KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment

KOOTASCA Head Start
Community Assessment is included
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
2
Assessment Methodology
3
Service Area Population
4
Service Area Description
5
Housing
6
Financial Well-Being
9
Factors Affecting Child and Youth Development
13
2012 Survey of Nonprofits and Government Agencies
18
Head Start Community Assessment
25
1
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Executive Summary
Every three years KOOTASCA Community Action, Inc. conducts a community
assessment to determine the needs of low-income people in our service area of
Koochiching and Itasca counties. The next page explains the methodology of our
approach to do this assessment.
This assessment shows the poverty rate in our two counties is between one and nearly
two percent higher than the state average of 10.6%. International Falls has a 16.3%
poverty rate compared to Grand Rapids of 12.2%. These numbers are high and can be
attributed to higher unemployment rates in our area than the state average and fewer
jobs that pay living wage. The median household income in our area is about $10,000
less per year. These poverty numbers are slightly less than the 2005 estimates we used
in our last community assessment.
Children from these households show higher poverty rates. Child poverty here is three to
six percentage points higher than the state average. With school-aged children the Free
and Reduced Price Lunch program participation has shown a steady increase over time
now at 48% in Itasca County and 39% in Koochiching County.
School testing in reading shows a correlation between lower reading proficiency by third
grade for these low-income students compared to higher income students not using the
Free and Reduced Lunch program. This is called the achievement gap. This gap is
evident in all our area school districts.
The MN Student Survey shows less student participation in school enrichment activities,
more issues with alcohol use by a family member and greater perceptions that there is a
problem with student use of alcohol or drugs at their school.
The survey of nonprofits and government agencies shows families living in poverty as
the most important need in Itasca County while drug and alcohol use is the is seen as
the most important issue in Koochiching County. These survey results are used to
compare identified issues by community members and social service staff with other
data in this report. These findings help determine KOOTASCA Community Action
program priorities, help guide new strategies and educate people about the impact of
poverty in their community.
Jim Woehrle
Executive Director
KOOTASCA Community Action
November 2012
2
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Assessment Methodology
Data used in the following community assessment was researched, collected,
and analyzed using current county, state, and federal figures. Some of the
sources most relied upon were the U.S. Census Bureau, the Minnesota
Department of Education, the Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development, Minnesota Compass, the Minnesota Housing
Partnership, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and KOOTASCA Community
Action.
Given the vast availability of data directly and/or indirectly related to the needs of
low-income people in Itasca and Koochiching counties, an effort was made to cull
and categorize data into three distinct categories. These include Housing,
Financial Well-Being, and Factors Affecting Child and Youth Development. In
addition, a fourth category was allotted for data and information directly related to
KOOTASCA’s Head Start programming. A key findings section in each category
serves to summarize the included charts and graphs.
Besides the four main sections of the community assessment, the reader will find
a section devoted to the results of a survey of nonprofit organizations and
government agencies that are located in Itasca and Koochiching counties. This
survey was conducted online in 2012, and more than 100 individuals responded.
Their feedback helps shed light on some of the most pressing needs of the
people served by these organizations as well as on some changes that might be
made to improve service delivery in the future. The survey results starting on
page 19 are the same set of questions asked in the United Way of 1000 Lakes
“What Matters” Assessment of Health and Human Service Needs in Itasca
County conducted in 2008. The results of the 2008 “What Matters” assessment is
also included for comparison.
Also included in the assessment are the results of a focus group conducted
during August 2012 with the Head Start Policy Council. This council is comprised
of ten parents and plays a crucial role in helping to identify programmatic needs
and areas for improvement. The parents in this group provided candid responses
to five questions. Their feedback is included in the Head Start section of the
community assessment.
Finally, given that KOOTASCA Community Action serves clients living in both
Itasca and Koochiching counties, the community assessment includes data about
both counties. The two regions have many characteristics in common, but they
also have disparate qualities that lead to varied outcomes for their residents. As
often as possible, care has been taken to differentiate the two through relevant
data.
3
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Service Area Population
2000 Population
2010 Population
Percent change
Persons under 5
years
Persons under 18
years
Persons over 65
years
Female
White
Black
American Indian
Persons reporting
two or more races
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Largest city
Land area
Land area rank
Persons per
square mile
Demographics
Itasca County Koochiching County
43,992
14,355
45,058
13,311
2.4%
-7.3%
5.4%
4.7%
Minnesota
4,919,492
5,303,925
7.8%
6.6%
21.6%
20.7%
23.9%
19.2%
19.5%
13.1%
49.5%
93.7%
.4%
3.6%
2%
50%
94.6%
.8%
2.4%
1.7%
50.3%
86.9%
5.4%
1.3%
2.2%
1.1%
.4%
Grand Rapids
10,869
2,667
3 of 87
16.9
1.2%
.4%
International Falls
6,424
3,104
2 of 87
4.3
4.9%
5.4%
Minneapolis
382,578
79,626
14 of 50
66.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
4
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Service Area Description
KOOTASCA Community Action’s service area includes Itasca and Koochiching
counties. Itasca County is 2,667 square miles in size and is the third-largest
county in the state of Minnesota. At 3,104 square miles in size, Koochiching
County is the second-largest county in the state. The total size of KOOTASCA’s
service area is 5,771 square miles and is larger than the state of Connecticut or
the country of Northern Ireland. From the southern border of Itasca County to the
northern border of Koochiching County is 140 miles. Providing human services in
an area this large can be challenging, especially because many families have
trouble maintaining transportation and telephone service.
Itasca County’s population of approximately 45,000 is widely scattered among 16
small cities and 42 organized townships. The county seat is Grand Rapids, and it
has a population of 10,862. Located in the south-central portion of the county,
Grand Rapids serves as a regional center and draws many workers, shoppers,
visitors, and tourists from outlying areas.
Itasca County has a population density of 16.5 people per square mile.
KOOTASCA Community Action works with four school districts in Itasca County.
These include Grand Rapids #318, Greenway #316, Nashwauk-Keewatin #319,
and Deer River #317.
The largest employers in Itasca County are UPM-Kymmene/Blandin Paper Mill,
Grand Itasca Clinic and Hospital, county government, Itasca Community College,
Terex/ASV, and Minnesota Diversified Industries. A number of large projects in
Itasca County are slated to add additional new jobs. The most promising of these
are Magnetation and Essar Steel.
Koochiching County is a sparsely populated county located along Minnesota’s
border with Canada. The county seat is International Falls, and it is the largest
city with an estimated 2010 population of 6,424. Other small cities in the county
include Littlefork, Big Falls, Northome, and Mizpah. The total county population is
just over 13,000. In the 1990 census, Koochiching County had a population of
over 16,000.
Koochiching County has a population density of 4.3 people per square mile.
KOOTASCA Community Action works with three school districts in the county.
These include International Falls #361, Littlefork-Big Falls #362, and South
Koochiching #363.
The economy in Koochiching County is based on the paper industry and smaller
timber businesses. The logging industry has suffered since the housing market
crashed and many small loggers have shut down their businesses permanently.
Increased automation has also reduced the number of jobs available in logging.
The major private employer in the county is the paper mill, which provides 850
jobs. Other large employers include ISD #361, United Health Care, BildRite, the
National Park Service, and Homeland Security.
5
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Housing
Key Findings







Growing demand plus a limited supply of rental housing is leading to
higher rents and limited choice, particularly in Itasca County.
The rising cost of housing in combination with stagnant or declining
incomes is placing increased burden on renters and homeowners in Itasca
and Koochiching counties. Today, more than 30 percent of households in
both counties pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing.
The lowest income renters are finding it very difficult to find affordable
rental units, especially in Itasca County.
The average hourly wage is not enough to afford a market rate, 2bedroom apartment in either Itasca or Koochiching counties.
The rate of homelessness in Minnesota’s Northland has outpaced the
state average since 2006.
Grace House of Itasca County turned away 198 individuals from January 1,
2012, to September 30, 2012, because of a lack of space. There were
more people turned away than were served.
All homeless and transitional housing facilities in both Itasca and
Koochiching counties are consistently filled to capacity. The trend of
homelessness in the Northland tells the story.
6
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Source: MNCompass, from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. The Northland
includes Aitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis counties.
In Itasca County, about 1,409 owner and 828 renter households pay at least
half of their income for housing – a level considered severely unaffordable. In
Koochiching County, about 387 owner and 222 renter households pay at least
half of their income for housing.
Source: Minnesota Housing Partnership, 2012.
Cost of a Safe and Modest 2-Bedroom Apartment
Itasca County
Koochiching County
Fair Market Monthly
$655
$583
Rent
Needed Wage
$12.60/hr, 40
$11.21/hr, 40 hours/week
hours/week
Average Wage
$7.76/hr
$10.36/hr
FTE to afford apt at
minimum wage of
1.7
1.5
$7.25/hr
Source: Minnesota Housing Partnership, 2012.
Where a shortage of rental homes exists, the burden is heaviest for the lowestincome renters. In Itasca County, for every 100 extremely low-income
renters there are 48 units that are affordable and available. In Koochiching
County, for every 100 extremely low-income renters there are 93 units that are
affordable and available.
Source: Minnesota Housing Partnership, 2012.
7
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Source: MNCompass, from Wilder Research, Statewide and Region Counts of Homeless People
and U.S. Census Bureau, Intercensal estimates.
KOOTASCA Family Homeless Prevention program served 1,110 people from
July 1, 2009, to 12/31/2011. These included 446 children under the age of 18.
Source: KOOTASCA Community Action, 2012.
Grace House Homeless Shelter Statistics
(January 1 to September 30, 2012)
Total number served
Total bed stays
Number of Itasca County residents
Number of children
Number of families with children
Number of unaccompanied youth
Number of turnaways due to lack of space
174
1,915
120
43
19
19
198
Source: Grace House of Itasca County, 2012.
8
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Financial Well-Being
Key Findings






The federal poverty guidelines are an unrealistic estimate of what families
need to meet their basic needs. It is commonly believed by non-profit and
government organizations that serve low-income people that it takes at
least double the income guidelines to meet a family’s basic needs.
Itasca and Koochiching counties have significantly higher poverty rates
than the state of Minnesota as a whole.
The unemployment rate in Itasca County is consistently two to five
percentage points higher than in the state of Minnesota.
In regard to the number of residents holding four-year degrees or higher,
Koochiching County falls behind the state of Minnesota by more than 15
percent.
While the costs of living in Itasca and Koochiching county are not
significantly lower than in the state of Minnesota as a whole, median
household income there is less than the state median wage by $10,000 to
$15,000 per year.
Approximately 43 percent of jobs in Northeastern Minnesota pay less than
the basic budget needed for two working adults to support two children.
9
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
2012 U.S. Poverty Guidelines
Number of persons in 2012 Income Guideline
household
1
$11,170
2
$15,130
3
$19,090
4
$23,050
5
$27,010
6
$30,970
7
$34,930
8
$38,890
Source: U.S. Health and Human Services Administration. Income is before taxes and includes all
sources other than capital gains. Note: The federal poverty guideline is used to qualify people for
various state and federal programs. Head Start, for example is 100% of FPG or the incomes
shown above. To receive free lunch in school, the guideline is 130% of the incomes shown
above.
Poverty in Itasca and Koochiching Counties
Grand
I.Falls Itasca
Koochiching
Rapids
County
County
Persons below
poverty level
12.2%
16.3%
11.8%
12.4%
Minnesota
10.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010.
Unemployment Rate in
Itasca and Koochiching counties
14%
13%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
2003
Minnesota
4.80%
Koochiching 6.50%
Itasca
7.40%
2004 2005 2006 2007
4.60% 4.10% 4% 4.60%
6.10% 6.10% 6.60% 7.10%
7.30% 6% 6.10% 7.30%
2008 2009 2010
5.40% 8.10% 7.30%
8.10%11.60%8.80%
8.10%12.70%9.70%
2011
6.40%
8.30%
8.90%
Source: MN Department of Employment and Economic Development
10
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Education Levels in Itasca and Koochiching Counties
Grand
I. Falls
Itasca
Koochiching Minnesota
Rapids
County
County
High school
graduates,
ages 25+
Bachelor’s
degree or
higher, ages
25+
94.0%
88.4%
92.3%
89.0%
91.3%
26.2%
17.5%
20.8%
16.3%
31.4%
Source: U.S. Census 2010
Median Household Income 2000-2010
11
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Monthly Basic Needs Budget for Northeastern Minnesotans
1 working adult, 1
2 working adults, 2
child
children
Food
$336
$690
Housing
$606
$755
Health Care
$300
$569
Transportation
$513
$784
Child Care
$567
$804
Clothing/Other
$260
$316
Net Taxes
$255
$450
Monthly Total
$2,837
$4,368
Annual Income
$34,044
$52,416
Needed Hourly Wage
$16.37
$12.60 each
Percent of jobs paying
57%
43%
less than the needed
wage
The above budgets represent the costs of meeting basic needs. They are based on a no-frills
standard of living and do not include money for debt payments, skills training, entertainment,
restaurant meals, vacation, emergencies, retirement, or children’s education. Wages are figured
at 52 weeks/40 hours per week. Source: The Cost of Living in Minnesota, A report by the JOBS
NOW Coalition on the cost of basic needs for Minnesota families in 2009,
www.jobsnowcoalition.org.
Residents Under Age 65 Without Health
Insurance
Itasca County 11.2 %
Koochiching
12.3 %
County
Minnesota
10.2 %
Source: Compiled by MNCompass, from U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Health Insurance
Estimates (SAHIE) Program.
12
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Factors Affecting Child and Youth Development
Key Findings







Since 1991, the percentage of children in Itasca and Koochiching counties
receiving free or reduced-price school lunch has risen by nearly 15
percent.
Nearly 50 percent of children in Itasca County qualify for free or reducedprice school lunch.
From 1999 to 2010, the percentage of children born in Koochiching
County to unmarried mothers outpaced the state average by 20 percent.
Out-of-home placements are a strong indicator of the extent of negative
factors influencing children, and these are consistently high in Itasca and
Koochiching counties. Such placements include children who spend time
in foster care, group homes, emergency shelter or residential treatment
facilities, or court-ordered placement with relatives.
Educators say that reading proficiency by third grade is a good indicator of
a student’s future academic success. In school districts across both Itasca
and Koochiching counties, low-income students suffer a significant
achievement gap.
Compared to state averages, students in Itasca and Koochiching counties
are less engaged in extra-curricular activities.
Compared to state averages, students in Itasca and Koochiching counties
have higher exposure to domestic violence and chemical abuse.
13
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Children Living in Poverty
1993-2010
Children Receiving Free and Reduced
Priced Lunch 1991-2011
Note: To qualify for the free lunch program a family must have a household income less that
130% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG). To qualify for the reduced price lunch program a
family must meet 185% of the FPG. Over two-thirds of the families using the program qualify for
free lunch.
14
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
The Achievement Gap: Comparing 3rd-Grade Reading Proficiency
Low Income
Not Low Income
Grand Rapids #318
83%
94%
Deer River #317
60%
77%
Nashwauk-Keewatin #319
74%
91%
Greenway #316
83%
92%
International Falls #361
75%
85%
Littlefork-Big Falls #362
60%
92%
South Koochiching #363
67%
89%
Note: Percentages are students who were proficient and are based on 2012 test scores. Lowincome students are those qualifying for free or reduced-price school lunch. Free is 130% of
FPG. Reduced-price is 185% of FPG. Source: Minnesota Department of Education.
Children Born to Unmarried Mothers
1999-2010
15
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Children in Out-of-Home Placements
1991-2010
K-12 Students Enrolled in Special Education
2002-2011
16
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
Percentage of Students Who Have Never Participated in
Itasca
Koochiching
th
th
th
9
12
9
12th
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
Fine arts
62
29
63
43
78
49
61
activities
Community
49
45
46
57
60
66
59
sports
School sports
35
37
36
43
25
27
43
teams
Mother only
Father only
Joint custody
Other
Itasca
th
9
M
F
18
18
6
3
12
11
2
4
2012
Enrichment Activities
Minnesota
th
9
12th
F
M
F
M
F
56
54
34
58 43
76
41
43
45
49
61
35
38
42
50
12th
M
16
5
5
6
F
17
3
5
5
Percentage of Students Living With . . .
Koochiching
th
th
12
9
12th
M
F
M
F
M
F
11
14
22
22
13
18
9
2
6
0
10
0
4
6
14
7
7
6
10
12
2
2
7
9
Minnesota
th
9
M
F
16
16
4
2
9
9
4
3
Percentage of Students Experiencing Family Problems Because of . . .
Itasca
Koochiching
Minnesota
th
th
th
th
9
12
9
12th
9
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
Alcohol use by 14
20
18
21
16
20
27
30
12
18
any family
member
Drug use by
12
15
11
16
8
11
7
16
9
12
any family
member
12th
M
F
14 19
10
11
Perceptions of School and Neighborhood Safety / Itasca County/ Koochiching County
How much do you agree or disagree with the
following statements?
Student use of alcohol or
drugs is a problem at this
school.
Strongly
agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
6th
Male
%
Female
%
Grade
9th
Male
Female
%
%
Male
%
12th
Female
%
9
17
8
13
32
38
27
41
21
23
28
36
14
17
11
8
38
36
47
43
39
40
47
42
23
31
34
38
22
16
22
13
30
27
19
15
47
35
46
41
7
10
3
2
10
10
6
6
Source: Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Student Survey, 2010.
17
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
2012 Survey of Nonprofits and Government Agencies
What do you feel are the five most important health &
human service issues facing our community?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Itasca County Total
2008 Itasca United Way Total
Koochiching County Total
Key Findings



Respondents in Itasca County identified families living in poverty,
transportation and affordable housing, and healthcare as the four most
important health and human service issues.
The 2008 families living in poverty was the top response to the United
Way survey in Itasca County
Respondents in Koochiching County ranked drug and alcohol abuse as
most important followed by people living in poverty, affordable housing
and basic needs as being the most important human service needs.
18
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
What five issues do you feel are currently best
served in our community?
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Itasca County Total
2008 Itasca United Way Total
Koochiching County Total
Key Findings


Respondents identified assistance to older adults, basic needs and school
readiness as being the best served in Itasca County
Respondents in Koochiching County included assistance to older adults,
basic needs and domestic violence as best served
What five issues do you feel need additional or
improved services?
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Itasca County Total
2008 Itasca United Way Total
Koochiching County Total
19
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Key Findings



Respondents identified families living in poverty, affordable housing, drug
and alcohol abuse, transportation, and healthcare as the issues most in
need of additional or improved services.
Families living poverty followed closely by transportation were identified as
being the issues most in need of additional or improved services in Itasca
County.
Drug and alcohol abuse was identified as being the issue most in need of
additional or improved services in Koochiching County followed by families
living in poverty and affordable housing.
Rank the top five services you support either
financially or as a volunteer.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Itasca County Total
2008 Itasca United Way Total
Koochiching County Total
Key Findings



Respondents were most likely to volunteer or make a financial contribution
in support of basic needs, families living in poverty, homelessness, and
assistance to older adults.
Respondents in both Itasca and Koochiching counties indicated that they
were most likely to support basic needs.
In Itasca County, families living in poverty received the second-highest
number of indications. In Koochiching County, assistance to older adults
received the second-highest number.
20
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
What do you see as the greatest barriers to
acessing services and programs?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Itasca County Total
2008 Itasca United Way Total
Koochiching County Total
Key Findings



Respondents indicated that transportation, lack of awareness, and the
complexities of the process were the greatest barriers to accessing
services and programs.
Itasca County respondents indicated that transportation was the greatest
barrier repeating the same top barrier in 2008.
Koochiching County respondents indicated that the lack of awareness was
the greatest barrier to accessing services and programs.
21
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Survey Question: What do you see as the solution to the decrease in
government funding for human services?
Themes from Itasca County
1.
2.
3.
4.
Increase coordination between agencies.
Make delivery of services more efficient.
Strengthen awareness of effective services.
Use technology to streamline service delivery.
Answers from Itasca County












Have one generic application that clients can fill out for all programs
including Human Services and KOOTASCA. One-stop-shop so to speak.
For providers, government agencies, and the public to become
increasingly aware of services that concentrate on being highly cost
effective or are already being provided at no cost or obligation.
Have a regional director position with more front-line workers to provide
direct program benefits to clients thus reducing high-end administration
costs. Possible use of more satellite offices.
Ensuring that our local legislators and the public at large are educated
and made aware of the greatest human service needs in our local
communities.
More collaboration with groups and less territorialism.
More community-based programs that help leverage the government
funding for programs like homelessness, affordable housing, and student
supportive services.
Combine a number of geographically juxtaposed counties into larger
administrative units.
Agencies have got to start working together – not just say they're working
together, but truly sharing resources, meeting together so each knows
what the other is doing and can come up with solutions that make sense
and are best for the people being served.
More grantwriting to fill in the gaps by folks who know how to do it
properly. Make the government more aware of the needs of the people of
this state and country.
We need to focus more on prevention, early intervention, and education.
We need clear outcomes attached to our human services so that we know
where we are getting results and insure the best value for our funding.
Increased responsibility for sharing resources neighbor to neighbor with
coordination from government but not handouts.
More agencies combining their resources. Sharing budgets and services
offered. This may help eliminate those receiving duplicate type services.
In the area I work in, I see many families and individuals receiving almost
22
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment


2012
"duplicate" benefits, while others are unable to be helped because funding
is exhausted.
Advocate against further cutting of programs and voting for those who will
restore programs. Speaking out against vilification of those who use
welfare programs. Encouraging those who feel powerless to find their
voice and to participate in the process.
Consolidating and becoming more efficient, streamlining with technology.
Themes from Koochiching County
1.
2.
3.
4.
Increase collaboration between agencies.
Ensure that service delivery is not duplicated.
Increase support from community members and organizations.
Promote self-sufficiency and encourage independence.
Answers from Koochiching County








Collaborative efforts between providers working on the same issues.
Collaboration and cooperation among service providers.
Services are basically nonexistent in the area I live. Impossible to access
and there doesn't seem to be any intention or desire to improve that
situation.
More collaboration and coordination among providers. No duplication of
services. Figure out who does what best. Help each other out.
Training people to take care of themselves and their families and weaning
them off the system. Having the system work not as an all or nothing, but
just enough to help people along until they can support themselves.
Will need to prioritize to find out what services are most and least used
and make a decision from there. Collaborating with other agencies.
We need to tap into the various grant opportunities that are out there and
allow whoever wants/needs confidential mental health services to get
them in this county. Koochiching County unfortunately has a culture of
abuse, neglect, and underemphasizing education. We need to turn this
around and the only way to break this cyclical cycle is with a MAJOR
grant-funded effort in the areas of access to Counseling, School
Readiness, and ECFE-like programs. Long Term: Elect Democrats and
not Republicans. Democrats understand the needs of our communities
and how to help those in need. Republicans demonize the disadvantaged
and blame all of society’s ills on them. We can't rely on short-term grans,
we need the substantial long-term funding that our Democratic candidates
and currently elected officials are proposing in order to actually tackle the
issues we face on a daily basis.
I believe we must be pro-active. We often have duplication of services –
Align those. Put the victim at the center of decisions made and cut out
extra paperwork. The local community needs to be educated about the
23
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment




2012
needs we have and thoughtful fundraising must increase. Local churches
can provide some assistance and support. We simply need to work
together instead of the silos we currently work out of. When dollars cannot
sustain the programming we must get smarter with the programming we
do have. Include the people receiving services and get their feedback as
well.
More accountability as to how dollars are being spent. Example: People
should not be able to buy chips, soda pop and other "junk foods" with an
EBT card.
Stronger emphasis on importance of education as ticket out of poverty.
We need to somehow keep what we have and be creative in our problem
solving. It would also help to have knowledgeable government officials.
Churches and communities step in to help folks AND a return to a desire
to want to work AND more jobs provided through the private sector.
24
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Head Start Community Assessment
Key Findings








Both waiting lists and estimates of low-income children under the age of
five indicate that there is a greater need for Early Head Start (EHS) and
Head Start (HS) than is currently available.
Programs such as Early Childhood Family Education, School Readiness,
and Invest Early help to meet the need for early childhood education,
however, there are still Head Start eligible children not being served.
The vast majority of children enrolled in EHS and HS come from families
with household incomes that are 100% of the FPL or less.
Employment has dropped significantly among EHS and HS parents.
The majority of EHS and HS families are dependent upon social service
programs such as SNAP or WIC.
EHS and HS serve children with a range of educational, health, nutrition,
and social service needs.
EHS and HS parents cite the lack of employment opportunities,
transportation, affordable childcare, and health care as their biggest
challenges.
The number of American Indian children served by EHS and HS has
increased by 40 percent since 2008.
25
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Demographic make-up of Head Start eligible children and families,
including their estimated number, geographic location, and racial and
ethnic composition.
During the 2011-2012 school year, the total cumulative enrollment in
KOOTASCA EHS and HS was 285. The total funded enrollment was 247. The
greatest number of children attended EHS and HS programming in the county
seats of Itasca and Koochiching counties. A total of 88 HS and 16 EHS children
attended in Grand Rapids (Itasca), and 36 HS and 11 EHS children attended in
International Falls (Koochiching). In addition, in Itasca County, 23 children
attended HS in Deer River, and 58 attended in smaller communities such as
Taconite, Marble, Pengilly, Nashwauk, and Keewatin. In Koochiching County, 12
children attended HS in Northome.
The racial/ethnic composition of children attending EHS in Itasca and
Koochiching counties was 34 White, eight biracial, four American Indian, and one
African American. The racial/ethnic composition of children attending HS in
Itasca and Koochiching counties was 197 White, 32 biracial, seven American
Indian, one Asian, and one African American. In both EHS and HS, nearly 19
percent of children were non-white. According to 2010 U.S. Census estimates,
approximately six percent of Itasca County residents and five percent of
Koochiching County residents are non-white.
There is a need for increased EHS and HS in both counties, with a waiting list of
50 EHS and 147 HS in Itasca County and 5 EHS and 18 HS in Koochiching
County. The table below shows school district data that supports the need for
increased EHS and HS programming.
School District
Kindergarten
Enrollment
Free Lunch
Enrollment
Children
Eligible for
Head Start
Children
Eligible for
Early Head
Start
300
180
132
Grand Rapids 318
267
100
200
Deer River 317
88
60
120
Greenway 316
90
44
88
Nashwauk-Keewatin
40
19
38
57
319
Itasca Total
485
223
446
669
I. Falls 361
82
34
68
102
Littlefork-Big Falls
17
5
10
15
362
S. Koochiching 363
26
10
20
30
Koochiching Total
125
49
98
147
Note: Free lunch enrollment is based on 130 percent of FPL. To arrive at the number of children
income eligible for Head Start, free-lunch enrollment was multiplied by two (ages 3 and 4). To
arrive at number of children income eligible for Early Head Start, the free-lunch enrollment was
multiplied by three (ages 0, 1, and 2). Source for 2011-2012 enrollment numbers: Minnesota
Department of Education.
26
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Other child development and childcare programs that are serving Head
Start eligible children, including publicly funded State and local preschool
programs, and the approximate number of Head Start eligible children
served by each.
The school districts in both Itasca and Koochiching counties provide Early
Childhood Family Education (ECFE) and School Readiness programming.
School Readiness is specifically designed for high-risk children ages 3-5 and
consequently serves many Head Start eligible children. ECFE is provided to all
children ages 0-5, however, it also serves a high percentage of Head Start
eligible children.
In Itasca County during the 2011-2012 school year, a total of 267 children
participated in School Readiness. Out of this population, 167 households had an
annual income of $40,000 or less. During the same year, 765 Itasca County
children ages 0-5 were enrolled in Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE).
Out of this population, there were 255 households with annual income of $40,000
or less.
In Koochiching County, a total of 101 children participated in School Readiness
during the 2011-2012 school year. Out of this population, there were 22 families
with income of $40,000 or less. During the same year, 39 children ages 0-5 were
enrolled in ECFE. Out of this population, there were 11 households with income
of $40,000 or less.
Another significant program that provides child development programming in
Itasca County is Invest Early. Invest Early is a collaboration between the four
local school districts, KOOTASCA Head Start, Itasca County Health and Human
Services, Itasca Community College, Bemidji State University, and the Blandin
Foundation. Invest Early provides 250 early childhood slots for children six weeks
old to kindergarten. The pre-school programming is unique in several ways. For
one, both children and staff from Head Start, School Readiness, and Invest Early
are blended together to provide a comprehensive pre-school experience for
children and support for families. A common application is required for all of
these early childhood programs, and a team meets to rank applications based on
income and additional risk factors. After the applications are ranked, children are
slotted into the funding stream that best meets their needs. All Head Start
income-eligible slots are filled first, and then the Blandin-funded slots, and finally
School Readiness. If a family drops from HS during the year any income eligible
child being served through one of the other funded streams is put into the HS
slot. At any given time the number of HS eligible children not being served in an
HS-funded pre-school slot is approximately six.
More than 50 Invest Early slots have been dedicated to infants and toddlers
because little programming has traditionally been available to them. Children
attend as needed with services available 6 am - 6 pm Monday-Friday.
Applications are gathered and ranked according to income and a list of family risk
factors to ensure that the neediest family receives the services. At any one time,
27
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
approximately 98 percent of the infants and toddlers served by Invest Early are
Head Start eligible.
The estimated number of children with disabilities four years old or
younger, including types of disabilities and relevant services and
resources provided to these children by community agencies.
During the 2011-2012 school year, a total of 48 HS children in Itasca and
Koochiching counties had an Individualized Education Program (IEP), indicating
that they had been determined eligible to receive special education. The
diagnosed disabilities among this group were emotional disturbance, two; speech
or language impairments, six; orthopedic impairment, one; and noncategorical/developmental delay, 39. In addition, a total of three EHS children in
Itasca and Koochiching counties had an IEP. The disabilities for these children
were not specified.
According to the Minnesota Department of Education, on December 1, 2011,
there were 113 Itasca County children with disabilities and four years old or
younger. In Koochiching County, there were 19 children. These disabilities were
non-categorical.
Services for children with disabilities in Itasca and Koochiching counties include
Early Childhood Special Education, Special Olympics of Itasca County,
Interagency Early Intervention Committees, Northern Lakes Special Education
Co-op, and the Forget-Me-Not Foundation. Funding for respite care is provided
by both counties human services departments.
Other agencies that provide services to children with disabilities include:
The PACER Center – A Minnesota coalition concerned with education of
children and youth with physical, mental, emotional and behavioral disabilities.
Minnesota Association for Retarded Citizens – Provides resources and
advocacy to families with developmentally delayed children.
The University of Minnesota Extension Service – Provides information and
resources as requested by professionals and families.
28
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Data regarding the education, health, nutrition, and social service needs of
Head Start eligible children and their families.
From the 2011-2012 School Year
Early HS
HS
Number of children with household income
below 100 percent of federal poverty line.
34
135
Number enrolled in Medicaid and/or CHIP.
37
234
Number of children with chronic condition.
6
30
Number of children overweight.
NA
39
Number of children obese.
NA
30
Number of children for whom a mental health
professional provided three or more
consultations with program staff.
NA
65
Number of children for whom a mental health
professional facilitated a referral for mental
health services.
1
31
Number of children who had an Individualized
Education Program.
NA
48
Number of families who received
emergency/crisis intervention.
24
112
Number of families who received housing
assistance.
26
52
Number of families that experienced
homelessness.
1
17
Number of single-parent families in which the
parent/guardian was not working.
11
49
Number of two-parent families in which both
parents/guardians were not working.
6
19
Number of families that received services under
SNAP.
24
133
Number of families that received services under
WIC.
40
169
Number of families in which the highest level of
education obtained by the child’s
parent(s)/guardians(s) was high school or less.
31
106
29
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
The education, health, nutrition, and social service needs of Head Start
eligible children and their families as defined by families of Head Start
eligible children and by institutions in the community that serve young
children.
Focus Group response of ten Head Start parents in August 2012
Note: The information below was gathered during a focus group conducted in August 2012 with
the Head Start Policy Council. The council is comprised of 10 Head Start parents.
1. What challenges is your family facing?
 Affordable childcare including after-hours childcare, childcare availability,
lack of quality childcare.
 Employment – “With childcare costing so much is it worth it to find a job?”
 Not enough income with my job to pay the bills, especially medical bills.
 Need living wage jobs…too many minimum wage jobs and seasonal jobs.
 I am overqualified. I have a bachelor’s degree but can’t get a permanent
job.
 I am working part-time or multiple part-time jobs with no benefits.
 Your work history with some criminal record makes it hard to find
employers that will give you a chance.
 Inconsistent hours and wages plus high cost to transportation to get to
work.
 Even with full-time work health insurance is very expensive.
 With this group transportation and healthcare were the two top issues.
2. Are there training or educational opportunities you would like to take
advantage of? Is anything preventing you from doing that?
 Long distance to school (65 miles).
 Cost of college and past school loans to pay.
 Class schedule won’t work for me to go to school right now.
 Juggling childcare, work, and school.
 Lack of study time to do well at college.
3. What family support provided by the government is most important and why?
 Medical insurance (Medicaid) / Itasca Medical Care.
 Food Support including Free and Reduced-Price Lunch for children at
school.
 WIC program.
 Energy Assistance.
 Cash Assistance.
 HUD housing vouchers.
 Backpack program for students.
30
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
4. How important is family and friend support when you need it?
 Huge.
 “I had seven family and friends babysitting my kids so I could go to work
over a four day period.”
5. In what ways could community members help?
 Car repair.
 “If a volunteer could meet my kid at the bus so I could get through my
work day it would be great.”
 Home repairs.
 Volunteer school childcare after school until I can get there from work.
 Special needs childcare.
 Childcare for short periods of time.
 Free opportunities for preschoolers.
 Some adult to talk to.
 The cost of sports participation for students costs too much. Sponsor
activities for students in school.
 Help with shopping.
 More free events for children.
 Big Brother and Big Sister for adults.
6. What special concerns do you have for your children?
 More summer activities for children.
 Not enough family time to feel like you are a good parent.
7. If you could change the community in any way what would that be?
 More accepting of low-income people.
 More community involvement.
 More understanding in the community…no stereotypes.
 People able to advocate for themselves.
 Affordable activities for low-income families.
 More understanding of children with disabilities and more opportunities
for those children.
 Quality childcare available in Deer River.
September, 2012 survey of Head Start families regarding computer
ownership and Internet connectivity
Today a home computer and Internet connection is as necessary as a telephone
was 20 years ago. In a survey of 185 Head Start families, 52 said they did not
have a computer at home. Of those, 44 said cost was the primary barrier. In
addition, 65 families said they would be interested in a reconditioned home
desktop computer, and 85 said they would be interested in purchasing a
reconditioned laptop computer.
31
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Thirty-percent of the families (51 families) said they were not connected to the
Internet at home out of 172 families that answered the question.
Resources in the community that could be used to address the needs of
Head Start eligible children and their families, including assessments of
their availability and accessibility.
KOOTASCA Community Action, Itasca County Health and Human Services,
Koochiching County Community Services, Planned Parenthood, Salvation Army,
Itasca County YMCA, Legal Aid, University of Minnesota Extension, Minnesota
Chippewa Tribe, Advocates for Family Peace, Itasca Alliance Against Sexual
Assault, Ross Resources, Falls Hunger Coalition, Second Harvest NorthCentral
Food Bank, and area medical clinics. These resources are generally widely
available and affordable, however, a lack of transportation or awareness can
create accessibility challenges for some. In addition, a lack of insurance or
medical assistance can make it difficult to obtain medical treatment.
32
KOOTASCA Community Action – Community Assessment
2012
Head Start Trend Table
PIR 02-03
Percent
Total
Change
Total Head
Start staff
regardless of
funding
source or
hours worked
Total actual
enrollment
Total families
served
Number of
single parent
families
PIR 07-08
Total
Percent Change
71
0
43
-39%
266
0
235
-12%
247
0
272
+10%
96
0
143
+49%
143
0
66
-54%
154
0
235
+52%
80
0
55
-31%
69
0
89
+29%
Education
less than high
school
26
0
35
+35%
Education HS
grad or GED
182
0
140
39
0
0
Family
receives
TANF benefits
Families
participating
in the WIC
program
Two-parent
families w/
both
employed
One-parent
families w/
parent
employed
Some college,
vocational or
AA degree
Bachelor or
advanced
degree
Total number
of children
determined to
have
disabilities
Native
American
Children
served by
KOOTASCA
Head Start
Total
PIR 11-12
Percent Change
42
-2%
247
+.05%
266
-.02%
143
No change
47
-29%
209
-11%
31
-44%
64
-28%
19
-46%
-23%
120
-14%
70
+80%
110
+57%
0
29
+129%
18
-38%
51
0
53
+4%
48
-9%
16
0
8
-50%
11
+40%
33