groups, a visual method is used to help bring awareness to the
strengths and unmet needs of families with the highest priority compared to what others think are
their strengths and unmet needs. This comparison may not only help to guide grantees in
exploring with their families ways to meet these needs (through improving current services
offered and provide new ones) but also help improve communication with community partners
focusing attention on finding and advocating for services. Narratives highlighting the
comparisons across respondent groups are presented for overall Harris County and for each of
the four grantees. Service needs marked with a “-” are percentages below the level of
significance for this report. Items that are shaded were not asked of the respondent.

Overall Harris County
Findings from the Family Survey revealed Employment, Education, and Housing/Health as the
top unmet needs for Harris County grantee families. FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners may
have reported differently but realize that Community Partners, in particular, were identifying
strengths (“met needs”) and needs (“unmet needs”) across seven service categories of eligible
HS/EHS families in the grantee service areas who not all are enrolled in grantee services.

Employment
All respondent groups reported that Employment was the top unmet need for HS/EHS eligible
families. This was supported by grantee families and FSPs/FDWs who said families have a high
unmet need for Help finding and getting a good job/job placement programs and Classes to
learn a trade or profession/ vocational trainings from the list of three Employment services. The
percentage of Community partners identifying needs for these services as unmet did not reach
our level of significance. Furthermore, grantee families reported high unmet need for Help with
resume for job related services/job readiness, while neither FSPs/FDWs nor Community
Partners reported a high unmet need for that service. No combined group identified these
services as highly met.




                                                                                               306
  Employment
                                                            Unmet Needs            Met Needs
                                                   Families FSPs/FDWs CPs Families FSPs/FDWs                                              CPs
                                                      %          %      %   %          %                                                   %
  Vocational Training                              61.9     54.5        -    -          -                                                  -
  Job readiness assistance                         56.1     45.0        -    -          -                                                  -
  Job Placement programs                           59.9     50.0        -    -          -                                                  -

 Education
 Education was the second highest unmet need for HS/EHS eligible families identified by
 grantee families overall, though not by FSPs/FDWs nor Community Partners. Families reported
 high unmet needs for five out of 13 educational services. These included Computer classes,
 Affordable child care, Personal finance programs, Enroll/stay in college, and Marriage
 education. Of these services, FSPs/FDWs agreed that families had a high unmet need for
 Personal finance programs and Community Partners agreed that families had high unmet needs
 for Affordable before & after school care and Marriage education. In contrast, FSPs/FDWs and
 Community partners reported families had a high unmet need for Fatherhood programs. On the
 other hand, only families identified the need for Affordable and Quality early education was
 highly met. An interesting contrast is seen with grantee families identifying the need for
 Enrolling/staying in college as highly unmet while FSPs/FDWs see the same need for Access to
 higher education as highly met.

Education
                                                        Unmet Needs                                                Met Needs
                                               Families   FSPs/FDWs                    CPs        Families         FSPs/FDWs                CPs
                                                 %            %                         %           %                  %                     %
Affordable, quality early
education                                         -                   -                -             87.3                -                  41.9
GED/ HS Diploma                                  46.5                 -                -             39.5                -                   -
Access to higher education                       50.1                 -                -              -                 50.0                 -
ESL Classes                                      40.3                 -                -             41.4               42.9                 -
Fatherhood programs                               -                  65.0             52.9           45.2                -                   -
Marriage Education                               48.1                47.6             50.0            -                  -                   -
Literacy-building                                45.1                 -                -              -                  -                   -
Computer Classes                                 55.7                 -                -              -                  -                   -
Personal finance programs                        50.2                65.0              -              -                  -                   -
Parenting Education                               -                   -                -             43.6                -                   -
Affordable before &
after school care                                 52.7               45.5             47.4             -                   -                  -
 *In the Family Survey this service item is asked as two separate questions (i.e. Affordable education and Quality education), the smaller of the
 two percentages was used for comparison across all three groups.




                                                                                                                                              307
Social Services
Housing was the third highest unmet need for HS/EHS families identified by grantee families
and the second highest unmet need by FSPs/FDWs. Families reported high unmet needs for
four out of seven Social Services. These included Access to lawyers & legal advice; Immigration
& naturalization assistance; Rental assistance/crisis intervention; and Safe, affordable housing.
FSPs/FDWs also agreed that families had high unmet needs for these same services. In addition,
FSPs/FDWs along with Community Partners, considered the need for Programs for an
incarcerated family member as highly unmet (not included on the Family Survey for some
reason). In contrast to other respondent groups, families reported the need for Help with food
was highly met.

Social Services
                                              Unmet Needs                     Met Needs
                                   Families     FSPs/FDWs   CPs    Families    FSPs/FDWs     CPs
                                     %              %        %       %             %          %
Crisis intervention                                52.6      -                      -         -
Emergency assistance-food             -              -       -       50.4           -         -
Emergency assistance- rent,
utilities                           47.0           -         -        -            -           -
Assistance for homeless families     -            47.6      42.1      -            -           -
Safe, affordable housing            47.7          54.5      44.4      -            -           -
Public transportation                             45.5       -                    40.9         -
Translation services                 -             -         -       44.9          -           -
Legal services                      50.1          70.0       -        -            -           -
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                          49.9          52.4       -        -            -           -
Programs for families with
incarcerated members                              70.6      60.0                   -           -

Health and Nutrition
Health was tie for the third highest unmet need for HS/EHS families reported by grantee
families and the third highest unmet need by Community Partners. However, according to the
Health and Nutrition service results, only Community Partners reported high unmet needs for
HS/EHS eligible families, which included Nutrition education and Affordable health insurance
programs. On the other hand, grantee families, FSPs/FDWs, and Community Partners all agreed
that the highest met needs included Immunizations for children and Assistance with enrolling in
CHIP & Medicaid. Grantee families and FSPs/FDWs also included Medical care for their
children/Pediatric care. Furthermore, FSPs/FDWs considered Prenatal care, Dental care, and
Immunizations for adults as highly met.




                                                                                             308
Health and Nutrition
                                       Unmet Needs                         Met Needs
                              Families   FSPs/FDWs      CPs     Families   FSPs/FDWs      CPs
                                %            %           %        %            %           %
Assistance enrolling in
CHIP or Medicaid                   -            -           -     58.8         59.1       45.2
Affordable health
insurance programs                 -            -       47.5        -           -           -
Access to affordable
quality health care                -           -         -         -           45.5        -
Prenatal care                      -           -         -        47.6         66.7        -
Pediatric care                     -           -         -        58.0         68.2        -
Immunizations for children         -           -         -        63.9         86.4       45.2
Immunizations for adults           -           -         -        42.6         61.9        -
Dental care                       40.1         -         -        40.6         63.6        -
Nutrition education classes        -          45.0      48.6       -            -          -
Access to affordable fresh
produce                            -            -           -     43.5          -           -
Health education                  41.4          -           -      -            -           -

Mental Health
Mental health was the third highest unmet need for HS/EHS families reported by FSPs/FDWs
and the second highest need by Community Partners. Grantee families as a group did not include
Mental Health in their top three unmet needs. Out of eight Mental Health services, however, all
three respondent groups reported high unmet needs for classes in Anger management and Stress
management. In addition, FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners included Respite care of sick
family members and FSPs/FDWs included Specialized parenting education. In general, no
mental health service needs were identified as highly met.

Mental Health
                                              Unmet Needs                    Met Needs
                                         Families FSPs/FDWs CPs Families FSPs/FDWs          CPs
                                            %         %      %     %         %               %
Counseling services                        41.8      40.9    -     -          -              -
Specialized parenting education             -        50.0    -     -          -              -
Domestic violence services                  -        40.9    -     -          -              -
Child abuse/neglect services                -          -     -    40.2      45.5             -
Substance abuse treatment                  41.0        -    40.5   -          -              -
Respite care services                      41.8      58.8   54.5   -          -              -
Stress management training                 47.0      83.3   65.5   -          -              -
Anger management training                  45.7      84.2   56.7   -          -              -

Disabilities
Disabilities was not identified by any of the respondent groups as one of their top three highest
unmet needs but only a subgroup of families have a need for these services. Disabilities services
were identified as neither highly unmet nor met by Grantee families. However, both FSPs/FDWs
and Community Partners identified Assistive technology services as a high unmet need (not


                                                                                                309
 included on the Family survey for some reason) and Community Partners included need for
 Child care for children with disabilities as highly unmet. In contrast, only FSPs/FDWs reported
 the needs for Screening for early detection of disabilities and Special education services through
 the public school as highly met.

Disabilities
                                                      Unmet Needs                          Met Needs
                                                Families FSPs/FDWs       CPs    Families FSPs/FDWs CPs
                                                  %          %            %        %         %      %
Screening for early detection of disabilities      -          -           -       42.2      68.2    -
Public school’s provisions of special
education services                                -          -            -       44.1         66.7      -
Family support for members with
disabilities                                      -          -           44.1          -        -        -
Assistive technology services                               50.0         54.5                   -        -
Child care for children with disabilities         -          -           46.9          -        -        -

 Other Public Services
 Other Public Services included the most services identified with needs that are highly met for
 HS/EHS eligible families. Only the need for Recycling programs was identified as highly unmet
 by Community Partners. On the other hand, service needs that are highly met by all respondent
 groups were Emergency response services and Churches/faith based services. In addition, other
 service needs identified as highly met by grantee families and FSPs/FDWs included Public
 services (i.e. trash collection, street maintenance), Public parks & recreation, Business
 community (i.e. stores, restaurant), and Community centers. Grantee families also identified the
 need for Public transportation.

Other Public Services
                                                Unmet Needs                            Met Needs
                                       Families    FSPs/FDWs       CPs        Families  FSPs/FDWs      CPs
                                         %              %           %           %           %           %
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambulance, etc)            -             -           -           58.6          86.4     50.0
Neighborhood watch programs              41.3           -          42.9          -             -        -
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                        -            -           -           52.3          71.4      -
Recycling programs                         -            -          57.9          -             -        -
Business community (stores,
restaurant., entertainment)                -            -            -          47.8          81.8      -
Public Parks and recreation                -            -            -          49.1          86.4      -
Community Centers                          -            -            -          46.0          72.7      -
Churches/faith based services              -            -            -          55.9          86.4     60.5
Cultural community centers                              -            -          43.6           -        -
Public transportation                      -                                    46.5




                                                                                                       310
Summary
Family service providers shared perspectives with families for met and unmet needs while
community partners shared less. Out of 56 services aligned under seven categories, Early/Head
Start families identified 26 (46.4%) services as highly met and 25 (44.6%) services as highly
unmet. Of those services, FSPs/FDWs agreed with 61.5% (n=16) of the met and 52.0% (n=13) of
the unmet while community partners agreed with only 19.2% (n=5) of the met and 32.0% (n=8)
of the unmet. This lack of consensus for families’ unmet needs in particular, highlights the
groups’ different perspectives and the need for a more common understanding that could
improve referral, access, and follow up as well as advocacy for the overall well being of Early
Head Start and Head Start families.




                                                                                           311
Comparison of Respondent Views :
Harris County Department of Education (HCDE)

Comparisons of the views of respondent groups for HCDE are based on Needs Assessment
surveys from 695 parent/caregivers (50% of total served), 11 FSPs/FDWs, and 29 Community
Partners. Findings from the Family Survey revealed that Employment, Transportation, and
Education were the three greatest unmet needs for Head Start families in the eastern half of
Harris County. FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners ranked differently, but realize that
Community Partners, in particular, were identifying strengths (“met needs”) and needs (“unmet
needs”) across seven service categories of eligible HS/EHS families in the HCDE service area
who not all are enrolled in grantee services. Following each service category is a comparison
table. Service needs marked with a “-” are percentages below the level of significance for this
report. Items that are shaded were not asked of the respondent.

Employment
Employment was ranked as the top unmet need of HS/EHS eligible families by HCDE families
and Community Partners. Supporting this, HCDE families identified all three of the Employment
service needs as highly unmet; Classes to learn a trade or profession or vocational trainings,
Job placement services, and Help with resume, interview skills, and professional clothing. Even
though Community Partners did not report a high level of unmet need for these specific services,
FSPs/FDWs agreed with families that the need for Vocational trainings was highly unmet. No
group identified employment services as highly met.

 Employment
                                            Unmet Needs             Met Needs
                                 Families    FSPs/FDWs CPs Families FSPs/FDWs              CPs
                                    %            %      %    %          %                   %
 Vocational Training               65.7         54.5    -     -          -                  -
 Job Readiness Assistance          57.5           -     -     -          -                  -
 Job Placement Programs            58.1           -     -     -          -                  -

Other Public Services
Transportation was the second highest unmet need for HS/EHS eligible families identified by
HCDE families while FSPs/FDWs ranked it as the top unmet need. Other Public Services that
families identified as unmet were Neighborhood watch and Recycling programs. Community
Partners also agreed that Recycling programs were unmet in the community. FSPs/FDWs did not
have any unmet public services that met the level of significance for this report. Among the three
respondent groups similar highly met needs were identified within public services. Service
items included Churches and Emergency response services.




                                                                                              312
Other Public Services
                                                              Unmet Needs                                            Met Needs
                                                     Families    FSPs/FDWs                     CPs          Families  FSPs/FDWs                      CPs
                                                       %              %                         %             %           %                           %
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambulance, etc)                           -                       -               -           66.0                90.9                50.0
Neighborhood watch programs                             48.5                     -               -            -                  50.0                 -
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                                      -                       -              -            55.8                81.8                 -
Recycling programs                                      46.3                     -             60.0           -                  55.6                 -
Business community (stores,
restaurant., entertainment)                              -                       -               -           50.8               81.8                  -
Public Parks and recreation                              -                       -               -           66.0               100.0                 -
Community Centers                                        -                       -               -           52.8               81.8                  -
Churches/faith based services                            -                       -               -           68.9                90.9                60.0
Cultural community centers                              44.0                     -               -            -                 45.5                  -
Public transportation                                    -                                                   52.5

  Education
  Education was the third highest unmet need for HS/EHS eligible families. Families reported high
  unmet needs for eight out of thirteen educational services. Services with a high unmet need
  included Affordable before and after school care, Computer classes, Enroll/stay in college,
  Personal finance programs, Marriage education, GED/HS diploma, and Literacy building.
  Neither FSPs/FDWs nor Community Partners ranked education as a greatest unmet; however,
  there was consensus among the two groups that Fatherhood programs was a highly unmet need
  for families. FSPs/FDWs also saw Marriage education as an unmet. Families identified
  Affordable Early Education and Quality Education as highly met needs; however, FSPs/FDWs
  and Community Partners noted differently. FSPs/FDWs identified ESL classes and GED or help
  getting a HS diploma as highly met needs. Community partners did not have any education
  services that met the level of significance for this report.
Education
                                                         Unmet Needs                                                Met Needs
                                                Families   FSPs/FDWs                    CPs          Families       FSPs/FDWs                CPs
                                                  %            %                         %             %                %                     %
Affordable, quality early
education                                           -                  -                 -            87.8               63.6                44.0
GED/ HS Diploma                                    52.4                -                 -             -                 45.5                 -
Access to higher education                         50.0                -                 -             -                 72.7                 -
ESL Classes                                         -                  -                 -            43.7                -                   -
Fatherhood programs                                 -                 88.9              58.8          48.4                -                   -
Marriage Education                                 69.4               50.0              40.0           -                  -                   -
Literacy-building                                  65.6                -                 -             -                  -                   -
Computer Classes                                   68.1                -                 -             -                  -                   -
Personal finance programs                          75.0               44.4               -             -                  -                   -
Parenting Education                                 -                 40.0               -            44.3                -                   -
Affordable before &
after school care                                  64.2                  -                -             -                   -                  -
  *In the Family Survey this service item is asked as two separate questions (i.e. Affordable education and Quality education), the smaller of the
  two percentages was used for comparison across all three groups.



                                                                                                                                               313
Mental Health
Community Partners and FSPs/FDWs ranked Mental health as an unmet need for HS/EHS
families. All groups, including families, identified Stress management training and Respite care
services as unmet service needs for families. FSPs/FDWs also noted Anger management training
and Domestic violence services. While Mental health did not place among the top three unmet
needs for families; however all seven of the Mental health services listed in the survey were
unmet needs. In contrast, FSPs/FDWs found Child abuse/Neglect services to be highly met.
Community partners did not identify highly met Mental health service needs.
Housing was identified as an unmet need for HS/EHS families by FSPs/FDWs. The group also
identified five out of the ten relevant Social Services as being unmet. Service needs include
Crisis intervention, Programs for families with incarcerated members, Public transportation,
Legal services and Assistance for homeless families. Families marked Safe, affordable housing
as an unmet need, but contrasted from the needs identified by FSPs/FDWs. Families saw an
unmet need in Help paying rent or other bills, Access to a lawyers or legal advice and Help with
immigration questions or concerns. Community partners did not have any social services that
met the level of significance for this report. While families and Community Partners did not
identify highly met Social service needs, FSPs/FDWs recognized Emergency assistance with
food has a highly met need.

 Mental Health
                                             Unmet Needs                   Met Needs
                                     Families FSPs/FDWs CPs Families FSPs/FDWs CPs
                                        %         %      %     %         %      %
 Counseling services                   48.1        -     -     -          -     -
 Specialized parenting education       46.3      44.4    -    44.7        -     -
 Domestic violence services            57.1      54.5    -     -          -     -
 Child abuse/neglect services          50.7        -     -     -        54.5    -
 Substance abuse treatment             56.9        -     -     -          -     -
 Respite care services                 55.6      62.5   47.1   -          -     -
 Stress management training            60.2      75.0   53.3   -          -     -
 Anger management training             54.4      87.5   40.0   -          -     -

Health and Nutrition
Health was also regarded as an unmet need among Community Partners. Two out of the eleven
service items were noted as unmet, Affordable health insurance programs and Access to
affordable fresh produce. Families identified one unmet service need in the category, Good
medical care that families can afford. Service needs identified as unmet by FSPs/FDWs did not
met the level of significance for this report. Each of the respondent groups placed Assistance
enrolling in CHIP or Medicaid as a highly met need for families. For families and FSPs/FDWs,
strengths also included Immunizations for children, Medical care for children, and Medical care
for pregnant women.




                                                                                            314
   Health and Nutrition
                                          Unmet Needs                           Met Needs
                                 Families   FSPs/FDWs        CPs    Families    FSPs/FDWs           CPs
                                   %            %             %       %             %                %
   Assistance enrolling in
   CHIP or Medicaid                  -              -         -       70.9            81.8          47.8
   Affordable health
   insurance programs              42.6             -        52.4    49.6             54.5           -
   Access to affordable
   quality health care             48.6             -        43.5     -               54.5           -
   Prenatal care                    -               -         -      57.5             90.0           -
   Pediatric care                   -               -         -      78.1             81.8           -
   Immunizations for children       -               -         -      80.0             81.8          44.0
   Immunizations for adults         -               -         -      46.4             80.0           -
   Dental care                     42.6             -                45.9             72.7           -
   Nutrition education classes      -               -        45.0    44.9             44.4           -
   Access to affordable fresh
   produce                           -              -        50.0    52.1             45.5           -
   Health education                  -              -                41.4              -             -

   Disabilities
   Service items related to Disabilities were marked as unmet by all groups. Both families and
   Community Partners identified Child care for children with disabilities as an unmet need.
   Families also expressed that Support for a family member with disabilities and Special Education
   Services through the local public school were unmet service needs. FSPs/FDWs and Community
   Partners agreed on Assistive Technology Services being an unmet need for families. Caregivers
   and FSPs/FDWs did find that Screening for early detection of disabilities to be a highly met
   need. FSPs/FDWs also identified the provision of special education services by public schools as
   highly met.

Disabilities
                                                   Unmet Needs             Met Needs
                                            Families FSPs/FDWs CPs Families FSPs/FDWs CPs
                                              %          %      %    %          %      %
Screening for early detection of
disabilities                                  -          -           -         45.5          81.8              -
Public school’s provisions of special
education services                           51.4        -           -         41.4          80.0              -
Family support for members with
disabilities                                 54.5        -           -          -             -                -
Assistive technology services                           66.7        45.0                      -                -
Child care for children with disabilities    60.3        -          50.0        -            44.4              -




                                                                                                         315
 Social Services
 HCDE families identified a majority of Social Service needs as unmet; however, the category did
 not rank among greatest unmet needs. Families and FSPs/FDWs both expressed an unmet need
 for legal services. Community Partners did not have percentages that met the threshold level for
 this report. In regards to highly met needs, families and FSPs/FDWs noted emergency
 assistance with food.

Social Services
                                                 Unmet Needs                   Met Needs
                                        Families   FSPs/FDWs   CPs    Families  FSPs/FDWs       CPs
                                           %           %        %        %          %            %
Crisis intervention                                   50.0      -                    -           -
Emergency assistance-food                  -            -       -       56.7       50.0          -
Emergency assistance- rent, utilities     59.8        40.0      -        -           -           -
Assistance for homeless families          50.7        45.5      -        -           -           -
Safe, affordable housing                  58.5          -      40.0      -           -           -
Public transportation                                 54.5     40.0                  -           -
Translation services                      40.2          -       -       46.0         -           -
Legal services                            57.4        55.6      -        -           -           -
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                               67.9        40.0       -        -            -              -
Programs for families with
incarcerated members                                 62.5      40.0                   -              -

 Summary
 Family service providers shared some perspectives with families for met and unmet needs while
 community partners shared less. Out of 56 services aligned under seven categories, HCDE
 families identified 26 (46.4%) services as highly met and 33 (58.9%) services as highly unmet.
 Of those services, FSPs/FDWs agreed with 73.0% (n=19) of the met and 36.4% (n=12) of the
 unmet while community partners agreed with only 15.4% (n=4) of the met and 27.3% (n=9) of
 the unmet. This lack of consensus for families’ unmet needs in particular, highlights the groups’
 different perspectives and the need for a more common understanding that could improve
 referral, access, and follow up as well as advocacy for the overall well being of HCDE families.




                                                                                               316
Comparison of Respondent Views :
AVANCE
Comparisons of respondent groups for AVANCE are based on Needs Assessment surveys from
586 of their parent/caregivers (46% of total served), four of their FSPs/FDWs, and 28 of their
Community Partners. Findings from the Family Survey revealed that AVANCE families
identified Employment, Education, and Health as the top three unmet needs for their families in
North/Northwest Harris County. FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners ranked service needs
somewhat differently, but realize that Community Partners, in particular, were identifying
strengths (“met needs”) and needs (“unmet needs”) across seven service categories of eligible
HS/EHS families in the AVANCE service area who not all are enrolled in grantee services.
Following each service category is a comparison table. Service needs marked with a “-” are
percentages below the level of significance for this report. Items that are shaded were not asked
of the respondent.
Employment
All respondent groups reported that Employment was the top unmet need for HS/EHS eligible
families. This was supported by all groups who said families had a high unmet need for Help
finding and getting a good job/job placement programs from among the list of Employment
services. AVANCE families and FSPs/FDWs also indicated families have high unmet needs for
Classes to learn a trade or profession/ vocational trainings and Help with resume for job related
services/job readiness. No group identified these services as highly met.
 Employment
                                          Unmet Needs            Met Needs
                                 Families FSPs/FDWs CPs Families FSPs/FDWs                  CPs
                                    %         %        %   %         %                       %
 Vocational training               46.8      50.0      -   -          -                      -
 Job readiness assistance          48.8      50.0      -   -          -                      -
 Job placement programs            47.9      75.0     41.2 -          -                      -

Education
Education was the second highest unmet need for HS/EHS eligible families identified by
AVANCE families and FSPs/FDWs, though not Community Partners. AVANCE Families
reported high unmet needs for three out of 13 educational services. These included Computer
classes, Affordable child care, and Personal finance programs. Of these services, FSPs/FDWs
agreed that families had a high unmet need for Personal finance programs and Community
Partners agreed that families had a high unmet need for Affordable before & after school care.
On the other hand, AVANCE families and Community Partners agreed that the highest met
needs included Affordable and Quality early education while families and FSPs/FDWs agreed
the highest met needs also included Fatherhood programs and Marriage education. Families
also included Parenting education as another highly met need and FSPs/FDWs included Access
to higher education. In contrast with families, the need for Fatherhood programs is seen as
unmet by Community Partners and the need for Affordable and Quality early education is seen
as unmet by FSPs/FDWs.



                                                                                               317
Education
                                                        Unmet Needs                                                Met Needs
                                               Families   FSPs/FDWs                    CPs        Families         FSPs/FDWs                CPs
                                                 %            %                         %           %                  %                     %
Affordable, quality early
education*                                         -                  50.0              -            90.5                 -                 50.0
GED/ HS Diploma                                    -                   -                -            41.6                 -                  -
Access to higher education                         -                   -                -             -                 100.0                -
ESL classes                                        -                   -                -            46.5                 -                  -
Fatherhood programs                                -                   -               50.0          52.3               75.0                 -
Marriage education                                 -                   -                -            52.1                75.0                -
Literacy-building                                  -                   -                -            42.2               50.0                 -
Computer classes                                  50.0                 -                -             -                   -                  -
Personal finance programs                         48.7               100.0              -             -                   -                  -
Parenting education                                -                   -                -            58.2                50.0               40.9
Affordable before &
after school care                                 48.2                  -              42.9            -                   -                  -
 *In the Family Survey this service item is asked as two separate questions (i.e. Affordable education and Quality education), the smaller of the
 two percentages was used for comparison across all three groups.

 Social Services
 Housing was not identified as one of the top highest unmet needs for HS/EHS families by any of
 the respondent groups. However, they all agreed that among the Social Services, Safe, affordable
 housing was a high unmet need for eligible families. In addition, FSPs/FDWs and Community
 Partners included Programs for incarcerated family members as highly unmet (service not listed
 on the Family survey for some reason). Separately, FSPs/FDWs also identified Immigration
 assistance and Legal services as high unmet needs. On the other hand, families identified Social
 Service needs that were highly met to include Help with food, Services available in their
 language /translation services, and Help finding shelter/assistance for homeless families.
 FSPs/FDWs also identified Translation services as highly met along with Public Transportation.
 In contrast to families, Community Partners identified Assistance for homeless families as highly
 unmet and in contrast to FSPs/FDWs they identified Public transportation as highly unmet.
Social Services
                                                                 Unmet Needs                                          Met Needs
                                                    Families       FSPs/FDWs               CPs         Families        FSPs/FDWs               CPs
                                                      %                %                    %            %                 %                    %
Crisis intervention                                                     -                   -                               -                   -
Emergency assistance-food                              -                -                   -              69.7             -                   -
Emergency assistance- rent, utilities                  -                -                   -               -               -                   -
Assistance for homeless families                       -                -                  45.0            45.5             -                   -
Safe, affordable housing                              48.0            75.0                 45.0             -               -                   -
Public transportation                                                   -                  42.9                           75.0                  -
Translation services                                     -              -                   -              58.5           75.0                  -
Legal services                                           -            50.0                  -              41.7             -                   -
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                                               -                  75.0              -            42.1                 -                   -
Programs for families with
incarcerated members                                                        75.0           57.1                                 -                   -



                                                                                                                                              318
Health and Nutrition
Health was the third highest unmet need for HS/EHS families identified by AVANCE families
and the second highest unmet need by Community Partners. However, based on survey results
for the eleven Health and Nutrition services, only FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners reported
high unmet needs for HS/EHS eligible families, which included Nutrition education and
Affordable health insurance programs. Community Partners also included Health education,
Access to affordable fresh produce, and Access to affordable quality health care as highly unmet.
In contrast, families and FSPs/FDWs identified Access to affordable fresh produce and Access to
affordable quality health care as highly met. Other needs indicated as highly met by all
respondent groups included Immunizations for children and Assistance enrolling in CHIP &
Medicaid. Furthermore, families and FSPs/FDWs also included Medical care for their
children/Pediatric care, Dental care, and Prenatal care. Additionally, families included
Immunizations for adults as highly met as well as Affordable health insurance, which is in
contrast to other respondent groups.

Health and Nutrition
                                          Unmet Needs                     Met Needs
                                                                          FSPs/FDW
                               Families    FSPs/FDWs      CPs    Families      s            CPs
                                 %             %           %       %          %              %
Assistance enrolling in CHIP
or Medicaid                        -            -          -        76.4          -         50.0
Affordable health insurance
programs                           -          50.0        54.2      56.3          -          -
Access to affordable quality
health care                        -            -         45.8      55.4       50.0          -
Prenatal care                      -            -          -        59.6        50.0         -
Pediatric care                     -            -          -        80.2       100.0         -
Immunizations for children         -            -          -        81.3       100.0        47.8
Immunizations for adults           -            -          -        56.4         -           -
Dental care                        -            -          -        59.5       75.0          -
Nutrition education classes        -          100.0       57.9      42.3         -           -
Access to affordable fresh
produce                            -            -         52.6      61.0        50.0         -
Health education                   -            -         45.0      42.4         -           -

Mental Health
Mental health was the third highest unmet need for HS/EHS eligible families identified only by
Community Partners. Neither AVANCE families nor FSPs/FDWs included Mental Health in
their top three unmet needs nor did the families identify any of the eight Mental Health services
as highly unmet (according to our “level of significance”). In fact, families identified the need
for four services as highly met. These included Classes raising healthy children/specialized
parenting ed., Counseling services, Help with child abuse/neglect, and Classes handling stress.
In contrast, both FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners identified the need for classes in Stress
management and Anger management as highly unmet. Community Partners also included


                                                                                             319
   Respite Care services. On the other hand, FSPs/FDWs agreed with families that the need for
   Counseling services and Child abuse and neglect services were highly met. FSPs/FDWs also
   identified the need for Domestic violence services as highly met.

   Mental Health
                                                   Unmet Needs                      Met Needs
                                            Families FSPs/FDWs   CPs        Families FSPs/FDWs CPs
                                              %          %        %            %          %     %
   Counseling services                         -          -       -           59.6      100.0   -
   Specialized parenting education             -          -       -           62.3        -     -
   Domestic violence services                  -          -       -           48.4       75.0   -
   Child abuse/neglect services                -          -       -           50.0      100.0   -
   Substance abuse treatment                   -          -       -           57.7        -     -
   Respite care services                       -          -      47.1         41.9        -     -
   Stress management training                  -       100.0     57.1         52.4        -     -
   Anger management training                   -        50.0     46.7         46.3        -     -

   Disabilities
   Disabilities was not identified by any of the respondent groups as one of their top three highest
   unmet needs but only a subgroup of families have a need for these services. AVANCE families
   Disabilities services were identified as neither highly unmet nor met by Grantee families.
   However, both FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners identified Assistive technology services as
   a high unmet need (not included on the Family survey for some reason) and Community
   Partners included need for Child care for children with disabilities as highly unmet. In contrast,
   only FSPs/FDWs reported the needs for Screening for early detection of disabilities and Special
   education services through the public school as highly met.

Disabilities
                                                     Unmet Needs             Met Needs
                                              Families FSPs/FDWs CPs Families FSPs/FDWs CPs
                                                %          %      %    %          %      %
Screening for early detection of
disabilities                                     -         -            -      72.0       100.0         42.9
Public school’s provisions of special
education services                               -         -            -      70.7       50.0           -
Family support for members with
disabilities                                     -         -        45.0       41.2        -             -
Assistive technology services                              -        61.1                   -             -
Child care for children with disabilities        -         -        52.9       51.6       75.0           -

   Other Public Services
   Other public services included the most services identified as highly met and no service need
   as highly unmet for HS/EHS eligible families by AVANCE families. The only service needs
   identified as highly unmet included Recycling programs by FSPs/FDWs and Community
   Partners and Public transportation by Community Partners . On the other hand, service needs


                                                                                                  320
  that are highly met by all respondent groups were Emergency response services and
  Churches/faith based services. Furthermore, AVANCE families and FSPs/FDWs agreed other
  highly met service needs included Public services, Public parks & recreation, Business
  community (i.e. stores, restaur.), Community centers, and Public transportation(latter in contrast
  to Community Partners). In addition, AVANCE families also identified, Cultural community
  centers, Neighborhood watch, and Recycling programs as highly met.

Other Public Services
                                           Unmet Needs                         Met Needs
                                   Families   FSPs/FDWs         CPs    Families FSPs/FDWs        CPs
                                     %            %              %       %          %             %
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambulance, etc)         -              -          -       84.0        100.0       50.0
Neighborhood watch
programs                               -              -          -       47.5           -          -
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                    -             -          -        71.1        100.0         -
Recycling programs                     -            50.0       57.9      46.8          -           -
Business community (stores,
restaurant., entertainment)            -              -          -       60.5        100.0        -
Public Parks and recreation            -              -          -       66.0        100.0        -
Community Centers                      -              -          -       69.6         75.0        -
Churches/faith based services          -              -          -       81.3        100.0       65.0
Cultural community centers                            -          -       55.6          -          -
Public transportation                  -                                 72.5

  Summary
  Family service providers and community partners shared some perspectives with families for met
  and unmet needs. Out of 56 services aligned under seven categories, AVANCE families
  identified 45 (80.4%) services as highly met and 7 (12.5%) services as highly unmet. Of those
  services, FSPs/FDWs agreed with 42.2% (n=19) of the met and 71.4% (n=5) of the unmet needs
  while community partners agreed with only 13.3% (n=6) of the met needs and 42.9% (n=3) of
  the unmet need. This lack of consensus for families’ unmet needs in particular, highlights the
  groups’ different perspectives and the need for a more common understanding that could
  improve referral, access, and follow up as well as advocacy for the overall well being of
  AVANCE families.




                                                                                                321
Comparison of Respondent Views :
Neighborhood Centers Inc.

Comparisons of the views of respondent groups for Neighborhood Centers are based on Needs
Assessment surveys from 486 parent/caregivers (24% of total served), 4 FSPs/FDWs, and 36
Community Partners. Findings from the Family Survey revealed that Employment, Education,
and Health were the three greatest unmet needs for EHS/HS families in Southwest Harris
County. FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners ranked their three greatest unmet needs
differently; however service items within categories were shared. The divergent views, in
particular of Community Partners, may be a result of the respondent group identifying the needs
of not only enrolled HS/EHS families but also of eligible families that are not receiving services
through Head Start. Following each service category is a comparison table. Service needs
marked with a “-” are percentages below the level of significance for this report. Items that are
shaded were not asked of the respondent.
Employment
Among all respondent groups, Employment was the top unmet need for HS/EHS eligible
families. The finding is evidenced by families and FSPs/FDWs who identified all three of the
Employment service needs as unmet, Classes to learn a trade or profession or vocational
trainings, Job placement services, and Help with resume, interview skills, and professional
clothing. For Community Partners, job placement was a high unmet need for families. No group
had service needs that were highly met.

Employment
                                         Unmet Needs                    Met Needs
                                Families FSPs/FDWs         CPs Families FSPs/FDWs             CPs
                                   %         %              %    %          %                  %
Vocational Training               65.2      50.0           44.4   -          -                 -
Job readiness assistance          54.1      66.7           42.3   -          -                 -
Job Placement programs            62.9      50.0           40.0   -          -                 -

Education
Education was the second highest unmet need for HS/EHS eligible families. Neither FSPs/FDWs
nor Community Partners ranked education as a greatest unmet; however, there was consensus
among educational service items. Affordable before and after school care was a high unmet need
across the three groups. Families reported high unmet needs for three out of thirteen educational
services, which included Computer classes, as well as Enroll/stay in college. FSPs/FDWs saw a
high unmet need for Fatherhood programs, Personal finance programs, and Marriage
education. Community Partners also agreed with FSPs/FDWs on the high unmet need for
fatherhood programs and marriage education. FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners did not
identify highly met educational services; however families found a number of highly met needs.
Caregivers expressed that Affordable early education, Quality early education, GED or help
getting a HS diploma, Fatherhood programs, Personal finance programs, and Parenting
education were highly met service needs.




                                                                                               322
Education
                                                      Unmet Needs                                         Met Needs
                                              Families FSPs/FDWs                      CPs        Families FSPs/FDWs                         CPs
                                                %           %                          %           %          %                              %
Affordable, quality early
education                                         -                   -                -            76.7                   -                  -
GED/ HS Diploma                                   -                   -                -            58.3                   -                  -
Access to higher education                       52.7                 -                -             -                     -                  -
ESL Classes                                      40.0                 -                -             -                     -                  -
Fatherhood programs                               -                  50.0             64.0          54.2                   -                  -
Marriage Education                               42.9                50.0             52.2           -                     -                  -
Literacy-building                                 -                   -                -            41.8                   -                  -
Computer Classes                                 54.7                 -                -             -                     -                  -
Personal finance programs                         -                  50.0             40.0          50.0                   -                  -
Parenting Education                               -                   -                -            48.5                   -                  -
Affordable before &
after school care                                55.3                75.0             51.9             -                   -                  -
 *In the Family Survey this service item is asked as two separate questions (i.e. Affordable education and Quality education), the smaller of the
 two percentages was used for comparison across all three groups.

 Health
 Health was also regarded as an unmet need among families, FSPs/FDWs, and Community
 Partners. Each group identified different unmet service needs. Families saw an unmet need for
 Health insurance they can afford, Good medical care they can afford, and Good, affordable
 dentists. FSPs/FDWs were concerned about Access to affordable fresh produce and Health
 education. For Community Partners, an unmet need was also seen in health education. Four out
 of the eleven service items were marked as an unmet need by Community Partners. Items
 included Nutrition education classes, Affordable health insurance programs, and Access to
 affordable fresh produce. Each of the groups agreed that Immunization for children and
 Assistance enrolling in CHIP and Medicaid were highly met needs for families. Families also
 identified Medical care for children as well as Classes for healthy eating and cooking as highly
 met service needs. In contrast, highly met needs for FSPs/FDWs were Prenatal care, Dental
 Care, and Immunization for adults.




                                                                                                                                              323
Health and Nutrition
                                      Unmet Needs                                       Met Needs
                               Families FSPs/FDWs             CPs      Families          FSPs/FDWs     CPs
                                 %          %                  %         %                   %          %
Assistance enrolling in CHIP
or Medicaid                        -             -             -            55.3            50.0       46.7
Affordable health insurance
programs                          55.3           -            43.3           -               -          -
Access to affordable quality
health care                       53.0           -            40.0           -               -          -
Prenatal care                      -             -             -             -              50.0        -
Pediatric care                     -             -             -            53.8             -          -
Immunizations for children         -             -             -            60.0            75.0       43.3
Immunizations for adults          41.4           -             -             -              50.0        -
Dental care                       52.2           -             -             -              50.0        -
Nutrition education classes        -             -            46.2          45.2             -          -
Access to affordable fresh
produce                            -            66.7          45.8          40.2             -          -
Health education                   -            50.0          44.4          44.3             -          -

Mental Health
Community Partners and FSPs/FDWs identified Mental health as unmet need for HS/EHS
families. In particular, both groups marked an unmet need for Stress management training,
Anger management training, and Respite care services. FSPs/FDWs also saw an unmet need in
Specialized parenting education, Substance abuse treatment, and Counseling services. For
families, Classes on handling stress and anger were also unmet service needs. Additionally,
parents saw an unmet need in Treatment for drug or alcohol problems, Care for sick/disabled
family members, Counseling or therapy services, and Help with child abuse or neglect issues.
All three groups did not identify highly met needs that met our level of significance for this
response.

Mental Health
                                              Unmet Needs             Met Needs
                                       Families FSPs/FDWs CPs Families FSPs/FDWs CPs
                                         %          %      %    %          %      %
Counseling services                      46.3          50.0           -           -                -        -
Specialized parenting education           -            75.0           -           -                -        -
Domestic violence services               41.7           -             -          41.7              -        -
Child abuse/neglect services             46.7           -             -           -                -        -
Substance abuse treatment                53.8          66.7          40.7         -                -        -
Respite care services                    50.8          66.7          62.5         -                -        -
Stress management training               46.1          66.7          71.4        41.6              -        -
Anger management training                50.0          100           61.9         -                -        -




                                                                                                        324
Social Services
A number of Social Services were identified by all three groups as unmet. There was consensus
among all groups that Safe, affordable housing was unmet. Both families and FSPs/FDWs
identified Access to lawyer or legal advice and Emergency assistance (rent or others bills) as
unmet. FSPs/FDWs also identified as an unmet need for Crisis intervention, Assistance for
homeless families, Emergency assistance- food, and Programs for incarcerated members.
Community Partners also expressed an unmet need in Programs for incarcerated members and
Assistance for homeless families. Based on the level of significance for this report, Social service
needs were not identified as highly met by any of the three respondent groups.

Social Services
                                          Unmet Needs                         Met Needs
                                  Families FSPs/FDWs          CPs     Families FSPs/FDWs          CPs
                                    %           %              %         %         %               %
Crisis intervention                           75.0             -                    -              -
Emergency assistance-food            -        50.0             -        43.7        -              -
Emergency assistance- rent,
utilities                            61.7         50.0          -         -             -          -
Assistance for homeless
families                             43.4         75.0        50.0        -             -          -
Safe, affordable housing             61.7          75.0       51.9        -             -          -
Public transportation                               -          -                        -          -
Translation services                  -           100.0        -          -             -          -
Legal services                       59.0         100.0        -          -             -          -
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                           47.8           -           -         -             -          -
Programs for families with
incarcerated members                              50.0        56.5                      -          -

Disabilities
Items within the category of Disabilities were marked as unmet needs across all three groups. In
particular, Child care for children with disabilities was seen as unmet service need. FSPs/FDWs
found all service items related to disabilities to be unmet. In addition to child care, service needs
include Screening for early detection of disabilities, Public school’s provisions of special
education services, and Family support for members with disabilities. In contrast from families
and Community Partners, FSPs/FDWs identified highly met needs in the Screening for early
detection of disabilities and the Provision of special education services by public schools.




                                                                                                  325
Disabilities
                                                         Unmet Needs                              Met Needs
                                                Families       FSPs/FDWs       CPs     Families     FSPs/FDWs    CPs
                                                  %                %            %        %              %         %
Screening for early detection of disabilities      -                -           -         -            50.0       -
Public school’s provisions of special
education services                                42.6            -             -            -         50.0          -
Family support for members with disabilities      56.3            -            52.0          -          -            -
Assistive technology services                                     -            64.0                     -            -
Child care for children with disabilities         51.0           75.0          60.9          -          -            -

Other Public Services
In regards to Other Public Services, all three groups did not identify multiple needs at a high
level of significance as being unmet. Families did not have any unmet needs that met the
threshold. FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners, however, noted Recycling programs as an
unmet service need. The two respondent groups also shared and identified churches a highly met
public service for families. FSPs/FDWs found several public services highly met in the
community. Service needs included Community centers, Public parks and recreation, Recycling
programs, the Business community, and Emergency response services. Families also identified
Emergency response services and public transportation as highly met needs.

Other Public Services
                                                Unmet Needs                                      Met Needs
                                     Families      FSPs/FDWs            CPs      Families         FSPs/FDWs     CPs
                                       %                %                %         %                  %          %
Emergency response services
(police, fire, ambulance, etc)          -                  -             -            47.8           75.0       41.4
Neighborhood watch programs            41.8                -            46.2           -              -          -
Public services (trash collect.,
street maintenance)                      -                -              -            43.7            -          -
Recycling programs                       -               50.0           60.7           -             50.0        -
Business community (stores,
restaurant., entertainment)            42.2                -             -             -            100.0        -
Public Parks and recreation             -                  -             -            40.8           50.0        -
Community Centers                       -                  -             -                           50.0        -
Churches/faith based services           -                  -             -            40.6           75.0       51.9
Cultural community centers                                 -             -             -              -          -
Public transportation                    -                                            47.1

Summary
Family service providers and community partners shared some perspectives with families for met
and unmet needs. Out of 56 services aligned under seven categories, Neighborhood Centers’
families identified 20 (35.7%) services as highly met and 29 (51.8%) services as highly unmet.
Of those services, FSPs/FDWs agreed with 25.0% (n=5) of the met need and 48.3% (n=14) of
unmet need while community partners agreed with only 20.0% (n=4) of the met and 55.2%
(n=16) of the unmet. A lack of consensus for families’ unmet needs in particular, highlights the



                                                                                                                326
groups’ different perspectives and the need for a more common understanding that could
improve referral, access, and follow up as well as advocacy for the overall well being of
Neighborhood Centers’ families.




                                                                                            327
Comparison of Respondent Views :
Gulf Coast Community Services Association (GCCSA)
Comparisons of the views of respondent groups for GCCSA are based on Needs Assessment
surveys from 1,507 parent/caregivers (75% of total served), 3 FSPs/FDWs, and 25 Community
Partners. Findings from the Family Survey revealed that Employment, Education, and Housing
were the three greatest unmet needs for EHS/HS families in Southeast Harris County.
FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners ranked differently; however service items within
categories were shared. The divergent views, in particular of Community Partners, may be a
result of the respondent group identifying the needs of not only enrolled HS/EHS families but
also of eligible families that are not receiving services through Head Start.
Employment
All three respondent groups reported that Employment was the top unmet need for HS/EHS
eligible families. This was supported by families and FSPs/FDWs who identified all three of the
Employment service needs as unmet, Classes to learn a trade or profession or vocational
trainings, Job placement services, and Help with resume, interview skills, and professional
clothing. Community Partners found job placement services to be an unmet for families.

Employment
                                         Unmet Needs             Met Needs
                              Families    FSPs/FDWs CPs Families FSPs/FDWs                CPs
                                 %            %       %   %          %                     %
Vocational Training             62.3         66.7     -    -          -                    -
Job readiness assistance        57.2        100.0     -    -          -                    -
Job Placement programs          61.3        100.0    47.1  -          -                    -

Education
Education was the second highest unmet need for HS/EHS eligible families. Neither FSPs/FDWs
nor Community Partners ranked education. While the types of services identified as a need by
each group varied, there was consensus in the high unmet need for Affordable before and after
school care and Marriage education. Families reported high unmet needs for seven out of
thirteen educational services. These included Computer classes, Affordable child care,
Enroll/stay in college, Marriage education, GED or help getting a HS Diploma, and Parenting
education. Of these services, FSPs/FDWs agreed that families had a high unmet need for
Computer classes, Affordable child care, and Marriage education. Community Partners also
agreed that families had high needs for Affordable before & after school care and Marriage
education. Families identified Affordable Early Education and Quality Education as highly met
needs; however, FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners noted differently. FSPs/FDWs identified
Access to higher education as highly met need. Community partners did not have any highly
met education services that met the level of significance for this report.




                                                                                            328
Education
                                             Unmet Needs                                   Met Needs
                                    Families   FSPs/FDWs          CPs        Families      FSPs/FDWs     CPs
                                      %            %               %           %               %          %
Affordable, quality early
education                                -             -           -          85.7            -          47.6
GED/ HS Diploma                         45.2           -           -          41.6            -           -
Access to higher education              51.2           -           -           -             66.7         -
ESL Classes                             41.9           -           -          40.9            -           -
Fatherhood programs                     40.4         100.00       57.1        40.6            -           -
Marriage Education                      50.0         100.00       58.3         -              -           -
Literacy-building                        -            66.7         -           -              -           -
Computer Classes                        54.0          66.7         -           -              -           -
Personal finance programs               48.9         100.0         -           -              -           -
Parenting Education                     44.9          66.7         -           -              -           -
Affordable before &
after school care                       50.7          66.7        55.0          -              -          -

 Social Services
 Housing was the third highest unmet need for HS/EHS families identified by grantee families.
 FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners also identified relevant high unmet Social Service needs
 which included Safe, affordable housing, Public transportation, and Programs for families with
 incarcerated members. FSPs/FDWs reported high unmet need for eight of the ten social service
 needs. Unmet Social Services also include Crisis intervention, Legal services,
 Immigration/naturalization assistance, Emergency assistance- rent, utilities, and Assistance for
 homeless people. In contrast, families saw an unmet need in Access to a lawyers or legal advice
 and Help with immigration questions or concerns. Families also found Help getting food for
 their family to be a highly met service need. FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners did not
 identify highly met social service needs that met the significance level for this report.
Social Services
                                                    Unmet Needs                             Met Needs
                                         Families     FSPs/FDWs      CPs        Families     FSPs/FDWs    CPs
                                           %              %           %           %              %         %
Crisis intervention                                     100.0         -                           -        -
Emergency assistance-food                   -              -          -             45.9          -        -
Emergency assistance- rent, utilities      42.9          66.7         -              -            -        -
Assistance for homeless families            -            66.7        42.1           40.9          -        -
Safe, affordable housing                   43.5         100.0        55.6            -            -        -
Public transportation                                    66.7        47.4                         -        -
Translation services                        -            66.7        42.1           43.8          -        -
Legal services                             48.7         100.0         -              -            -        -
Immigration/naturalization
assistance                                 48.7         100.0            -           -              -         -
Programs for families with
incarcerated members                                    100.0        71.4                           -         -




                                                                                                          329
Mental Health
Community Partners and FSPs/FDWs identified Mental health as an unmet need for HS/EHS
families. Both groups marked, in particular, an unmet need for Stress management training and
Anger management training. For families, the need for classes on handling stress and anger did
not meet the level of significance for this report. In regards to highly met needs, no group
identified mental health services.

Mental Health
                                          Unmet Needs                       Met Needs
                                   Families FSPs/FDWs        CPs    Families FSPs/FDWs CPs
                                      %         %             %        %         %      %
Counseling services                  41.1     100.0           -        -          -     -
Specialized parenting education       -       100.0           -        -          -     -
Domestic violence services            -        66.7           -       40.4        -     -
Child abuse/neglect services          -          -            -        -          -     -
Substance abuse treatment             -        66.7          44.4     40.0        -     -
Respite care services                 -       100.0          56.3      -          -     -
Stress management training           44.2     100.0          76.9      -          -     -
Anger management training            43.5     100.0          61.5      -          -     -

Health
Health was also regarded as an unmet need among FSPs/FDWs and Community Partners. Three
out of the eleven service items were noted as unmet by FSPs/FDWs, Nutrition education classes,
Access to affordable fresh produce, and Affordable health insurance programs. For Community
Partners, five out of the eleven service items were marked as an unmet need. The three items
identified by FSPs/FDWs were also seen as an unmet need for Community Partners.
Additionally, Access to affordable quality health care and Immunizations for adults were seen as
unmet needs of families, as identified by Community Partners. In contrast, families did not mark
health among the greatest unmet needs nor were individual services within the Health category
seen as unmet by families. Caregivers found Medical care for their children, Assistance
enrolling in CHIP and Medicaid, Medical care for pregnant women, and Immunizations for
children. FSPs/FDWs also saw Immunizations for children as a highly met as well as
Immunizations for adults. Community partners did not have any highly met health and nutrition
services that met the level of significance for this report.




                                                                                            330
 Health and Nutrition
                                               Unmet Needs                               Met Needs
                                                                                         FSPs/FDW
                                    Families     FSPs/FDWs          CPs         Families      s            CPs
                                      %              %               %            %          %              %
 Assistance enrolling in CHIP
 or Medicaid                            -             -              -            52.3          -           -
 Affordable health insurance
 programs                               -           66.7            66.7           -            -           -
 Access to affordable quality
 health care                            -             -             57.1           -            -           -
 Prenatal care                          -             -             40.0          45.9          -           -
 Pediatric care                         -             -              -            49.8          -           -
 Immunizations for children             -             -              -            57.0        100.0         -
 Immunizations for adults               -             -             52.6          41.7        66.7          -
 Dental care                            -             -             47.4           -            -           -
 Nutrition education classes            -           100.0           64.7           -            -           -
 Access to affordable fresh
 produce                               -            100.0           50.0          39.7          -           -
 Health education                     42.1            -             42.1           -            -           -

   Disabilities
   Service items related to Disabilities were marked as unmet for two groups. In particular,
   Assistive technology services was seen as unmet service need for FSPs/FDWs and Community
   Partners. For FSPs/FDWs, Assistive technology services was the only unmet need which met our
   level of significance. Community Partners also noted Child care for children with disabilities
   and Family support for members with disabilities. Families and FSPs/FDWs found Special
   education services through their local public school as a highly met need while Community
   Partners identified Screening for early detection of disabilities.

Disabilities
                                                    Unmet Needs             Met Needs
                                             Families FSPs/FDWs CPs Families FSPs/FDWs CPs
                                               %          %      %    %          %      %
Screening for early detection of
disabilities                                    -             -             -            -            -         44.4