Harris County Head Start Early Head Start Collaborative

Shared by: liuqingyan

Tags

Stats

views:: 242
posted:: 8/14/2011
language:: English
pages:: 751

Public Domain

Document Sample

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

$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

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

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%

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

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

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%

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

60
Percent of Caregivers

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

80
Percent of Caregivers

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

80
Percent of Caregivers

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

80
Percent of Caregivers

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

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

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 - - -

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 - -