Print
Text Size
Help
Strategic Plan for Children and Youth - Well Being of the Children and Youth
While we are aware that the major focus of this report will be the recommendations, we are including in the body of this report some summary information on the well being of children and youth nationally, statewide and locally. More detail is available in the appendix of this report or from staff.
The National Perspective
There were 70.2 million children under the age of 18 in America in 1999 and that number is expected to rise by more than 7 million in the next twenty years. Children represent 26% of the total national population today and while that percentage is decreasing, a rising number of our young people are at risk for negative life outcomes.
Teenage Child Bearing: Since 1991, the rate for women 15-19 years of age has decreased to a rate of 51.0 per 1000 teen women. While the total rate remains high enough to cause policy concerns, it should be noted that the rate for Black teens is twice that of white teens and that the rate for Hispanic teens is even higher.
Births to Unmarried Women: " Children who are born to single women, regardless of the age of the women, are more likely than children born to two parents to grow up poor, to spend large portions of their childhood without two parents, and to become single parents themselves." It is troubling that 78.6% of the births to women 15 to 19 years of age were to unmarried mothers. By comparison, 14% of the births to women ages 30 to 34 were to unmarried mothers.
Child Care: "Almost sixty percent of children under age five are in child care on a regular basis and 44 percent of infants are in child care on a regular basis." Studies are conclusive in linking the quality of child care and pre-school experiences to later success in school. Child to caretaker ratios and the educational level of the caretaker are important factors in the evaluation of quality. The cost of quality pre-school and child care programs have an impact on availability, especially for low and moderate income parents. It should be noted here that the Department of Health and Human Services studies conclude that while child care has significant and meaningful impact on children, the quality of the home environment had twice the impact as the child care or pre-school experience.
Parents in Household: There has been a steady decline in the number of two parent households in the country. In 1991, 23% of children lived with their mothers only and 4% with their fathers only. Thirty five percent of Black children and 74% of White children live with both parents.
Children in Foster Care: The number of children in Foster Care has increased significantly in the past twenty years. The Foster Care rate per 1,000 children in 1982 was 4.2. However, the rate in 1998 was 8.0. The increase in Foster Care reflects the general decline in our collective willingness or ability to take care of our children.
Infant Mortality: The infant mortality rate has decreased in recent decades yet the rate in the United States ranks among the highest of industrialized nations. While the rate is declining in every racial group, the rate for Black infants is twice that of White infants.
Youth Homicides: "The trend in the death rate due to homicide for Black males largely dominates the rate of youth homicides for ages 15 through 19. Since 1990, the rate of death due to homicide for Black males has been eight to nine times higher than the rate for their White peers."
Low Birth Weight Babies: Babies born who weigh less than five pounds, eight ounces have an increased risk of death during their first year (24 times greater risk). Babies born to mothers who smoke are more likely to be low birth weight.
Health Insurance: The percentage of children covered by health insurance has remained stable over the last decade. Poor children have lower rates of health insurance (75%) than children generally (85%).
While the list of indicators is comprehensive, we selected those outlined above as representative. We are also including a summary report by Health and Human Services (HHS) and a series of charts that address wellbeing of children and youth nationwide as Appendix B.
The State Perspective
The publication KIDS COUNT provides a comprehensive review of the status of youth in each state and locality in the nation. The report tracks indicators in the categories of health and safety, education, families and economy. The information in the report is important because it presents reliable, objective measures that allow states and localities to determine how they are serving the needs of families and children. The information can then be used to monitor progress that communities have made, or need to make, as they evaluate circumstances affecting the lives of their young people. The KIDS COUNT data for the State of Virginia can be found as Appendix C.
Overall, the State of Virginia ranked 19 out of 50 states for child well-being. The State ranked highest in two categories related to education: fifth in percent of teens not attending school and not working, and ninth in percent of teens who are high school droputs. The State improved in all categories between 1990 and 1997 with three exceptions: percentage of low birthweight babies, percent of children in poverty, and percent of families headed by a single parent.
The Local Perspective
The KIDS COUNT report ranks the locality's relative standing on each indicator, compared to all 135 Virginia localities, by the quintile (or fifths). For example, James City County is in the first quintile in prenatal care beginning in the first trimester, meaning the County ranks in the top 20% of the 135 localities in Virginia. Likewise, the County ranks in the fifth quintile in founded cases of child abuse or neglect, meaning we are in the bottom 20%. A lower ranking (closer to 1, or the first quintile) is always associated with community health or well-being; a higher ranking (closer to 5, or the fifth quintile), is always associated with higher risk or more problems.
Overall, the report shows that relative well being of youth in James City County is high. The KIDS COUNT data for the County can be found in Appendix D. Of the 14 indicators for which the report ranks the County, we are in the first quintile for 6 of them, the second quintile for 4 of them, the third quintile for 3 of them, and the fifth quintile for one of them.
Health and Safety: The data for this category shows mixed results. James City County ranks in the first quintile for prenatal care in the first semester, with 93.2% of women receiving care. This is an increase of 13.2% from 1994. In addition, only 6.6% of babies have low birth weights, placing the County in the second quintile. However, the only indicator in which the County ranks in either the fourth or fifth quintile is founded cases of child abuse or neglect. The County also ranks in the third quintile in intake cases involving delinquency.
Education: Of the three indicators for education, James City County is in the first quintile for two of them: students eligible for special education services, and students promoted in grades kindergarten - three. The County ranks in the second quintile for child day care capacity.
Family: The results for indicators related to Family are also mixed. The County ranks in the first quintile for births to teenage girls, ages 15-17. The rates of births to teenage girls dropped significantly from 1994 (32.7 per 1,000) to 1999 (14.8 per 1,000). The County ranks in the third quintile in births to single mothers and children in foster care.
Economy: The County's four economic indicators are all positive, with two ranking in the first quintile and two in the second quintile. The County ranks in the first quintile in children receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and average per capita income. James City County is in the second quintile in unemployment rate and students approved for free or reduced price school lunch program. It is surprising that although the County ranks in the second quintile in students approved for free or reduced price lunch program, there are still a large number of students (26%) who qualify.
In addition to the data from KIDS COUNT, the surveys and focus groups produced useful information as the Committee developed the Plan. A list of these agencies and programs can be found in Appendix E. The surveys revealed agencies perceptions about barriers to service delivery and the top priorities for youth. A detailed summary of this information is found in Appendices F and G.
Surveys
When asked to list the barriers to serving youth, the most popular response was lack of awareness, with 22% of the agencies stating this as their most significant obstacle. As a result, increasing public information efforts is a critical component of the Plan. Lack of space was listed as the second most significant barrier (20%). Part of the Plan calls for working more closely with schools to establish Family Learning Centers in schools. Increasing the community's accessibility to schools during non-operating hours can at least partially address this barrier. The third most popular response was lack of transportation (17%). In our third goal of increasing access to services, there is an objective devoted solely to addressing transportation issues.
When asked about the priorities for youth, agencies responded that parental involvement is the top priority. In addition, family life was seen as a priority, as well as parents or a caring adult as a role model. There are a number of strategies included in the Plan that promote parental involvement. The second priority, according to the survey results, is providing activities. Survey results generally rated the quality of programs highly, but indicated a need for more of them. In addition to new programs, the Plan contains some ambitious strategies for increasing participation in programs by improving public information efforts, reducing fees, and improving transportation to and from events and facilities. Substance abuse was viewed as another priority. The Plan calls for the County to continue to partner with organizations such as the Schools, Colonial Services Board and the Historic Triangle Substance Abuse Coalition to address this growing problem in the community.
Focus Groups
The focus group meetings provided interesting information that was used in the development of the Plan's recommendations. A more complete summary of the focus groups can be found in Appendix H. Ten separate focus groups were conducted throughout the County in order to get feedback from a variety of sources. The respondents for each of the ten groups were asked the following questions:
- What are we doing right for children and youth? What services or programs are serving well those that want or need them?
- Where are the gaps? What services or programs need to be developed in our Community? What else can we be doing?
- If we were able to fill in the gaps, what things would need to be in place so that all children and youth could benefit from them?
Ninety percent of the focus groups had some sort of praise for the recreation facilities and options available to youth in question number one. The Community Center was mentioned a number of times as a good service, as well as a number of the programs it offers. The focus groups seemed generally pleased with the Center and the services it provides. Child care and community cooperation were both mentioned by half of the groups as a beneficial aspect of the community. Tutors and mentoring programs such as Big Brothers Big Sisters and Project Legacy also got a number of mentions.
The second question received some of the same answers, but it seems that there is an overall satisfaction with the programs and services in place, the community is just interested in seeing more of them. Teen programs and services were mentioned a number of times, but they too, seemed to be additions to already existing programs. For example, the Teen Lounge was noted as being a positive service for question number one, but in question two, respondents felt that there needs to be a separate lounge for younger teens, as well as more activities and options in the lounge itself. The major gaps in service appear to be communication (between agencies and between agencies and the public), and transportation. Seventy percent of the focus groups mentioned these two problems as gaps in the service. A number of respondents commented on the lack of available information for youth on the programs and services offered. Some respondents suggested better use of the cable channels, and more advertisement. Others suggested that the individual agencies be apprised of what the other agencies are offering for youth.
Geographical inequalities (which was mentioned 50% of the time) ties in with the transportation issue. Respondents felt that the programs and services were not equally distributed throughout the County, and they also felt that this lack of transportation made it difficult for children and youth to attend programs and services. The socioeconomic gaps consisted of the programs that were too expensive for some children to attend. Affordable child care, as well as affordable summer camp programs were both mentioned.
For those respondents suggesting more recreational facilities (50%), it was usually more of what is already offered; another pool, longer hours at the Community Center, more parks, more trails, etc.
The third question was answered in a variety of ways as well; many of which resembled the comments from question two. For example, the largest categories mentioned were communication and facilities. The respondents reiterate that the County needs to ask for more youth input on programs, and then be sure to advertise the services that are going to be offered. Communication was listed a number of times in this category. This category also relates to that of resource coordination, where the respondents gave more detailed versions of communication, for example, making a public book of services available to determine what services and programs are available. In mentioning facilities, it is obvious that the public realizes that to offer these new programs, the County will need a place to put them. They also realize that youth need a way to get to these programs (Transportation) as well as a caring, competent adult to lead them (Adult Support/Supervision).
Fifty percent of the focus groups felt that resource coordination was crucial to filling in the service gaps (which coordinates with responses to question two). Some of the groups felt that the socioeconomic differences would have to be addressed in order to close the gaps.
In summary, it would seem that the respondents all had positive things to say about the programs offered to youth. Most of the suggested improvements seemed to build on pre-existing programs. The respondents like what they see now, and want more of it. As far as the means to the programs, respondents felt that communication in the community needs to improve. They feel this will benefit the youth, as well as the organizations serving the youth. There is a large concern for affordable and accessible programs. Again, the respondents like what they see so far, but they want everyone to be able to participate.