GROWING UP IN HOUSTON 2012-2014 Assessing the Quality of Life of Our Children
Edited by: Robert Sanborn, Ed.D. Dawn Lew, Esq. Mandi Sheridan Kimball, MSW Anne Hierholzer, MPSA Caroline Neary, M.Ed. With a foreword by Mayor Annise Parker Supported in part by:
We encourage utilization of the data included in this document, excluding the artwork. Please give credit to CHILDREN AT RISK if any statistics or information is used from this publication. We ask that the organizational name be printed in all capital letters. If the name needs to be abbreviated, please use C@R. Copies of the 2012-2014 edition of “Growing Up in Houston: Assessing the Quality of Life of Our Children� can be obtained by writing or calling our office at 713-869-7740.
GROWING UP IN HOUSTON Research, Production Team and Houston Office Staff Robert Sanborn, Ed.D.
2012-2014
Assessing the Quality of Life of Our Children
President & CEO, Executive Editor
Dawn Lew Senior Staff Attorney, Editor
RJ Hazeltine-Shedd Staff Attorney
Kavita Desai Staff Attorney Karen Clark Harpold Staff Attorney
Amanda Crawford-Steger
Assistant Director of Development
Shannon Nunez
Special Events Coordinator
Jesse Tow
Mandi Sheridan Kimball, MSW
Anne Hierholzer
Director, Social Measurement and Evaluation, Editor
Data Analyst
Nancy Correa
Caroline Neary
Development Coordinator
Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs, Editor Director, Center for Parenting and Family Well-Being
Megan Schneider
Assistant Director, C@R MediaLab
Linda Flores Olson Deputy Director
Eliza Horn
Data Analyst, Editor
Sarah Goff
Research Coordinator
Angela Martinez Gallagher
Jennifer Murphy Richard Kerr
Business Manager
Rashena Lindsay
Public Relations Consultant
Development Coordinator
Makeda Easter
Foundations Relations Coordinator
Assistant to the CEO
North Texas Office Staff Jaime Hanks
Managing Director
Interns
Goldie Anderson Crystal Coulter Victoria Easton Mili Gosar Tessa Graham Patrick Gremillion Annie Heinrich Jonal Hendrickson Jennifer Hernandez Muna Javaid Jenny Kessler
Emily Cook
Project Coordinator
Ruhee Grewal Leonard Paige Miller Henry Morris Erin Nolen Uche Okoroha Zack Panos Payal Patani Lori Quintal Kristina Saddler Nadeen Siddiqui
Michaela Bernacchio Assistant Director
Audra Kirkendall Project Coordinator
Design and Layout Squidz Ink Design
Special thanks go to former CHILDREN AT RISK staff Caroline Holcombe, Sara Prentice, Steven Goff, Zubin Segal, and Jessica Kemp.
Published by
CHILDREN AT RISK
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 5 Foreword by Mayor Annise Parker Letter from the Chair Executive Summary About the Authors Quality of Life Methodology C@R Index marks a CHILDREN AT RISK Index Indicator
Chapter 1: DEMOGRAPHICS OF TEXAS’ CHILDREN...................................................................... 15 Demographics of Texas’ children
Chapter 2: POVERTY................................................................................................................... 19 Children Living in or Near Poverty Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Benefits Housing
Chapter 3: HUNGER.................................................................................................................... 25 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) School Breakfast Programs School Lunch Programs Summer Food Programs WIC: Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children
Chapter 4: LATINO CHILDREN..................................................................................................... 31 Demographics Children Living in or Near Poverty Graduation and Dropout Rates
Chapter 5: HEALTH CARE............................................................................................................ 35 Health Coverage: CHIP and Medicaid Early Childhood Intervention School-Based Clinics Texas Health Steps - EPSDT Dental Care Immunizations Infectious Diseases Pediatric AIDS Maternal Health and Infant Mortality Pregnancy and Alcohol/Substance Abuse
Chapter 6: ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................................... 43 Parks and Green Space Air Pollution Hazardous Waste Sites Lead Poisoning
2
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Chapter 7: OBESITY.................................................................................................................... 49 Childhood Obesity
Chapter 8: ADOLESCENT SEXUAL HEALTH AND TEEN PREGNANCY.............................................. 53 Teen Births Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Chapter 9: MENTAL HEALTH........................................................................................................ 59 Children’s Mental Health Prevalence Substance Abuse Teen Suicide Forensic Evaluations Systems of Hope
Chapter 10: PARENTING............................................................................................................. 65 Parenting Education Child Support Calls to 2-1-1
Chapter 11: CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT................................................................................... 71 Child Abuse and Neglect Hospitalizations for Child Maltreatment Children Under Supervision Family Violence Intervention and Treatment Services for Children and Parents Unintentional Deaths of Children Corporal Punishment
Chapter 12: HUMAN TRAFFICKING.............................................................................................. 79 Human Trafficking Runaways
Chapter 13: JUVENILE JUSTICE................................................................................................... 83 Juvenile Offenses Class C Misdemeanor Ticketing Children Referred To Court Supervision Juveniles Detained and Cost of Detention Texas Juvenile Justice Department Juvenile Probation Recidivism Juvenile Gang Members Adult Certification
Chapter 14: EARLY EDUCATION.................................................................................................. 89 Pre-K and Head Start Enrollment Children in Child Care
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
3
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S Chapter 15: DROPOUT RATE....................................................................................................... 93 Literacy - 3rd Grade Reading Numeracy - Algebra I At-Risk Students Economically Disadvantaged Graduation Rate School Discipline
Chapter 16: COLLEGE ATTENDANCE AND READINESS................................................................. 99 Youth Workforce Numeracy - Calculus AP/IB Examinations College Entrance Examinations - SAT/ACT Gifted and Talented - SAT/ACT College Enrollment Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
Chapter 17: QUALITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS...................................................................................... 105 Class Size English Language Learning Special Education Enrollment School Rankings Expenditure Per Student Private Schools Charter Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Superintendent and Principal Pay Teacher Experience Teacher Turnover Teach for America Teachers
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 117 About CHILDREN AT RISK & Data Disclaimer Acknowledgments Honorary Board & Board of Directors Public Policy and Law Advisory Boards and CHILDREN AT RISK Institute Our Supporters
ENDNOTES................................................................................................................................. 127 INDEX........................................................................................................................................ 139
4
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
INTRODUCTION
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
5
FOREWORD
October 2012 Greetings, As mayor of Houston, I congratulate CHILDREN AT RISK on the twelfth publication of its biennial book, Growing Up in Houston: Assessing the Quality of Life of Our Children. This publication highlights significant indicators related to the well-being of youth in Houston. It is an outstanding source for all who are involved in assuring that children in our city are given ample opportunities to build a promising future. CHILDREN AT RISK is an outstanding organization serving as a global voice of economic hope and encouragement to youth throughout the state and, most importantly in the City of Houston. CHILDREN AT RISK and the City of Houston are determined to address the needs of every child in the Greater Houston area. Growing Up in Houston provides a great starting point in understanding the health, safety and economic factors that are critical to improving the quality of lives of our children. We are so fortunate to have an organization with a big heart located in the heart of our city. Sincerely,
Annise D. Parker Mayor
6
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
LETTER FROM THE CHAIR Bob Westendarp
Welcome to the twelfth edition of Growing Up in Houston: Assessing the Quality of Life of Our Children! As chairman of the Board of Directors for CHILDREN AT RISK, I would like to invite you not only to read Growing Up in Houston but to engage with the data we present in this publication. First released eighteen years ago in response to the lack of consistent and accurate data on Houston’s children, Growing Up in Houston has become a crucial source of information for policymakers and the community. Growing Up in Houston contains the fruit of CHILDREN AT RISK’s unwavering commitment to provide clear, actionable statistics and research, and this publication remains at the heart of CHILDREN AT RISK’s mission to “speak out and drive change for children.” Dr. Bob Sanborn, the President and CEO of CHILDREN AT RISK, has been at the forefront of shaping our organization into a major influencer of policy and legislation not only locally but statewide. Our advocacy efforts are felt throughout the State of Texas in every level of government. CHILDREN AT RISK has also made great strides toward becoming a national presence, making appearances in Washington, D.C. and partnering with advocacy groups across the nation. This exciting expansion will allow us to reach larger and more diverse audiences in order to inspire positive change in public policy and legislation affecting our children. Established seven years ago, CHILDREN AT RISK’s Public Policy and Law Center (PPLC) enables us to successfully advocate for children through a focus on policy change and legal action. The PPLC is actively involved in evaluating Texas schools with their annual release of the Public School Rankings Report; this report serves as an accessible guide to parents, teachers, and the community and holds schools accountable to the standards of quality education. CHILDREN AT RISK hopes this report will further the dialogue between schools and their communities and lead to improved educational outcomes for our children. CHILDREN AT RISK has also made major strides in the fight against human trafficking, working in partnership with public officials, key stakeholders, and anti-trafficking organizations in Texas and across the nation to effect policy change at state and federal levels. Through the PPLC’s 2012 Human Trafficking Summer Institute, five law student fellows were recruited from across the country to research the legal requirements for operating a safe house in Texas as well as the core components of safe houses nationwide that serve child trafficking victims. Their research culminated in a publication which serves as a resource for the establishment of safe houses in Texas. Additionally, CHILDREN AT RISK partnered with Arrow Child & Family Ministries to open Freedom Place, Texas’ first safe house for domestic child trafficking victims, in March 2012. CHILDREN AT RISK has also made important advances in the area of child food insecurity in our advocacy for universal free breakfast in
public schools. The need for food is basic and essential to life; however, an alarming number of economically disadvantaged households struggle to provide their children with the nutrition they need to be healthy and successful. CHILDREN AT RISK has had discussions with school districts across Greater Houston, encouraging district leaders to implement universal free school breakfast in order to provide for the needs of hungry school children. Dialogue like this led to the implementation of universal free school breakfast in Alief ISD, a district of 45,000 students, nearly eighty percent of whom are economically disadvantaged. At CHILDREN AT RISK, we believe that the needs of children should be our highest priority, not simply because we are obliged to care for our children, but because they are the future. The actions we take today can and will affect our society tomorrow, a fact that is both daunting and inspiring. Although we have made great strides, the data provided in this publication show that there is still much to do in order to secure a brighter future for our children. Our greatest hope is that the community will stand up and take action to ensure that children’s needs are met and their safety is secured. Together we can create a brighter tomorrow for our kids, and on behalf of CHILDREN AT RISK, our partners, and advocacy groups across the nation, I invite and encourage you to use the data in this book to advocate for children. We look forward to partnering with you,
Bob Westendarp Chairman of the Board
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Robert Sanborn, Ed.D. President and CEO of CHILDREN AT RISK
Over the last eleven editions of Growing Up in Houston, the compilation of indicators that measure the quality of life for children has evolved considerably. For this twelfth edition, CHILDREN AT RISK has reinvented the structure and format of the book in an endeavor to create the best resource possible for all those who serve children in our community. Our efforts have produced a publication with new indicators, single chapters dedicated to each issue, and more data visualizations. We hope that as a result we have created a resource that clearly presents the data surrounding critical issues facing children and educates stakeholders on the importance of improving each indicator. The following is a brief overview of the current state of the quality of life for Texas’ children.
Demographics
The Texas population is growing at twice the national rate, and more than half of the U.S. child population growth from 2000 to 2010 took place in Texas. Over one million children live in Harris County, and the population is becoming increasingly diverse: 51% of children are Latino, 24% are White, and 19% are Black. Much of the population growth in Harris County and across the State of Texas is due to an increase in our child population. With this rapid growth and change in the demographic makeup of our communities, we must ensure that we are prepared to meet the changing needs of this new generation of Texans.
Poverty
The percentage of Harris County’s children who live in poverty continues to remain high. In fact, 27% of Harris County children lived below the federal poverty line in 2010, higher than the percentage for Texas (26%) and the U.S. overall (22%). For children, poverty is linked to impaired development, lack of educational success, and health consequences. Assistance programs do provide help, but too often do not reach all children that need them.
Hunger
On any given day in Harris County in the 2010-2011 school year, 372,425 students eligible for a free or reduced-price breakfast did not receive one. Twenty-six percent of children in Harris County live in households that are food insecure, compared to 27% of children in Texas and 22% of children nationwide. The implementation of Universal School Breakfast can have a significant impact on addressing child hunger by ensuring that students have access to one more nutritious meal each day.
Latino Children
The Latino population is increasingly representing a larger portion of the demographic makeup of Harris County. More Latino babies are being born each year than any other ethnic group, representing half of all births
8
in Harris County in 2010. In Texas, where 26% of all children live below the poverty line, 36% of Latino children live in poverty. By 2020, one in four children enrolled in American public schools will be Latino; however, Latino children are less likely than other ethnic or racial groups to attend preschool or a four-year college.
Health Care Access
In 2009, Texas was 49th in the nation for uninsured children with 16% of children not receiving any type of health coverage. That same year in Harris County, 19.5% of children were uninsured. Texas children can receive low-cost or free health services through Children’s Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), but there remains a gap between being eligible for these publicly funded health care programs and being able to afford private insurance.
Environment
Approximately 1 out of every 10 days, the air in Houston is classified as unhealthy for sensitive groups. Children face greater risks from environmental toxins than adults, and the long-term health risks of exposure to toxins are great. While Houston ranks fourth nationally among park acreage for cities of similar population density, new park acquisitions are infrequent and have not followed the city’s demographic expansion.
Obesity
Childhood obesity continues to affect many children across the state. In 2012, 46% of Texas children and 47% of Harris County children were classified as overweight or obese. Childhood obesity carries many health risks, including diabetes, sleep apnea, and joint problems. Within Houston there are neighborhoods identified as “food deserts,” where full grocery stores that sell healthy produce are unavailable for many miles.
Adolescent Sexual Health and Teen Pregnancy
In 2010, Texas was ranked 4th in the nation for the highest number of teen births and continues to remain 1st in the nation for repeat teen births. While the teen birth rate in Harris County has been on the decline over the past several years, it is still higher than the national average. Currently in Texas, 96% of school districts implement abstinence-only sex education.
Mental Health
Funding for mental health services in Texas continues to remain low, and Texas ranks last nationally in per capita mental health spending. An estimated 14,000 children in Houston cannot access mental health services due to insufficient capacity, availability of services, expense of services, or lack of knowledge about available programs. As a gateway to dropping out of school, the juvenile justice system, and other societal problems, mental illness must be addressed at the community level to prevent children from ending up in these circumstances.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Parenting
Parenting is without question a critical influence on a child’s mental health, development, and positive family environment, yet it is estimated that less than 1% of Harris County parents have access to evidence-based parent education programs. Evidence-based parenting programs have numerous benefits including decreases in parental depression; increases in parental confidence; and decreases in social, emotional, and behavioral problems in children.
Human Trafficking
The State of Texas has taken great strides to improve the anti-trafficking laws through enhancing penalties against traffickers and Johns. While continuing to hold traffickers accountable, we must also focus on the victims of this horrific crime and provide them with the much needed rehabilitative services they require. Although the Texas Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that children under the age of 14 in Texas are victims and therefore cannot be charged with the offense of prostitution, lack of rehabilitative residential placements results in the charging of these children with other offenses in order to remove them from their exploitative situations.
Education Agency’s criterion for college ready graduates. It is estimated that 60% of jobs will require a career certificate or college degree, but only 31% of Texas adults currently have an associate’s degree or higher.
Quality Public Schools
As of 2011, there were over 800,000 students enrolled in Harris County public schools, and 61% of were low-income students that qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. In 2011, nearly 1 in 4 (24%) of schools in Harris County failed to meet the federal standard for Adequate Yearly Progress. Among public school freshmen in Harris County who started high school during the 2004-05 school year, 67% went on to graduate high school within six years. Although there are some definite bright spots in the data, there is always room for improvement when it comes to the well-being of our children. It is our hope that by highlighting the needs of Houston’s children with data-driven evidence, we can inspire the necessary reform. Very truly yours,
Juvenile Justice
Statewide juvenile justice reform was implemented during the 82nd Texas Legislative Session with the merger of the Texas Youth Commission and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, forming the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. One goal for the reform is to focus more on community-based funding for services. However, local departments, like the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, are still challenged with providing the best rehabilitative services and treatment for the youth in their care on smaller operating budgets.
Robert Sanborn, Ed.D. President and CEO
Education
It is important that children receive high quality education during the early years of their lives, which are most crucial to development. Quality early education increases school readiness and contributes to better student academic outcomes, especially in children of low socioeconomic status. Since the last legislative session, Texas Pre-K programs have lost $223 million in discretionary grant cuts, which has resulted in many full-day Pre-K programs being reduced to half-day programs or eliminated entirely.
Dropout Rate
In 2011, 52% of Harris County students were identified as at risk of dropping out of high school, and the 4-year graduation rate was 69%. High school dropouts face limited earning potential, a higher likelihood of committing a crime, and a shorter life span. However, it is possible to identify students at risk of dropping out as early as 3rd grade. With early intervention, we can help keep these students on track for graduation.
College Attendance and Readiness
Only about 19% of Texas students will complete college, and of those that do attend college, many require remediation in one or more fundamental subjects. In 2010, only 54% of Greater Houston students met the Texas
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
9
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr. Robert David Sanborn is a noted leader, advocate, and activist for education and children and the President and CEO of CHILDREN AT RISK. Dr. Sanborn earned his undergraduate degree at Florida State University and his doctorate at Columbia University in New York City. Before entering the non-profit sector, he had a distinguished career in higher education at institutions such as Rice University and Hampshire College. He has worked and served as a senior leader with many organizations, always bringing with him a focus on innovation, collaborations with like-minded groups, resource developing partnerships, and a belief that all children deserve extraordinary opportunities to succeed. Under his leadership, CHILDREN AT RISK has expanded its influence considerably. Notable achievements include launching the Public Policy & Law Center, the Center to End Trafficking and Exploitation of Children, and the Center for Parenting and Family Well-Being. Dr. Sanborn is the Co-Editor in Chief of two online peer-reviewed journals, Journal of Applied Research on Children and Journal of Family Strengths, which are published through the CHILDREN AT RISK Institute. The establishment of these issue-focused initiatives have significantly increased media attention to the issues championed by the organization, and increased the organizational capacity to drive macro-level change to improve the lives of Texas’ most defenseless children. Mandi Sheridan Kimball has been advocating for Houston children since 2004. In January 2006 she became CHILDREN AT RISK’s Public Policy Analyst and now serves as the Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs. She received her Masters in Social Work from the University of Houston and received her Bachelors degree in Social Work from St. Edwards in Austin. Health and human services are a priority on Mandi’s advocacy agenda. Her experience and knowledge of the Texas Legislature has assisted her efforts in achieving quality care and services to Houston’s most vulnerable youth.
children in the law school clinic in abuse and neglect cases. RJ then clerked for a state district court judge in Chicago, and went on to work for a small firm that represents school districts in the Chicago area. He and his wife moved to Houston in 2008 where RJ worked for three years in the Harris County Attorney’s Office representing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services in the prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases.
Anne Hierholzer joined the team at CHILDREN AT RISK in August
2011 as a Research Coordinator. Currently serving as the Director of Social Measurement and Evaluation, Anne oversees CHILDREN AT RISK’s research and data projects, ensuring that the organization maintains its commitment to quality, timely, transparent data. In addition, Anne heads up the annual School Rankings project and assists with the production of CHILDREN AT RISK’s Growing Up in Houston publication. After growing up in California’s Central Valley, Anne happily transplanted to Texas, where she received a B.A. in History and Political Science from Rice University and a Master’s in Public Service and Administration from Texas A&M University.
Nancy Correa joined the CHILDREN AT RISK staff in October 2011 as the Director of the Center for Parenting and Family Well-Being. In this role, she leads an effort to prevent child abuse and promote positive parenting in collaboration with other organizations. Nancy received her Master’s degree in Public Health from Boston University School of Public Health and her Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry and Policy Studies from Rice University. Nancy’s interests include child abuse prevention, coalition-building, evaluation, and health promotion. Prior to working at CHILDREN AT RISK, Nancy worked as a research and evaluation consultant in Boston, MA. She also formed a nonprofit organization to prevent childhood obesity in the Houston community.
Dawn Lew is the Senior Staff Attorney at CHILDREN AT RISK. Dawn
received her undergraduate degree in Political Science from UC Berkeley in 2002, and she received her law degree from Boston College Law School in 2006. Through her course of study as well as her work and volunteer experiences in law school Dawn knew she wanted to dedicate her legal career to working on issues affecting the health, safety, and welfare of women and children. Dawn moved to Houston in 2007 and joined the staff of CHILDREN AT RISK in 2009. She is licensed to practice law in both California and Texas.
RJ Hazeltine-Shedd started at CHILDREN AT RISK in June of 2011.
He earned his undergraduate degree from Vassar College in 1994, where he studied music performance. Following a brief career in arts administration and performance in New York and San Francisco, he became interested in advocating for children through the masters in social work program at Boston College where he provided counseling to youth detained in residential treatment centers. After having received his masters in social work in 2003, he earned his law degree from Loyola University, Chicago as a Child Law Fellow in Loyola’s Civitas Child Law program in 2006, where he represented
10
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
QUALITY OF LIFE METHODOLOGY The Quality of Life Indicator Model is comprised of longitudinal data on indicators that define the quality of life of our children in the following major issue areas: Poverty and Basic Needs, Latino Children, Physical and Mental Health, Safety and Security, Parenting, and Education. Data for each indicator is collected every two years. The comparison of statistics will illustrate how the community is progressing in meeting the needs of Houston/Harris County children. It is hoped that this model will demonstrate progress in the well-being of children as we analyze the data. The indicators in the Quality of Life Indicator Model concentrate on children from ages 0-17. In some instances data for ages 18 through 24 years of age is reported because that is how those statistics are collected by local, county, and state departments. Some indicators are based on the number of cases reported at rates per 100,000 or per 1,000 children. Breakdown of children by race or origin is included where possible, although it is important to note that data still rarely covers more than major racial groups. Child population figures are based on the 2010 U.S. Census. All of the statistics, unless otherwise indicated, are for Harris County and include Houston and the other communities within the county. Sometimes, data requested for the indicators in the Quality of Life Indicator Model was not available (NA) because it had not been collected, was not able to be retrieved from computer systems, or organizations were unwilling to honor CHILDREN AT RISK’s request for information. Data in the Quality of Life Indicator Model is from secondary research. Statistics used came directly from the staff of the agency or the program targeted, published agency materials such as annual reports, summary tables from agency computer files, websites, or electronic diskettes from agencies. In a few instances, reports or other documents from sources outside the primary agency providing information have been used, but only after the information was verified. Sources can be found in the endnotes after each indicator.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
11
CHILDREN AT RISK INDEX In an effort to better understand the well-being of children in our state, CHILDREN AT RISK has developed a signature index that provides an overall measure of the quality of life for children growing up in Texas. Comprised of a selection of key indicators of child well-being, the CHILDREN AT RISK INDEX is scored from 0 to 100, with 100 being a perfect score indicating an ideal quality of life for children. The Index provides policymakers, the media, and other stakeholders with a single-number snapshot of how Texas children fare in each county across the state. In the process of developing this Index, CHILDREN AT RISK staff worked closely with researchers, academics, and other experts in relevant fields.
CHILDREN AT RISK Index values for the nine indicators are located throughout Growing Up in Houston, providing a snapshot of how Harris County’s children currently fare on a scale from 0 to 100. In future publications CHILDREN AT RISK plans to calculate Index values for all counties in Texas, which will allow a comparison of how children fare relatively across the state. It will also be possible to rank counties on child well-being, in accordance with their Index scores. It is our hope that this Index will allow us to track the well-being of children across counties and over time. For more details on Index construction and methodology, please see Appendix A.
Table 1 INDICATOR
12
INDEX VALUES BEXAR COUNTY (SAN ANTONIO)
DALLAS COUNTY (DALLAS)
HARRIS COUNTY (HOUSTON)
TARRANT COUNTY (FORT WORTH)
TRAVIS COUNTY (AUSTIN)
Number of deaths of infants under 1 year per 1,000 live births
60
50
62
50
71
Number of neglect/ abuse related fatalities per 100,000 pop.
35
54
33
39
79
Percent of children who are uninsured
49
19
27
39
42
Percent of children who are overweight or obese
60
53
56
58
65
Table 1 shows the Index values for five major counties in Texas. Each county has an Index value for each individual indicator, and these are averaged into an overall Index value at the bottom. Index values range from 0-100, with 100 being a perfect score indicating an ideal quality of life for children.
GRADING SCALE
Percent of 3rd graders who did NOT meet Commended Performance on TAKS Reading
45
Percent of students who do NOT graduate
50
Percent of children age 0-17 living below the federal poverty line
38
Average percent of children eligible for free/reduced lunch that are not participating
45
36
36
0
38
Unemployment rate
70
63
65
68
78
OVERALL INDEX VALUE:
50
44
46
45
57
GRADE:
C
C-
C
C-
C+
51
47
23
52
51
29
51
53
48
56
48
35
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
A+
96-100
A
86-95
A-
81-85
B+
76-80
B
66-75
B-
61-65
C+
56-60
C
46-55
C-
41-45
D+
36-40
D
26-35
D-
21-25
F
0-20
APPENDIX A: CHILDREN AT RISK INDEX METHODOLOGY Indicator Selection
While Growing Up in Houston covers over 130 indicators of quality of life for children, this Index is based on a smaller subset of indicators that touch on the major issues that affect children’s well-being. In selecting this comprehensive group of indicators, several requirements were considered. In order to qualify for inclusion, indicators had to be: easily understood; based on data that is reliably available at the county level statewide; clearly indicative of general child well-being, and; taken together, they must cover issues relevant to the whole child. Data for the indicators come primarily from Texas state agencies, national governmental bureaus, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Ultimately, nine indicators were selected to represent the fundamentals of child well-being (see Table 2 for more detail): • Infant mortality rate • Neglect/abuse-related fatalities • Children without health insurance • Children who are overweight or obese • 3rd grade reading levels • High school graduation rates • Children living below the federal poverty line • Participation of eligible children in free and reduced-price lunch programs • Unemployment rate
Index Construction
In order to compare indicators across differing units and scales, the values had to be normalized. The following equation was used to transform raw variable values into a unit free index that ranges from 0 to 1: • Index = observed value−minimum value maximumvalue−minimum value
In those cases, minimum and maximum values were designated using the minimum and maximum values observed across Texas counties over the most recent decade. Whenever available, a full ten years of data was used for determining maximums and minimums, but in some cases only a shorter time span was available (see Table 2 for more detail). Once the historical maximums and minimums were established, the maximum was increased by one standard deviation and the minimum was decreased by one standard deviation*. We expanded the range in this fashion so as not to hypothesize that indicator values would never be better or worse than they had been in the past. To calculate the final overall Index, the index values for all indicators were averaged together. Each indicator was weighted equally, a method used by many other indices of well-being.
Table 2 INDICATOR
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
SOURCE (HIGHEST/LOWEST OBSERVED STATE AVERAGE**)
Number of deaths of infants under 1 year per 1,000 live births
2
13
KIDS COUNT Data Center, 1999-2008
Number of neglect/abuse related fatalities per 100,000 pop.
0
6
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services - Administration for Children & Families, 2006-2010
Percent of children who are uninsured
0%
27%
KIDS COUNT Data Center, 2000-2009
Percent of children who are overweight or obese
27%
73%
Texas Education Agency-FITNESSGRAM data, 2012 (**by county across Texas only)
Percent of 3rd graders who did NOT meet Commended Performance on TAKS Reading
24%
95%
Texas Education Agency, 2011 (**by county across Texas only)
Percent of students who do NOT graduate
2%
62%
National Center for Education Statistics, 2000-01, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09
Percent of children age 0-17 living below the federal poverty line
2%
38%
KIDS COUNT Data Center, 2001-2010
Average percent of children eligible for free/reduced lunch that are not particIpating
0%
35%
Food Research and Action Center; U.S. Census, 2010
This equation essentially creates a proportion of the observed value to the range of possible values. Unemployment rate 4% 16% Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002-2011 Finally, the values were multiplied by 100 so that ** Except where noted they ranged from 0 to 100. The normalization equation required the Table 2 shows the minimum and maximum values for each indicator. If a establishment of minimum and maximum values for each indicator. To county observed the minimum value, it would receive a score of 100 for the establish these values, observed values for large population groups over Index. If a county observed the maximum value, it would receive a score a period of time were examined. Wherever possible, we obtained the of zero for the Index. The minimum and maximum values were defined by minimum and maximum average values observed at the state level across determining the minimum and maximum state averages for each indicator the U.S. over the most recent ten years of available data. For example, in over the last ten years (where available), and then expanding that range by one the case of infant mortality, the lowest observed rate from 1999-2008 was standard deviation. 3.8 for New Hampshire in 2001, and that became the minimum of the infant mortality range. In some cases, such as with the 3rd grade literacy *The minimums were not extended past zero; in the case of unemployment the minimum was not extended past 4% (on the basis that unemployment does not realistically get lower than that). and obesity indicators, national data was not available at the state level.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
13
Number of deaths of infants under 1 year per 1,000 live births
Percent of students who do NOT graduate
BEXAR COUNTY
BEXAR COUNTY
C+
DALLAS COUNTY HARRIS COUNTY TARRANT COUNTY TRAVIS COUNTY C
B-
C
B
DALLAS COUNTY HARRIS COUNTY TARRANT COUNTY TRAVIS COUNTY
C
C
C
C
Number of neglect/abuse related fatalities per 100,000 pop.
Percent of children age 0-17 living below the federal poverty line
BEXAR COUNTY
BEXAR COUNTY
D
DALLAS COUNTY HARRIS COUNTY TARRANT COUNTY TRAVIS COUNTY C
D
D+
B+
Percent of children who are uninsured BEXAR COUNTY C
DALLAS COUNTY HARRIS COUNTY TARRANT COUNTY TRAVIS COUNTY F
D
D+
C-
C
DALLAS COUNTY HARRIS COUNTY TARRANT COUNTY TRAVIS COUNTY
D+
D-
D
C
D
Average percent of children eligible for free/reduced lunch that are not participating BEXAR COUNTY
DALLAS COUNTY HARRIS COUNTY TARRANT COUNTY TRAVIS COUNTY
C-
D+
D+
F
D+
Percent of children who are overweight or obese BEXAR COUNTY C+
DALLAS COUNTY HARRIS COUNTY TARRANT COUNTY TRAVIS COUNTY C
C+
C+
B-
Unemployment Rate BEXAR COUNTY B
DALLAS COUNTY HARRIS COUNTY TARRANT COUNTY TRAVIS COUNTY B-
Percent of 3rd graders who did NOT meet Commended Performance on TAKS Reading BEXAR COUNTY C-
14
DALLAS COUNTY HARRIS COUNTY TARRANT COUNTY TRAVIS COUNTY C
C
C
C+
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
B-
B
B+
DEMOGRAPHICS
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
15
DEMOGRAPHICS According to the 2010 Census, the U.S. population grew to nearly 309 million people, representing approximately a 10% increase from the 2000 Census.1 Regionally, the South and West experienced the fastest growth nationwide.2 Growing at twice the national rate, Texas experienced the highest numeric increase in population, up by 4.3 million people for a total population at just over 25 million.3 The Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth metro areas together accounted for almost 50% of Texas’ population and over 50% of its population growth.4 As the third largest county in the U.S. after Los Angeles County in California and Cook County in Illinois, Harris County experienced over a 20% increase in population size since 2000.5 A large part of Texas’ growth is due to an increase in our child population (ages 0-17), expanding from 5.9 million to 6.9 million children in the last ten years, an increase of 16.6% since 2000.6 In fact, the total U.S. child population grew by only 1.8 million children from 2000 to 2010 – and more than half of that growth occurred in Texas. The child population growth since 2000 has significantly shifted the racial/ethnic makeup of Texas and Harris County. Statewide, the majority
of growth occurred among the Latino population. Over 48% of the child population in Texas is Latino. The same is true for Harris County, with Latinos representing over 51% of the child population. In fact, across the largest counties in Texas: Harris, Dallas, Travis, and Bexar, a majority of the child population for each is comprised of Latino children. Statewide, Black and Other child populations have grown at a much slower pace, and the White child population has actually decreased in 200 of Texas’ 254 counties.7 In Harris County, the Black child population decreased slightly, from 19.8% in 2000 to 19.3% in 2010.8 The White child population decreased from 32.9% in 2000 to 23.9% in 2010.9 In order to meet the needs of Texas’ ever-changing population, we must focus on the impact that the rapidly growing population and increasing diversity will have on our state. Historically, the Latino and Black populations have been negatively represented in a number of quality of life indicators, such as levels of educational attainment and rates of poverty, and measures must be taken today in order to provide all of Texas’ children the opportunity to succeed in the future.
The total U.S. child population grew by only 1.8 million children from 2000 to 2010 – and more than half of that growth occurred in Texas. Percent of Total Texas Child Population in Harris County, 2012
16.7% HARRIS COUNTY
83.3%
OTHER TEXAS COUNTIES Source: Kids Count Data Center
16
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Breakdown of Race/Ethnicity, 2010 LATINO WHITE ASIAN 4.9% 4.3% 5.2% 1.9%
» » » »
Harris Dallas Travis Bexar
3.5% » Texas
BLACK
51.3% 51.4% 46.8% 68.8%
19.3% » Harris 23.5% » Dallas 9.8% » Travis 7.3% » Bexar
» » » »
Harris Dallas Travis Bexar
23.9% 20.2% 37.5% 21.4%
» » » »
Harris Dallas Travis Bexar
34.9% » Texas
OTHER 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6%
» » » »
Harris Dallas Travis Bexar
0.7% » Texas
48.3% » Texas
12.6% » Texas
Source: Kids Count Data Center
Children in Harris County by Age and Ethnicity, 2010 Age in Years
% White
% Black
% Latino
% Other
< 1 yr
26.8%
18.4%
50.0%
4.8%
1 yr
27.0%
18.3%
49.7%
5.0%
2 yrs
27.2%
18.2%
49.4%
5.1%
3 yrs
27.4%
18.1%
49.2%
5.3%
4 yrs
27.6%
18.0%
49.0%
5.4%
5 yrs
27.8%
17.9%
48.8%
5.5%
6 yrs
28.0%
17.8%
48.6%
5.5%
7 yrs
28.3%
17.8%
48.4%
5.5%
8 yrs
28.6%
17.7%
48.1%
5.5%
9 yrs
28.9%
17.7%
47.8%
5.5%
10 yrs
29.9%
17.9%
47.2%
4.9%
11 yrs
30.4%
18.9%
45.9%
4.8%
12 yrs
30.4%
19.2%
45.5%
4.9%
13 yrs
31.0%
19.3%
44.6%
5.0%
14 yrs
31.6%
19.6%
43.8%
5.0%
15 yrs
31.5%
20.0%
43.7%
4.7%
16 yrs
31.8%
20.8%
42.6%
4.8%
17 yrs
32.3%
21.1%
42.0%
4.6%
Growing at twice the national rate, Texas experienced the highest numeric increase in population, up by 4.3 million people for a total population at just over 25 million.
Source: Texas State Demographer, Texas State Data Center
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
17
Failure to protect children from todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic crisis is one of the most costly mistakes a society can make. -Gordon Alexander, UNICEF
18
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
POVERTY
POVERTY Case Study
Vickie and her two sons Brian (5) and Christopher (3) have been staying at the YWCA Family Center emergency shelter for months. For the first three nights, they slept on cots in the shelter’s library due to overcrowding in the shelter. Three years ago, Vickie worked at a group home for adults with intellectual disabilities earning $8 an hour. However, the group home laid her off and ever since then it has been a struggle for Vickie to find another job. The boys’ father left shortly after she was laid off. She applied for food stamps, babysat for other children, and signed up with a temporary agency to make some money, but there was no steady income. Vickie even tried living with a friend, but there was no room. Three years later, Vickie is still struggling, living in shelters and hoping she will find a job that will allow her to return to how life was before poverty.1
Issue at a Glance:
• In 2012, a family of four is considered poor by federal guidelines with an annual income of $23,050 or below. On average, it is estimated that it takes twice that amount to provide the most basic needs. • Twenty-six percent of Texas children live below the federal poverty line, while 27% of the children in Harris County do. • Nearly half of children in Texas live at 200% or below the federal poverty rate. • While state administered assistance programs provide some help, they often do not reach families and children that need them.
Statement of Need
A long-standing and seemingly intractable problem, poverty affects the lives of children in Texas and Harris County at some of the highest rates in the nation.2 When compared to other states, Texas has the 6th highest rate of child poverty – a shocking 26% of Texas children are poor – tied with
Common Risks for Children Living in Poverty
South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee.3 Harris County fares no better with 27% of its children living in poverty.4 While these numbers are often cited, it is easy to lose sight of how intimately and devastatingly our children and communities are affected. For young children, poverty is linked with impaired cognitive and emotional development, lack of educational success, and health consequences that can last into adulthood.5 Children who suffer from these problems will have a more difficult time finding their way through high school and into college, making it harder to find gainful employment, and more likely that they will continue to live in poverty and have children that do as well.6 When one considers that more than half a million Texans earn the minimum wage or less, a rate tied with Mississippi for worst in the U.S., the economic consequences of our rising population of poor children become clear.7 In 2012, a family of four is considered poor by federal guidelines if the family’s income is less than $23,050.8 This guideline is used to determine a family’s eligibility for federal programs that are designed to assist those experiencing poverty.9 However, the guidelines are based on a narrow income standard that fails to consider the diverse circumstances families experience.10 For instance, it does not account for differences in the cost of living for families in different states, or for those in rural versus urban areas. It also fails to incorporate material hardships, like whether a family is living in subsidized housing or has debt.11 Moreover, it is based on a calculation made when the guideline was established in the 1960’s, which presumed that a family spent a third of its income on food.12 More current research indicates that food comprises only one seventh of a family’s budget, and that costs associated with childcare and health care, housing, and transportation have grown disproportionally in relation to the cost of food.13 The result is that the federal guidelines do not provide an accurate assessment of a family’s ability to provide the basic necessities. On average,
1 in 4 Children in Texas Live in Poverty
Developmental Delays More likely to experience hunger More likely to be unemployed as an adult More likely to be suspended, expelled and drop out of school 20
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
On average, it is estimated that a family will need an income of twice the federal poverty rate to meet the most basic needs.
Number of Homeless Children Identified in Harris County and Select Fort Bend County Schools in 2011 MAGNOLIA WALLER 8 WALLER COUNTY
CONROE
TOMBALL 15
LIBERTY COUNTY
NEW CANEY HUFFMAN 69
KLEIN 100
MAGNOLIA COUNTY
SPRING 40
DAYTON 111
HUMBLE 574
ALDINE 211
CY-FAIR 2038
CROSBY NORTH FOREST 1 SPRING BRANCH 472
KATY 424 ALIEF 551
SHELDON 85
CHANNEL VIEW GALENA PARK HOUSTON 3671
DEER PARK
HARRIS COUNTY
FORT BEND 405 STAFFORD 9
MANVEL
GOOSE CREEK 628
PASADENA 862 PEARLAND 105 BRAZORIA COUNTY
LA PORTE 254 CHAMBERS COUNTY
CLEAR CREEK 849 FRIENDSWOOD GALVESTON COUNTY
COUNTIES SCHOOL DISTRICT FREEWAYS HOMELESS
26%
Texas has the 6th highest rate of child poverty – 26% of Texas children are poor.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
21
it is estimated that a family will need an income of twice the federal poverty rate to meet the most basic needs.14 Texas is home to 3,378,145 families and 6,572,862 children.15 Nearly half (48%) of Texan children lived in low-income families (defined as living at or below 200% of the federal poverty rate) in 2010. This is higher than the national average of 44% of children living in low-income households in 2010.16 In terms of the number of children living in poverty (defined as those at or below 100% of the poverty rate), Texas ranked second highest in the nation after California with 1,751,000 children living in poverty.17 The demographic attributes of these families are telling. The large majority of children who live in low-income or poor families have at least one parent who works, either full or part-time.18 Eighty-five percent of children in low-income families and 75% of children in poor families have at least one working parent.19 There is a similarly large majority of lowincome and poor children whose parents do not have a high school degree. Eighty-six percent of low-income children and 53% of poor children have parents who never graduated from high school.20 Notably, as the educational attainment of parents increases, the likelihood that their family is living in low-income or poor households decreases.21 Sixty-seven percent of children whose parents have a high school degree but no college education live in low-income families, while 33% of children whose parents have at least some college-level education are low-income.22 The trend is similar for poor families. Thirty-two percent of children whose parents have a high school degree but no college, and 13% of children whose parents have some college live in poverty.23 As intractable and inevitable as poverty may seem, it is clear that education can move families out of desperate circumstances and offer opportunities for children to succeed and thrive. Sadly, the same opportunities often do not exist for one of the most at-risk populations of poor children â&#x20AC;&#x201C; homeless youth. Because children without homes often move from place to place, residing with friends or acquaintances, these children are largely invisible to the census and other systems designed to assist with poverty. It is therefore difficult to determine how many children suffer from homelessness. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) changed its definition of what it means to be homeless, broadening the categories of those eligible for HUD funded homeless assistance programs.24 One of
the primary changes in the new definition is that families with children or unaccompanied youth who have been unstably housed for the last 60 or more days, and are likely to remain so, are now considered homeless.25 For children, the new definition includes those who would be defined as homeless by other federal definitions, including the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.26 McKinney-Vento provides protections for homeless children, and ensures that they have access to public school. As a result, public schools are able to track the numbers of children that enroll who are homeless. In the 2011-2012 school year, school districts in the Greater Houston area identified 12,512 homeless youth, or 1.3% of the public school population.27 The perils of child homelessness cannot be overstated. Eighty-three percent of homeless children are exposed to extreme violence by the age of 12.28 They experience higher rates of sickness, including respiratory infections, ear infections, gastrointestinal problems, and asthma.29 Furthermore, homeless children often go hungry, leading to increased rates of being overweight or obese in the future. Mental health problems are also frequent, with studies showing that these children have three times more emotional and behavioral issues than non-homeless youth.30 Finally, homeless children often experience developmental delays, which contribute to learning disabilities and decreased academic success, and in turn make it more likely that they will drop out of school.31 Compounding all of these issues is the fact that services for this population are rare and difficult to obtain without the consent of an adult.
Community Response
Poverty is a wide-ranging problem that touches on many areas of a childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life, including safety, nutrition, education, and health. Many programs that address poverty tackle one of these areas, rather than taking a holistic approach. The federal government plays a primary role in providing for children living in poverty though programs including the Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
2.9% Percentage of Children in Harris County Living in Poverty who Receive TANF.
22
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
In Region 6 which includes Harris County, 88% of those who applied for TANF assistance were denied in 2010 and 2011.
Unfortunately, the most vulnerable population of poor children is the least well-served. In the Greater Houston area, there are very few emergency shelters that cater to homeless youth, and options are limited for transitional housing or long-term services for unaccompanied minors.32 State regulations changed in 2009 making it more difficult for providers to serve unaccompanied minors. Without an adult to consent to their participation in services, homeless children have great difficulty accessing this much-needed assistance. As a result, homeless adults are often better served than homeless children. Medicaid and CHIP provide children with medical coverage in Texas. CHIP’s aim is to give medical coverage for families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to cover on their own. This allows each child to have some sort of health insurance and thus adequate health care, ensuring no child is denied help when sick. SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, combats some of the effects of poverty by giving people in need access to an array of food that is meant to fill the gap between what the family can currently afford and the amount of groceries needed to satisfy nutritional needs. By definition, SNAP is not meant to provide a family with all of their necessary food; rather, it acts as a supplement. SNAP individualizes each family’s need based on size and income. Participating families receive a debit card that allows them to buy food at any grocery store accepting SNAP benefits; use of a debit card (rather than food stamps) reduces the stigma associated with receiving food assistance. In Texas in 2010, an estimated 5,825,794 people were eligible for SNAP.33 However, on average only 64% of those eligible actually participated each month, leaving 3,723,069 without benefits.34 In Harris County in the same year, even fewer of those eligible for SNAP participated. In 2010, 1,025,839 Harris County residents were eligible, but fewer than half (507,727 people) made use of SNAP.35 The majority of those benefitting from SNAP are children, as they represent 49% of SNAP users. In 2011, the average monthly benefit paid to recipients in Texas was $310.50.36 WIC acts similarly to SNAP by providing nutritional food and other assistance such as counseling and nutrition programs. This program specifically helps pregnant women, nursing women, postpartum mothers,
312,060 The number of Harris County children from 0-17 living below the federal guidelines for sufficient income in 2010 Source: American Community Survey, US Census Bureau
infants, and young children. WIC provides women with checks, vouchers, or transfer cards to purchase items that are designed to fit the specific needs of each mother and child.37 Children’s early years are a crucial period of time, and WIC ensures that each mother and child is well-equipped to handle it. One of WIC’s major focus points is to provide immediate health benefits while also conveying healthy habits for the future. In Texas 43.6% of infants and children under four years of age, or 841,583 children received WIC assistance.38 TANF is a federal program that provides temporary cash assistance to families who are struggling to support themselves. In the U.S., families are only allowed to receive TANF benefits for a total of 60 months, after which they are no longer eligible. Furthermore, to be eligible for TANF benefits, families must meet financial and non-financial requirements, such as immunizations and school attendance for children. TANF also focuses on encouraging welfare agencies to cooperate and remain in contact with one another.39 The program is funded federally; the federal government allocates a block grant to each state, giving each state the right to determine how and to whom they distribute the funds.40 A family of four in Texas with two caregivers receives $324 per month, while a family of four with one caregiver receives $316. States vary greatly in determining the necessary qualifications for grant recipients. In Texas, family income, rent, utilities, childcare, work expenses, money in the bank, and vehicle are used to create an accurate representation of a family’s true need.41 Texas also determines how long a family may receive TANF benefits, taking into account level of educational attainment, work experience, and overall economic well-being. All these determinants combine to determine the provision of assistance between 12 and 36 months, the limit in Texas.42 Despite the high need represented by the poverty rates in both Harris County and Texas, the number of families receiving TANF benefits has declined over time.43 Due to harsh eligibility requirements targeting only the poorest families, a complicated application process and very high denial rate, a large percentage of poor children do not receive benefits. In Region 6, which includes Harris County, 88% of those who applied for TANF assistance were denied in 2010 and 2011. In 2011, 98,247 children received benefits, down from 101,772 in 2010.44
The number of Harris County children from 0-17 living below the federal guidelines for sufficient income 1989 1993 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
169,403 275,461 260,435 194,588 190,778 192,163 191,074 204,586
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
208,200 229,807 224,526 272,598 259,986 259,582 263,413 312,060 23
SSI is a federal program that provides cash assistance for low-income, blind, and disabled persons to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.45 As with TANF, SSI considers income, living arrangements, and family status when determining who is eligible for the program. Children who receive SSI benefits are also eligible for other programs including SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid. In Texas in 2010, 129,744 children received SSI benefits, with families receiving an average monthly payment of $584.17. Of these children, 22,007 live in Harris County.46
Additional Resources:
• U.S. Department of Food and Nutrition Services: www.fns.usda.gov/fns/ • The Social Security Administration: www.ssi.gov • Texas Department of State Health Services: www.dshs.state.tx.us • Texas Health and Human Services Commission: www.hhsc.state.tx.us • National Center for Children in Poverty: www.nccp.org • National Center on Family Homelessness: www.familyhomelessness.org
CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY: The percentage of Harris County children ages 0-17 living below the federal guidelines for sufficient income Year
1989
1993
1995
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2010
Indicator
21.4%
30.8%
28.4%
20.9%
20.2%
19.6%
19.1%
20.0%
20.0%
21.8%
22.9%
26.0%
23.5%
23.3%
23.0%
27.5%
Source: American Community Survey, US Census Bureau
AVERAGE TANF AMOUNT: The average amount of cash grant per child per month given under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in Harris County Year
1990
Indicator
1992
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
$57.00 $57.00 $58.12 $58.42 $54.87 $54.87 $53.43 $54.39 $67.00 $69.33 $71.00 $62.69 $61.87 $62.00 $60.00 $68.00 $70.00 $72.00 $71.00
Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Note: Average TANF grant is for a family of three (single parent and two children).
NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING TANF: The number of children receiving cash benefits under TANF in Harris County Year
1990
Indicator
1992
1994
80,512 100,834
150,035
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
85,558 47,047 32,639 30,830 54,936 62,707 32,837 27,259 18,706 15,140 12,131
2009
2010
2011
7,795
8,969
8,981
Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission
NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING SSI: The number of Harris County children receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits
HOUSING: The number of subsidized housing units and certificates for low and moderate-income families with children in Harris County
Year
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
8,834
10,320
13,335
17,781
19,961
20,989
22,007
23,453
Source: Social Security Administration
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
2,103
3,525
7,947
8,226
Source: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
TRANSITIONAL BEDS: The number of transitional beds available for homeless youth in Harris County Year
1995
1996
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Indicator
59
45
70
113
41
58
58
86
86
80
80
60
*NA
Source: Covenant House Texas and AAMA House
* These services are no longer available to children (ages 17 and younger).
CHILDREN IN EMERGENCY SHELTERS: The number of unaccompanied homeless children and youth in children-only emergency shelter facilities in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Indicator
NA
139
97
73
65
84
47
473
623
724
987
787
748
603
*NA
Source: Covenant House Texas
24
*These services are no longer available to children (ages 17 and younger).
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
HUNGER
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
25
HUNGER Case Study
Lacey has been food insecure since she can remember. Growing up in an atmosphere of hunger, poverty, and parental neglect, she resorted to drugs to cope with her anxiety, depression, and sleep disorder. Eventually, Lacey began selling her body in order to feed herself and her younger siblings. While she was involved in this lifestyle, she gave birth to two children, who were later adopted by other families. Lacey now has three children and lives with her partner, who is an undocumented immigrant who struggles to earn a living wage. As an adult, Lacey and her family still struggle with food insecurity. Stress from constant hunger leads to frequent physical fights between Lacey and her partner. Caught in a vicious cycle of poverty and hunger, Lacey wonders how her life might have been different had she not gone hungry as a child.1
Issue at a Glance
• In Harris County, 25.5% of children live in food insecure households. • Minorities are more at risk for food insecurity; studies show that 5% of White children in the U.S. are food insecure, compared to 12% of Black and 15% of Latino children. • Food insecurity is linked to poor performance in school, reduced attention in class, behavioral issues, increased school absences, a higher risk of obesity, and more suicidal or depressive tendencies among children. • While federal programs such as SNAP provide supplementary food assistance for families in need, often those eligible go without; in Harris County in 2010, fewer than half of those eligible, or 518,112, did not receive assistance. • Public schools provide healthy hot meals daily to students who might otherwise go hungry; however, much is needed to increase participation. On an average day in the 2010-11 school year, 372,425 eligible Harris County students did not receive a free or reduced-price breakfast.
Low participation plagues many of the programs that aim to combat hunger among children. 26
Statement of Need
When Houstonians think of hunger, we often think of stomach pangs. However, hunger can manifest itself in issues ranging from poor performance in school to a higher risk of obesity. Furthermore, hunger is not solely a foreign issue; many children are hungry and food insecure right here in Harris County. Food insecurity refers to the “limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.”2 In the U.S., 21.6% of all children are food insecure.3 In Texas, the proportion of food insecure children is significantly higher, at 27.1%. This means that 1,845,670 children in Texas currently experience food insecurity.4 In Harris County, 25.5% of children were food insecure in 2010, amounting to 280,630 hungry children.5 Compared to similar counties in the nation, Harris County’s food insecurity rates remain on the upper end, surpassed only by New York’s Bronx County and Los Angeles County at 29.1% and 26.6% respectively.6 Though the U.S. is considered a superpower in many respects, when compared to other industrialized nations our overall food insecurity rate of 16.1% is very high.7 Australia, for example, estimates their food insecurity at 5%,8 with Canada following close behind at 7.7%.9 Though hunger can be found among children of all types, minorities are more at risk for food insecurity. Studies show that only 5% of White children in the U.S. are food insecure, as compared to 12% of Black children and 15% of Latino children.10 Of children receiving food stamps in Harris County in 2011, 56.62% were Latino and 28.63% were Black.11 Additionally, 43% of these children in Harris County were under the age of five, possibly suggesting a correlation between age and food insecurity.12 Furthermore, children in single-parent families are three times more likely to encounter food insecurity than their peers in two-parent homes.13 Food insecurity and hunger primarily result from poverty,14 though many families experience food insecurity despite having a reliable
372,425 On an average day in the 2010-2011 school year, 372,425 students in Harris County were eligible for a free or reduced price breakfast, but did not receive one. CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
income.15 Though parents are working, their income may be low enough that they must make the tough decision between paying for food and paying for rent each month. In this situation, the family has income, but not enough to manage their lives efficiently. The average child experiencing food insecurity lives in a neighborhood where: 16 • The residents are approximately 25% Latino and 16% Black; • Over 25% of households are headed by a female; • There are high levels of unemployment; and • Nearly 30% of adults lack a high school degree. The danger in food insecurity lies not only in the immediate hunger and pain its victims suffer, but in its long-term effects, as well. Food insecurity has been linked to poor performance in school, reduced attention in class, behavioral issues, increased school absences, higher rates of special education or mental health counseling, and more suicidal or depressive tendencies among children.17 Studies show that food insecure teens are five times more likely to attempt suicide than food secure teens. Moreover, chronic hunger can lead to many health issues later in life and is associated with increased rates of hospitalization in infancy.18
Community Response
Addressing hunger is no small task, and there is no simple solution. To decrease hunger, we must work at the individual/family, school, and community levels. There are multiple programs that focus on alleviating hunger at the individual and family level. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, allows people access to supplemental food that fills the gap each month between the family’s existing groceries and the family’s necessary nutritional needs. Participants receive a debit card, which they can use to buy food at any grocery store accepting SNAP benefits. Use of an inconspicuous debit card reduces the stigma associated with food stamps. Contrary to popular belief, SNAP is not meant to provide a person with a month’s worth of food. Rather, SNAP individualizes each family’s need based on family size and income, and ensures proper
nutrition by supplementing existing food with additional food. In Texas in 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service estimated that 5,825,794 people were eligible for SNAP according to their income.19 However, only 64% of those eligible actually participated in an average month, leaving 3,723,069 without benefits.20 That same year in Harris County, even fewer of those eligible for SNAP participated. In Harris County, 1,025,839 residents were eligible in 2010, but fewer than half made use of SNAP.21 Similar to SNAP, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program provides nutritional food and assistance to pregnant women, nursing women, postpartum mothers, infants, and young children. The program uses checks, vouchers, or transfer cards to allow participants to purchase items that are unique to each mother and child’s specific needs. WIC helps ensure the health of infants and mothers through the developmentally important period surrounding childbirth. WIC focuses not only on immediate health benefits but also on relating healthy habits for the future, by providing mother’s nutrition education and counseling.22 The school-level response to hunger focuses on providing students with meals in an educational setting. Public schools provide healthy hot meals daily to students who might otherwise go hungry. The National School Lunch Program and the National School Breakfast Program provide participating students with a nutritious breakfast and lunch every school day. Both of the programs are made possible through federal funding, which provides reimbursements for each free or reduced-price meal. In Harris County, 57.6%, or 455,751 children are eligible for free or reducedprice breakfast.23 Universal free school breakfast is an option available to schools to increase student participation in the school breakfast program. Participation in school meal programs can be low due to the stigma associated with receiving free meals, early morning bus schedules, or the location of meal distribution.24 Each school is encouraged to form their own method of offering universal free school breakfast to ensure maximum efficiency. A popular method is “Breakfast in the Classroom,” where breakfast is integrated into the school schedule. Usually most efficient in an elementary school setting, eating breakfast takes approximately 15-20
Increasing participation in nutrition programs, specifically universal free school breakfast, is essential in eradicating childhood hunger. CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
27
minutes – time a teacher can use to take attendance or ask questions. The children are in charge of their own waste, and in certain schools, the children are assigned to the distribution of the breakfasts as well. This method works well to bestow a sense of responsibility among the children, while also reducing work for staff. In middle and high school, a “grab n’ go” method for breakfast service works better. Carts can be stationed in a convenient location, where students grab a tray and eat either on the way to class or in class. A “midmorning nutrition break” works similarly and occurs later in the day, giving children who were not hungry in the morning another chance to enjoy a healthy breakfast.25 Eating breakfast benefits children in the short-run and the long-run. Importantly, eating breakfast has been shown to improve standardized test scores in reading and math.26 Speed and memory in cognitive tests also improve with a healthy breakfast. 27 Furthermore, studies show that in addition to academic improvement, breakfast can increase attentiveness and good behavior in class, increasing efficiency in class and decreasing tardies and suspensions.28 Perhaps most importantly, eating breakfast promotes healthy habits that help lower chances for serious health afflictions, including nutritional deficiencies and obesity, later in life.29 Obesity carries severe consequences, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. Hunger only increases these risks. A common myth about universal free school breakfast is that it is expensive for districts to implement. Usually for a project of this magnitude, funding would be a key issue, but schools do not have to provide their own funding for universal free school breakfast. For each free or reduced-price meal served to a student, the school receives a reimbursement from the federal government. This program makes the universal free school breakfast program cost-neutral for schools where over 75% of children are in poverty. If run effectively, this program can even be cost-beneficial for participating schools.30 Many districts employ the option of Provision 2, a law located in 11(a)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 USC 1759a). Provision 2 reduces administrative costs and paperwork for districts if they agree to provide universal free school breakfasts to all schools.31 This is a cost-effective and low-hassle way to provide universal free meals.
Another tool for combating childhood hunger is the implementation of summer nutrition programs, including the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Summer months prove hard for families who now must provide three meals a day for their children, as opposed to the single meal needed during the school year. Parents are more apt to provide less nutritional food during the summer months, as they seek food laden with calories and low in price. Through either of these summer nutrition programs, schools can designate sites to offer free meals to either all students or just students enrolled in the program. In some areas, mobile sites bring food to certain locations throughout the city; another approach sets up stationary sites at schools and community centers.32 In 2012, only 13.5% of eligible children in Harris County participated in the Summer Food Service Program, meaning 434,856 children were not receiving the benefits available to them.33 In 2012, 20.6 million low-income children in the U.S. participated in the National School Lunch Program, yet only 2.3 million of these children – who are also eligible for the Summer Food Service Program – participated in the summer program.34 Hunger does not take a vacation, and these summer months often serve as a time of hunger and calorie-laden meals. For this reason, participation in the Summer Food Service Program is integral in increasing food security and in diminishing hunger. On the community level, we can collaborate to provide healthy options to all families so they can more readily access healthy food on their own. One major issue regarding nutrition and hunger is the presence of food deserts in many parts of Houston. A food desert is an area where there is little access to healthy foods. Few grocers choose to open markets in these regions as they are less profitable. This lack of easily obtainable food, however, directly contributes to hunger. Food deserts also contribute to obesity, as the little food available is usually food from a convenience store with low nutritional value. Communities can work together with local and state governments to craft incentives for retailers to expand their offerings in these areas in order to provide healthier foods. As pervasive and widespread as hunger is, the community response will need to be similarly pervasive. The expansion of urban agriculture and the use of farmers markets are also effective ways to bring healthy foods to neighborhoods that might otherwise go without.
27.1% In Texas, 27.1%, or 1,845,670 children, are currently living in a state of food insecurity.
28
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
A Path Forward
The research is clear: school breakfast programs reduce hunger among lowincome children, increase academic achievement, lead to improved health and nutrition, and help build lifelong healthy eating habits. Furthermore, while the struggle to obtain a nutritious breakfast particularly affects low-income households, numerous families – regardless of income – find that early morning school bus schedules, long commutes to jobs, and nontraditional work hours make it difficult to find time to prepare and eat a nutritious breakfast at home. Therefore, CHILDREN AT RISK proposes that the Texas Legislature require schools with student populations of 80% or more living at or below 185% of the federal poverty level to provide free school breakfast to all interested students. In Texas, roughly 2.7 million
public school students live at or below 185% of the federal poverty level and qualify for federally-funded free or reduced-price school meals. The importance of a school breakfast program cannot be understated.
Additional Resources
• Food Research and Action Center (FRAC): www.frac.org • Feeding America : www.feedingamerica.org • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Desert Locator: www.ers.usda. gov/data-products/food-desert-locator.aspx
FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION: The average monthly number of Harris County children receiving food through the Federal Food Stamp Program Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
142,216
203,598
245,299
183,967
97,506
78,835
81,028
181,107
210,565
261,297
290,223
320,842
292,181
295,301
412,691
409,148
458,488
Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission
SCHOOL BREAKFAST PARTICIPATION: The average daily number of Harris County children receiving a free or reduced-priced breakfast at school Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
59,156
73,033
85,476
109,004
110,526
111,053
116,770
120,153
123,796
141,570
134,252
152,702
153,849
162,839
173,544
170,048
197,552
248,036
Source: Texas Department of Agriculture
SCHOOL LUNCH PARTICIPATION: The average daily number of children in Harris County receiving a free or reduced-price lunch at school Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
139,029
166,087
186,278
218,445
227,925
237,750
251,606
247,050
258,213
280,801
296,677
311,588
334,137
339,009
350,773
340,909
374,656
400,144
2010
2011
Source: Texas Department of Agriculture
SUMMER FOOD PARTICIPATION: The average daily number of children in Harris County receiving a meal through the Summer Food Program Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Indicator 27,330 36,666 42,727 55,461 59,429 81,296 43,811 54,076 56,507 67,388 61,326 60,262 64,086 71,017 67,855 61,750 64,534 53,622 Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission
SUMMER FOOD SITES: The number of sites in Harris County where sponsoring organizations are serving food under the Summer Food Program Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
137
243
487
437
270
492
607
565
638
595
693
688
671
578
385
430
455
460
Source: Summer Food Service Program, Houston Parks and Recreation Department
WIC PARTICIPATION: The percentage of eligible infants, children, and women who are served in the local WIC programs in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
22%
32%
64%
58%
62%
65%
70%
72%
77%
80%
81%
84%
77%
80%
86%
87%*
83%*
Source: Texas Department of State Health Services, Research & Public Health Assessment *These numbers represent the percentage of eligible infants, children, and women being served at a point in time measured in January of each year, and are based on estimated eligible recipients at that time according to how the data is tracked by the Texas Department of State Health Services.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
29
U.S. Counties with the Highest Food Insecurity Rates, 2010
Top 15 States with the Highest Child Food Insecurity Rates, 2010
State
City
County
County Food Insecurity Rate
Texas
Houston
Harris
25.5%
27.1%
Illinois
Chicago
Cook
21%
22.2%
New York
New York (Brooklyn)
Kings
22.7%
21.3%
New York (Bronx)
Bronx
29.1%
21.3%
New York (Manhattan)
New York
21.3%
21.3%
New York (Queens)
Queens
18.8%
21.3%
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
26.6%
26.8%
California
State Food Insecurity Rate
Source: Feeding America
Counties with the Highest Number of Food Insecure Individuals, 2010
Rank
Child Food Insecurity Rates
U.S.
21.6%
1
DC
30.7%
2
OR
29.0%
3
AZ
29.0%
4
NM
28.7%
5
FL
28.4%
6
MS
28.3%
7
GA
28.3%
8
NV
28.2%
9
AR
27.8%
10
NC
27.6%
11
TX
27.1%
12
SC
27.1%
CA
26.8%
State
County (Metro Area)
Food Insecure Population
Food Insecurity Rate
CA
Los Angeles
1.6 million
16.8%
13
NY
New York (5 boroughs, collectively)
1.2 million
15.7%
14
AL
26.7%
IL
Cook (Chicago)
808,000
15.6%
15
OK
26.6%
TX
Harris (Houston)
739,000
18.7%
AZ
Maricopa (Phoenix)
605,000
16.1%
TX
Dallas
455,000
19.6%
CA
San Diego
448,000
14.8%
MI
Wayne (Detroit)
425,000
22.7%
FL
Miami-Dade
413,000
16.9%
Source: Feeding America
Source: Feeding America
30
State
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
L AT I N O CHILDREN
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
31
LATINO CHILDREN Case Study
Loren is the child of an illegal immigrant. Brought to America from Mexico by his mother when he was just 11 years old, Loren also lacks legal status in America. After settling with his mother and sister in Houston, Loren excelled at an engineering magnet program in high school. He graduated with honors and was named a National Hispanic Scholar and a finalist for the National Merit Scholarship program. Because of Texas’ law allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public universities, Loren was able to enroll at the University of Texas, an educational opportunity he would not have been able to afford otherwise. He graduated in May 2012 with a degree in civil engineering and would seem to be the epitome of the immigrant success story. However, due to his uncertain legal status, Loren has been unable to find employment in his field of expertise. Instead, he works in retail while his immigration case works its way through the courts.1
Issue at a Glance
• In Harris County, 52% of children are Latino, an increase from 46% in 2005. • In the State of Texas, 36% of Latino children live below the poverty line. • Latino children are least likely to attend preschool programs, and many begin kindergarten speaking little to no English. • Latino students are less likely than any other ethnic or racial group to attend four-year institutions. • Latino youth make up an increasing majority of the young people committed to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, jumping from 44% in 2008 to 48% in 2011.
Statement of Need
In 2010, Latinos made up 38% of the Texas population and represent 8.6
million households.2 In Harris County, 52% of children are Latino, an increase from 46% in 2005.3 Of those in Texas who identify as Latino, a vast majority (88%) were of Mexican origin. Latino children make up 67% of all of the children in Texas living in poverty.4 In the State of Texas, 35% of Latino children live in poverty, compared to 11% of White children.5 Sixty-one percent of Latino children younger than 18 in the U.S. come from families whose incomes are below 200% of the federal poverty line.6 According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the mean annual personal earning of a Latino individual is $20,000, which is $15,000 lower than the mean annual personal earning of a non-Latino White individual.7 Moreover, nearly 30% of all low-income children in the U.S. are the children of immigrants.8 The fact that so many Latino children are living in poverty carries dire consequences for their well-being and health. The U.S. Census Bureau finds that children living in poverty are more likely to experience cognitive and behavioral problems, complete fewer years of education, and experience unemployment as adults.9 By 2020, one in four children enrolled in American public schools (K-12) will be Latino.10 However, compared to other races, Latino children are least likely to attend preschool programs, and many begin kindergarten speaking little to no English.11 Compared to their White peers, Latinos beginning kindergarten lag in a number of measures of language proficiency, including recognition of letters and understanding word sounds.12 As their educational careers move forward, many Latino students continue to struggle. For the class of Harris County students that entered 9th grade in 2004-05 and should have graduated in 2009, 59% of Latino students graduated compared to 85% of Asian students, 80% of White students, and 62% of Black students.13 In addition, a majority of Latino students lack the academic preparation, money, and college readiness to successfully transition from high school to college. Latino students are less
Live Births in Harris
By 2020, one County by Race/Ethnicity in four children Race/Ethnicity 2010 enrolled in Black 12,445 American public White 16,002 Latino 35,260 schools (K-12) Other 4,459 will be Latino. Total
32
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
68,166
likely than any other ethnic or racial group to attend four-year institutions. Only 48% of Latinos enroll as full-time students at a four-year college or university, and Latino children who do enroll in four-year schools tend to attend schools that are less selective.14 In 2010, 14% of Latinos that resided in the U.S. had received a bachelor’s degree, compared with 53% of Asians, 39% of Whites, and 19% of Blacks.15 The Texas juvenile justice system is also home to a burgeoning population of Latinos. Over the years, Latino youth have made up an increasing majority of the young people committed to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, up to 48% in 2011.16 In addition, Latino youth represent the plurality of juvenile offenders certified to stand trial as adults, at 42% of all adult certifications.17 Latino youth also make up a large percentage of young people enrolled in disciplinary alternative education programs (DAEP), where one in two students is Latino.18 Compared to their proportion of the overall population, high schoolaged Latino males are notably overrepresented within the Texas DAEP population.19 Within Texas, 37% of Latinos lack health insurance.20 Twenty percent of Latinos aged 17 and younger were not covered by health insurance as of 2010. This number jumps to 62% for foreign-born Latinos, compared to 26% for native-born Latinos.21 Of Latino children living in Texas, 37% had a medical home (defined as a location where a child sees the same physician continuously and is able to receive preventive, primary, and specialized care);22 71% of White children could identify a medical home.23 Ultimately, some health outcomes for Latino children are trending in a positive direction. Latino children are less likely than non-Latino children to have any type of allergy, including hay fever, respiratory allergies, food allergies, and skin allergies. Within the U.S. population, only 13% of Latino children have asthma, compared to 21% of Black children, and 12% of White children. Additionally, Latino children were less likely to have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (4%) than White (10%) or Black (11%) children.24
Community Response
Understanding the educational challenges that many Latino children in Houston face, a number of organizations in Harris County are striving to
6-Year Graduation Rates, Harris Country White: 6-Year Graduation Rates Latino: 6-Year Graduation Rates Black: 6-Year Graduation Rates Asian: 6-Year Graduation Rates
70.4% 47.9% 53.9% 76.6% 1995-1996
77.4% 59.6% 65.4% 81.4% 2000-2001
71.3% 50.3% 55.2% 77.4% 1996-1997
78.5% 59.5% 64.5% 82.4% 2001-2002
72.1% 52.9% 58.9% 80.3% 1997-1998
78.4% 57.3% 64.3% 82.6% 2002-2003
73.7% 54.5% 59.8% 78.1% 1998-1999
79.6% 55.3% 59.4% 84.4% 2003-2004
improve academic outcomes for Latino students. Families Empowered is a Houston-based organization that counsels many Latino families on the educational choices available to their children. Genesys Works trains rising high school seniors and provides them with corporate internships, giving them the knowledge and professional skills they need to provide value to corporations as employees. Project GRAD partners with local school districts to produce a rigorous college-oriented culture from Pre-K through grade 12, ensuring that its participants attend a post-secondary institution. Project GRAD also guarantees a college scholarship of $4,000-$6,000 ($1,000-$1,500 annually) to all its participants that meet Project GRAD’s academic standards and graduate in four years. High-performing charter school networks, including KIPP and YES Prep, serve large numbers of Latino students, encouraging them to not only graduate high school, but to go on and earn a college diploma. Collaborative for Children works with elementary school children in the largely-Latino Sunnyside/South Park area to increase high school and college readiness. AVANCE targets underserved and marginalized communities – primarily Latino parents and children – in order to promote school readiness, literacy, good parenting, health, and personal development. AVANCE offers education-oriented workshops that encourage a college-bound culture. For example, GED on the Move prepares students to complete their GED certificate and helps them transition into the job market by offering job skills and certificate training. AVANCE is committed to bettering the education of all children, including the younger generations. Through Early Head Start and Head Start, AVANCE aims to enhance the development of young children, help their emotional, mental, social, and physical development, and prepare them to enter kindergarten. Local school districts have also taken action to address the influx of Latino students on their campuses. Bilingual and English as a Second Language (ESL) classes are geared toward students who are learning English. Other programs focus on students who are the children of migrants and offer help with social isolation and adjustment to a new culture, as well as language skills. At the state level, Texas has been a pioneer in encouraging Latino youth to pursue higher education. The Texas DREAM Act (HB 1403) was adopted in 2001, making Texas the first state to allow undocumented
76.4% 57.6% 65.1% 82.3% 1999-2000
79.9% 59.3% 61.5% 84.9% 2004-2005
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
33
students to pay in-state tuition. In order to take advantage of this program, students must sign an affidavit affirming that they are seeking legal status. They must also have resided in the state for a minimum of three years and have either graduated from high school or completed a GED program. When it comes to health, promotores have been a resource for improving Latino health. Promotores are community health workers who provide health advice and advocacy for Latino communities. Most promotores are Latinos themselves, and are therefore able to approach issues of health with cultural sensitivity and without language barriers. Promotores are able to help Latino children and families gain access to health care and promote healthy lifestyles in their communities.25
A Path Forward
Latino children are a growing segment of the child population, and Latinos now make up more than half of all children growing up in Harris County.
However, over a third of these children are living in poverty. In order to ensure that this burgeoning group of children grows up into healthy, productive adults, they must be provided with quality education that begins with early education, preventive health care, and access to affordable higher education opportunities.
Additional Resources • • • • • • •
Families Empowered: www.familiesempowered.org Genesys Works: www.genesysworks.org AVANCE Houston: www.avancehouston.org Project Grad: www.projectgradhouston.org KIPP: www.kipp.org Yes Prep: www.yesprep.org Collaborative for Children: www.collabforchildren.org
DEMOGRAPHICS: Percentage of children in Harris County who are of Hispanic or Latino origin Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
45.9%
46.9%
47.7%
47.6%
49.7%
51.5%
Source: American Community Survey, US Census Bureau
POVERTY: Percentage of Hispanic and Latino families in Harris County living in poverty Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
24.3%
19.7%
19.4%
19.3%
22.8%
24.4%
Source: American Community Survey, US Census Bureau
GRADUATION RATES: Percentage of Hispanic and Latino high school freshmen (who began high school in the year below) in Harris County who graduated from high school within six years Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Indicator
47.9%
50.3%
52.9%
54.5%
57.6%
59.6%
59.1%
57.3%
55.3%
59.3%
Source: Texas Education Agency
First-Time Freshmen Cohort Year
34
White: 6-Year Graduation Rates
Latino: 6-Year Graduation Rates
Black: 6-Year Graduation Rates
Asian: 6-Year Graduation Rates
1995-1996
70.4%
47.9%
53.9%
76.6%
1996-1997
71.3%
50.3%
55.2%
77.4%
1997-1998
72.1%
52.9%
58.9%
80.3%
1998-1999
73.7%
54.5%
59.8%
78.1%
1999-2000
76.4%
57.6%
65.1%
82.3%
2000-2001
77.4%
59.6%
65.4%
81.4%
2001-2002
78.5%
59.1%
64.5%
82.4%
2002-2003
78.4%
57.3%
64.3%
82.6%
2003-2004
79.6%
55.3%
59.4%
84.4%
2004-2005
79.9%
59.3%
61.5%
84.9%
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
H E A LT H C A R E
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
35
HEALTH CARE Case Study
Nine-year-old Kyle Harvey of Missouri City is a prime example of how having primary care health services can dramatically improve a child’s quality of life. Kyle suffers from chronic asthma, migraines, and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) that require ongoing medical treatment. However, his family cannot afford private health insurance, and the medications he needs to manage his health conditions cost $770 per month. Before he had health coverage, Kyle did not have a pediatrician and often had to visit the emergency room for asthma attacks and migraines. He also could not treat his ADHD, and consequently faced many challenges in school. Once enrolled in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), he was able to see a pediatrician regularly and afford the medication he needed to be healthy. As a result, his grades improved and he was even able to even attend summer camp.1
Issue at a Glance
• In 2009, 19.5% of Harris County children were uninsured. • Without proper insurance coverage, children do not receive medical care to keep them healthy, and in turn this affects both quality of life and school performance. • In Texas, low-income children can receive low-cost or free health services from government programs like Children’s Medicaid or community programs like school-based clinics. • The gap between being eligible for government-provided insurance and being able to afford private insurance must be addressed.
Statement of Need
Medical care is expensive, and those without health insurance face astronomical costs for medical procedures like surgery, chemotherapy, and
extended hospital stays. In fact, average hospital costs can be more than $18,000 per discharge.2 In addition, many people without health insurance rarely see a primary care physician and instead rely on emergency room visits as their primary source of health care. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 mandates that Medicare-accepting hospitals provide emergency services to individuals regardless of their financial situation.3 While this act allows those without insurance to receive emergency medical care, hospitals are not reimbursed for those expenses, putting a large financial strain on the health care system. Though the U.S. spends considerably more on health care than other industrialized nations, the quality of care is below that of many peer nations.4 There is a great need in Harris County for better access to quality health care. Without proper health education or preventive care, children are more likely to get sick because they are not receiving the care they need. Compared to their insured peers, children without health insurance are over five times more likely to have an unmet medical need, over three times less likely to receive a needed prescription drug, and 30% less likely to receive medical care if they are injured.5 Unfortunately, quality health care is simply unaffordable for many Harris County residents. In 2009, Texas was 49th in the nation for uninsured children with 16% of children not receiving any type of health coverage.6 That same year, 19.5% of Harris County children were uninsured.7 While a large number of adults also remain uninsured, reliable health care is critical for children, who are more susceptible to disease for a number of reasons. Furthermore, a disease that may be considered minor for an adult can quickly become life threatening for a child. Without proper insurance coverage, children might not be able to receive the necessary care to treat illnesses and manage chronic health conditions. Moreover, untreated health conditions can significantly affect a child’s performance in school.
Low Birth Weight Babies by Race/Ethnicity in Harris County
Total* = 8.8% Black = 14.3%
White = 8.4%
Latino = 7.1% *For this chart only: Total percentages for county include other ethnic groups Source: Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit
36
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Due to children’s heightened susceptibility to disease, vaccinations are an integral part of child health care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that children be vaccinated against sixteen different preventable diseases, including measles and pertussis (whooping cough).8 Despite the fact that they can be easily prevented with proper immunizations, in 2011 Harris County confirmed three cases of measles in children and 35 cases of pertussis in children.9 Texas law does require that children be vaccinated in order to attend school, but exemptions are available for those with conflicting religious beliefs or other extenuating circumstances.10 There is no apparent trend in the rate of immunization in Harris County, which fluctuates up and down every year. Over the past decade the percentage of Houston children between 19 and 35 months who have completed the recommended vaccination series has hovered around 70%, ranging from 64.2% to 76.6%.11 While not all children are completing the recommended series of vaccinations, the percentage of Harris County children age 0-35 months with at least one immunization entered into the Texas ImmunTrac Immunization Registry is at an all-time high of 96.4%.12 It is important that children be immunized not only for their own protection, but also to protect those who are unable to be immunized. The more the population is immunized, the more difficult it becomes for an outbreak to occur and spread. Although some are wary of vaccines, according to the CDC the current vaccine supply in the U.S. is the safest and most effective in history.13 Vaccines must undergo extensive testing before becoming available to the general public. While there are undoubtedly cases of negative side effects and allergic reactions to vaccines, most side effects are mild and may include symptoms such as soreness at the injection site and a low-grade fever.14 Preventable diseases are just that – preventable. But they are only preventable if children are vaccinated when necessary. Some infectious diseases that affect children are not preventable through immunization. In 2011, the rate of youths affected by tuberculosis in Harris County was 6.6 cases per 100,000.15 In 2011, eleven AIDS cases were diagnosed in children ages 0-19 in Harris County, which is down from 48 in 2008 and the lowest number since 2006.16 Mother-child (perinatal) transmission of HIV is the most common way young children contract the
disease.17 This type of transmission can be prevented, but mothers must have the right medications and knowledge of infection. The start of a child’s healthy life begins with maternal and infant health. Access to quality prenatal care is essential to ensure a healthy baby. Babies born without prenatal care are three times more likely to have a low birth weight than children whose mothers receive prenatal care,18 are often born premature, and can face developmental difficulties later in life. In 2010, only slightly more than half of pregnant women in Harris County received early prenatal care, defined as starting medical care in the first trimester of pregnancy and continuing care until delivery.19 Additionally, 8.8% of babies born in Harris County in 2010 were classified as low birth weight, up from 7.4% in 2000.20 Pregnant women who are eligible for Medicaid can receive prenatal care throughout their pregnancy and perinatal care for approximately sixty days after delivery.21 Along with prenatal care, education about the dangers of alcohol and substance abuse during pregnancy can greatly increase positive health outcomes for children. Drinking and abusing other drugs during pregnancy causes children across Harris County to be born with a variety of preventable physical and mental disorders every year.
Community Response
Both government programs like the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and community programs like school-based clinics are working to deliver quality health care to Texas children. Unfortunately, barriers to access these programs exist, as not all who are eligible to enroll actually participate. Increased education and community awareness surrounding existing programs, as well as improved enrollment systems, are necessary to ensure that all children in Harris County receive the care for which they qualify. School-based clinics go beyond the role of a traditional nurse’s office to provide mental health, dental, and primary care services to students. Located in schools that have a large population of students with documented barriers to health care, these clinics provide free health care services to children who otherwise might not obtain it. Approximately 61% of children served at these clinics do not have any type of health care coverage, and the remaining 39% are children who would not obtain
6.3
Average Harris County Infant Mortality Rate per 1,000
Race/Ethnicity
2010
Black
11.4
White
5.5
Latino
5.1
Other
6.3
Average
6.3
Source: Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
37
health care due to transportation issues, parents who cannot afford to miss work for a doctor visit, high private insurance deductibles, or simply lack of parental involvement.22 School-based health centers are immediately accessible to children, do not require transportation, do not require parents to miss work, and do not present a financial obstacle to families, and as a result have contributed to reduced ER usage for primary care, reduced health risks, and improved school performance.23 In addition to primary health and dental care, the clinics that offer mental health services meet an especially serious need in the community. Mental health services for youth are so few and far between that the Texas Juvenile Justice Department is currently the leading provider of mental health services for children. Bridging the gap between the medical world and the education world, school-based health clinics provide important services to children in an affordable and convenient setting. Another community-level response to the lack of child health care access is the rise of the community health worker, lay individuals who provide health services to their communities. Such workers may also be called promotores among the Latino community. Community health workers provide a wide range of services to underserved and uninsured Texans and are integral in linking individuals to appropriate avenues for health services. In Texas, community health workers are able to provide culturally sensitive mediation between health services and communities. Community health workers provide health education, social support, aid in navigating the health care system, and connections to medical homes. As health educators, community health workers inform and educate their communities regarding preventive care and management of chronic health diseases, as well as advocating for their community needs. Community health workers are usually part of the communities they serve; therefore, their effectiveness is increased due to shared experiences, common backgrounds, and a grassroots understanding of the health challenges their communities face. Health care services at the state and federal level aimed at underserved children include the Texas Health Steps (THSteps) and Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) programs. Texas Health Steps makes the health care access process easier for families with children up to age 20 who have
Medicaid. Its goal is to expand awareness of existing medical, dental, and case management services and assure the availability of these services. To that point, Texas Health Steps will help parents of children with Medicaid find a doctor or dentist, setup an appointment with that doctor or dentist, and find a ride to that appointment. By being available to answer questions about Medicaid services and coordinate those services, Texas Health Steps helps make sure children in Texas receive medical care at an early age and on a regular basis. In 2010, 49% of Harris County residents eligible for medical screening through Texas Health Steps received it.24 Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) provides services to children under age four with disabilities or developmental delays. The program was established to fill the gap between birth and when a child starts public school, where many of ECI’s services are offered. Services offered through ECI range from assessment and case management to translation and physical therapy services, and services are either free or charged on a sliding scale. Early intervention reduces the need for treatment later in life and often leads to better academic and social outcomes for children receiving services. ECI ensures that all families with young children with developmental delays receive the resources and support they need. In 2010, 8,740 children were served by the Early Childhood Intervention program in Harris County.25 The most well-known government program aimed at providing health care for low-income children is Medicaid. In Texas, children without health insurance can receive low-cost or free health coverage from Children’s Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Families eligible for Children’s Medicaid pay nothing, and those with CHIP pay no more than $50 per year for coverage of services including office and hospital visits, prescriptions, and dental and vision care. In order to qualify for CHIP or Children’s Medicaid, yearly income for a family of four may not exceed $46,100.
A Path Forward
The need for affordable and quality health care is great, especially for minority and economically disadvantaged children. Enrollment barriers to programs like Medicaid and CHIP need to be removed in order to facilitate
352,899 Total Children in Harris County Who Received Any THSteps Medicaid Dental Services
Year
Total Children in Harris County Who Received Any THSteps Medicaid Dental Services
2001
106,967
2002
130,788
2003
186,113
2004
191,994
2005
152,470
2006
156,189
2007
242,917
2008
264,008
2009
296,731
2010
352,899
Source: City of Houston Health and Human Services Department
38
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
greater access for eligible children. Families with incomes just above cutoff limits for Medicaid and CHIP eligibility are stuck in a gray area where they do not qualify for government-provided insurance, but are unable to afford private insurance. A buy-in option for CHIP would allow families who fall into that gray area to access the coverage they need. In 2011, the 82nd Texas Legislature passed HB 2610, which expands training for community volunteers and health navigators. It also provides an opportunity to explore and maximize the ability of community health care workers to save money for Texas taxpayers. HB 2610 mandated the Health and Human Services Commission, along with the Department of State Health Services, to study the desirability and feasibility of employing community health workers and health navigators to provide publicly- and privately-funded health care services in Texas. Community health workers
have been able to significantly reduce health care costs by directing lowincome patients away from hospital emergency departments and other high-cost medical care. The State Legislature aims to find strategies for expanding community health programs and develop additional funding sources for them.
Additional Resources
• Children’s Medicaid: www.chipmedicaid.org • Texas Medicaid: http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/Medicaid/med_info.html • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: www.cdc.gov/vaccines • Affordable Care Act: www.health care.gov/law • Connecting Kids to Coverage: www.insurekidsnow.gov
MEDICAID: The average number of children under the age of 21 in Harris County who were certified for health care services through the Medicaid program Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Indicator
86,484
135,489
198,691
211,054
171,033
85,490
113,524
119,032
127,103
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
209,947
266,499
328,907
349,407
351,912
364,463
382,762
409,744
394,080
442,781
Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission
CHIP: The average number of Harris County children under the age of 18 who were certified for health care services through the Texas Children’s Health Insurance Program Year
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
NA
93,865
82,093
70,594
64,954
59,693
66,306
86,869
96,483
104,206
107,073
Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission
CHIP PERINATAL: The average number of children enrolled in CHIP Perinatal coverage in Harris County Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
5,915
15,222
16,689
15,055
9,289
ECI: The number of children served comprehensively through the Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) program in Harris County Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
5,263
5,946
6,395
6,581
NA
6,852
7,372
7,948
8,771
9,281
8,740
Source: Early Childhood Intervention, Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services
SCHOOL-BASED CLINICS: The number of school-based or school-linked programs that provide medical and mental health care to underserved children in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1999
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2009
2011
2012
Indicator
NA
NA
13
25
28
32
NA
33
NA
30
29
25
29
30
Source: Houston Independent School District; Texas Association of School-Based Health Centers
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
39
TEXAS HEALTH STEPS MEDICAL: The percentage of eligible children and adolescents in Harris County who are receiving medical screening through the Texas Health Steps Program, formerly Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
15%
22%
39%
36%
40%
41%
30%
44%
36%
47%
48%
46%
48%
42%
46%
49%
Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission
TEXAS HEALTH STEPS DENTAL: The percentage of eligible children and adolescents in Harris County who are receiving any dental service through the Texas Health Steps Program, formerly Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
21%
24%
37%
32%
37%
44%
38%
40%
40%
46%
46%
44%
46%
48%
55%
60%
Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission
DENTAL VISITS: The number of dental visits provided for children by the Houston Department of Health and Human Services Year
2004
2006
2008
2010
2011
Indicator
122,012
142,934
197,921
NA
NA
Source: Houston Department of Health and Human Services
IMMUNIZATIONS: The percentage of Houston children between 19 and 35 months who have completed the 4:3:1:0:3:1:4 vaccination series Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
65.4%
70.5%
64.2%
74.8%
69.2%
76.6%
69.9%
73.0%
72.0%
67.9%
73.2%
Source: National Immunization Survey Note: From 2000-2004, the series tracked was 4:3:1; from 2005-2008, the series tracked was 4:3:1:3:3:1
IMMUNIZATIONS: The percentage of Harris County children age 0-35 months with at least one immunization entered into the Texas ImmTrac Immunization Registry Year
2000
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
18.6%
18.1%
NA
55.3%
89.2%
93.0%
95.2%
95.3%
96.4%
Source: City of Houston Health and Human Services Department; ImmTrac Statewide Immunization Registry Note: Data beginning in 2007 reflects transition from the Houston-Harris County Immunization Registry to ImmTrac.
MEASLES: The number of confirmed measles cases in children ages 0 to 19 in Houston/Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
101
19
2
31
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
1*
0
3
Source: Texas Department of Health and Human Services *Note: Data for 2009 is provisional.
The Texas Juvenile Justice Department is the leading provider of mental health services for children. 40
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
PERTUSSIS: Number of confirmed cases of children under the age of seven with pertussis in Houston/Harris County Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
33
22
62
26
31
35
34
49
93
134*
39
35
Source: Texas Department of Health and Human Services Note: Data for 2009 is provisional
TUBERCULOSIS: The number of cases reported per 100,000 population of children and youth affected with tuberculosis (TB) up to age 24 in Houston Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2010
2011
Indicator
8.1
12.1
11.1
7.1
6.4
4.6
4.5
2.6
NA
2.4
5.2
5.5
5.7
8.4
6.6
Source: Texas Department of Health and Human Services
AIDS: The number of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) cases that have been diagnosed in children ages 0-19 in Houston/Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1995
1996
1998
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
39
NA
33
45
28
28
4
5
8
17
9
12
35
48
24
20
11
Source: City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services
PRENATAL CARE: The percentage of women in Harris County receiving early prenatal care, which is defined as starting medical care in the first trimester of pregnancy and continuing care until delivery Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
71.4%
71.6%
78.7%
81.6%
81.8%
82.0%
80.0%
81.2%
80.0%
62.2%
58.4%
55.4%
54.0%
53.5%
55.6%
Source: Vital Statistics Unit, Texas Department of State Health Services Note: Due to implementation of a new birth certificate for 2005 data and beyond, onset of prenatal care within the first trimester is not directly comparable to previous years.
LOW BIRTH WEIGHT: The percentage of infants born in Harris County weighing 2,500 grams, or approximately 5.5 pounds, at birth and classifed as low birth weight Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
7.3%
7.3%
7.3%
7.3%
7.5%
7.4%
7.9%
8.0%
8.2%
8.3%
8.5%
8.7%
8.8%
8.9%
8.8%
Source: Vital Statistics Unit, Texas Department of State Health Services
INFANT MORTALITY: The number of deaths of infants under 1 year per 1,000 live births in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
8.8
8.3
8.1
6.5
6.2
4.9
5.6
6.3
6.5
6.5
6.8
5.9
5.9
6.2
6.5
6.3
Source: Vital Statistics Unit, Texas Department of State Health Services
ALCOHOL/SUBSTANCE ABUSE: The number of pregnant women in Harris County who sought treatment for alcohol/substance abuse Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
109
118
147
195
211
173
190
123
104
Source: Decision Support Unit, Mental Health & Substance Abuse, Texas Department of State Health Services Note: In 2010, a new data collection system was implemented. Data from 2010 and later is not directly comparable to previous years.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
41
HIV cases regardless of AIDS status in Houston/Harris County, 0-19 years of age 1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Black
31
26
20
20
36
45
30
49
31
38
45
56
34
66
45
White
6
3
1
4
4
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
Latino
8
5
7
4
7
17
9
10
11
12
11
6
6
20
22
Other
0
0
0
0
0
3
4*
3*
4*
5
4
NA
NA
3
6
Source: Houston Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Epidemiology *When less than 5 children of an ethnicity are diagnosed in one year, they are classified under "other" to protect their confidentiality.
Top 7 reported primary substances at first admission Harris County
Texas
1
Marijuana/Hashish
Marijuana/Hashish
2
Crack
Alcohol
3
Cocaine
Heroin
4
Alcohol
Cocaine
5
Vicodin (Hydrocodone)
Methamphetamine
6
Xanax (Alprazolam)
Vicodin (Hydrocodone)
7
Methamphetamine or PCP (tied)
Amphetamine
Source: Decision Support Unit, Mental Health & Substance Abuse, Texas Department of State Health Services
42
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
ENVIRONMENT
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
43
ENVIRONMENT Case Study
When Sarah Hess’ daughter Josie was just a year old, a routine visit to the doctor unearthed disturbing news. Josie’s blood work showed at least 8.8 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood in her system, a level just below the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s threshold for lead poisoning. Additional testing disclosed Josie’s contamination with lead was actually higher, at 12 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. In 2010, when Josie was first tested, the CDC was recommending children with levels greater than 10 seek immediate medical attention.1 As an infant, Josie’s developing body could have been seriously injured had testing not discovered her lead poisoning. Josie was exposed to lead through dust from her house, which was painted before lead paint was banned. Additionally, the park closest to her house was contaminated with extremely high levels of lead. Lead poisoning is a serious issue that can have drastic effects on children. Children’s bodies absorb more lead, and lead poisoning can cause slowed growth, nervous system damage, headaches, and behavioral and learning problems.2 Treatment is fairly straightforward: discontinued exposure to the source followed by medicine that removes lead from the body, but more often than not people are unaware they are even suffering from lead poisoning. Josie’s story illustrates the need for continued vigilance of lead and chemical contaminants.
Issue at a Glance
• Approximately 1 out of every 10 days, the air in Houston is classified as very unhealthy, generally unhealthy, or unhealthy for sensitive groups. • Children face greater risks from environmental toxins than adults. • The long-term effects of exposure to environmental toxins can range from decreased lung capacity and cancer to permanent neurological damage and internal organ failure.
• Children living within 2 miles of the Houston Ship Channel were found to have rates of leukemia 56% higher than children living 10 miles away. • Harris County contains 12 Superfund priority sites – hazardous wastes designated by the EPA as a risk for residents.
Statement of Need
Houston is better known for its sprawling highways than for its environmental excellence. While green space in the suburbs is plentiful, it is difficult to come by within Beltway 8 or the 610 loop where many minority and disadvantaged children live. Houston’s large number of industries, factories, and population size all spur economic growth, but also impact the environment. Air and water pollution in particular are growing problems with grim statistics. Approximately 1 out of every 10 days in Houston, the air quality is considered unhealthy, generally unhealthy, or very unhealthy for sensitive groups,3 and the American Lung Association ranked Houston 8th out of 277 metropolitan areas for most ozone-polluted cities in 2011.4 As the nation’s fourth largest city, and as the home to a large number of children, the environment is an issue that Houston must address before it becomes an even larger problem for its community members. While the environmental state of Houston can be partially attributed to its large size and diverse population, the city has full control over access to parks and green space. Houston falls below the national standard for residents living in close proximity to parks and its park-related expenditure per resident is considerably smaller than other cities.5 However, when including state and municipal parks, Houston’s 38,752 acres of parks and green space includes four of the one hundred largest city parks in the nation. Cullen Park, George Bush Park, Memorial Park, and Bear Creek Pioneers Park rank 7th, 9th, 42nd, and 66th, respectively.6 Downtown Houston’s Discovery Green is administered by a non-profit through a
Children living within 2 miles of Houston’s Ship Channel were found to have rates of leukemia 56% higher than those living just 10 miles away. 44
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
The number of days in 2011 that Houston’s air quality was designated unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, or very unhealthy by the EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI)
public-private partnership and thus does not figure into official acreage. While Houston ranks fourth nationally among park acreage for cities of similar population density, new park acquisitions are infrequent and have not followed the city’s demographic expansion.7 Comparatively, Houston ranks poorly when compared to other U.S. cities when it comes to environmental concerns. Twelve hazardous waste sites on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Priority List are in Harris County, more than any other county in Texas.8 Those sites all require long-term cleanup and potentially pose an immediate threat to the community. Houston, TX and Baltimore, MD are the only two cities to have not met the EPA’s 30-year-old one-hour standard for ozone pollution, which states that the air cannot contain more than 125 parts per billion of ozone for any one hour.9 Harris County’s environmental ills affect children more acutely than adults. Children spend more time outside than adults and are more likely to come into contact with environmental toxins when playing in contaminated dirt or swimming in polluted water. Many of Houston’s older houses contain lead-based paint, the primary source of lead toxins for children diagnosed with lead poisoning.10 Common environmental pollutants such as lead, dioxins, and chromium all negatively affect the growing bodies of children. The effects of these pollutants range from decreased lung function to neurological issues.11 If encountered in the womb or during early childhood, many of these toxins can cause permanent damage to children. A University of Texas School of Public Health study found that children living within two miles of the Houston Ship Channel were found to have rates of Leukemia 56% higher than those living just ten miles away.12 If the status quo continues, Houston’s children will grow up in an environment that is becoming progressively more toxic, and no child is totally immune from the repercussions of growing up in a city saturated with pollutants.
Community Response
Addressing Houston’s environmental problems requires committed effort from both community members and local stakeholders. There are multiple policies in place on the federal, state, and local levels to address environmental issues. Federally, the Clean Air Act, amended in 1990, gives
The American Lung Association ranked Houston 8th out of 277 metropolitan areas for most ozonepolluted cities in 2011.
the EPA the ability to create National Ambient Air Quality Standards on six common environmental pollutants that are considered hazardous to public health.13,14 Until 2009, Houston had been unable to meet the requirements for ozone pollution over an eight-hour period.15 Despite this victory, in 2012 Houston was found to have just barely failed to meet the EPA’s one-hour ozone limits that had to be met by 2007.16 Although this initial success is exciting, the EPA is currently considering a stricter standard regarding ozone levels that will almost certainly pose a challenge. Furthermore, while Houston’s air quality appears to be improving, not all potentially harmful chemicals are regulated by the EPA.17 With continued vigilance and enforcement, Houston can continue to make progress and become ahead of the curve on compliance. The Air Alliance of Houston’s Galveston-Houston Association of Smog Prevention (GHASP) empowers citizens to become a part of the air monitoring process. By promoting inexpensive monitoring technologies, GHASP ensures a more complete evaluation of ozone and particulate matter in the Greater Houston area.18 Opened in 2008, Discovery Green is a model for public-private partnerships in parks and green space conservation. Houston’s philanthropic community – led by the Brown Foundation, Kinder Foundation, and the Houston Endowment – approached the City of Houston with a proposal to purchase and convert unused parking areas near the George R. Brown Convention Center and the Toyota Center into a large, public green space. The City and foundations formed the Discovery Green Conservancy, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit which operates the park.19 Twelve acres large and featuring performance spaces, recreation areas, and public art, the park is also LEED-certified. A centerpiece of Houston’s downtown development, Discovery Green serves as testament that Houston can be an innovator in green space. Hazardous waste is an issue that is not often in the public consciousness, but it is a serious concern for Houstonians who live near and are affected by hazardous waste sites. In order to be designated hazardous, waste must be solid, exhibit characteristics of hazardous waste such as ignitability or toxicity, and be designated as hazardous by the EPA.20 A common by-product of the manufacturing process, hazardous waste comes from a variety of sources and sectors.21 The EPA
38,752 Total parks acreage in Houston in 2011
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
45
established the Superfund in 1980 to address hazardous waste sites across the country. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality oversees the Texas Superfund Program to clean up sites in Texas that present an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to Texans.22 Twelve of Texas’ 48 active Superfund sites are in Harris County, with an additional eight in neighboring counties. These abandoned waste sites can leach hazardous chemicals into the soil, groundwater, or air. Prompt and comprehensive cleanup is integral to protecting the integrity of Houston’s environment. Lead poisoning, while a decreasing problem in Harris County, still affects over 300 children per year. Testing is mandatory for children on Medicaid, but the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children be tested for lead exposure at age one or two regardless of exposure possibility.23 Though the Texas Strategic Plan to Eliminate Child Lead Poisoning by 2010 was not successful in reaching its goal of zero cases of lead poisoning in 2010, it established important infrastructure such as providing lead-safe housing, increasing the number of child screenings, and increasing the number of children receiving case management services.24 The 360 cases of lead poisoning in 2010 mark a continued reduction, and foundations are now in place for the long-term elimination of lead poisoning among children. With no zoning, planning park space in Houston would prove difficult without the City of Houston’s Parks and Open Space Ordinance. Potential developers must pay a $700 fee for every 1.8 acres of land or donate park space.25 On the surface, this is an innovative way to expand and maintain green spaces; in practice, the law has not been implemented and developers can avoid the ordinance by building atop existent structures. The end result is less funding than expected for parks.
centers. While the ozone layer in the atmosphere is beneficial, groundlevel ozone is harmful if inhaled and causes respiratory problems. Ozone is produced by the chemical reaction of sunlight with emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories, and refineries.26 While many polluters are located out of Houston’s city limits, and therefore out of government jurisdiction, there are steps that can be taken within Houston proper. “No idling” policies for cars around schools reduce polluting ozone omissions around children as well as save gas. Additional funding for parks and green space would put Houston more in line with the rest of the nation. Houston spent just $36 dollars on parks per resident in 2008, which is significantly less than spending levels in other large cities. For comparison, Washington, D.C. spent $259 dollars on parks per resident in 2008.27 By closing the loopholes in the Parks and Open Space Ordinance, Houston can fill some of that gap. A continued vibrant parks system will increase access to green space, open avenues for community gatherings and exercise, reduce water and air pollution, and increase the value of residential property, among other benefits. A concerted effort needs to be focused on tracking and cleaning up uncontrolled and abandoned hazardous waste sites across Texas and Harris County. The protection of Texas residents from the leaching of hazardous chemicals into the environment must be a priority.
Additional Resources
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): www.epa.gov • Harris County Parks: www.harriscountytx.gov/parks • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: www.cdc.gov/Environmental • Texas Parks and Wildlife Code: www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ PW/htm/PW.1.htm
A Path Forward
Ozone continues to be an issue for Houston and many other industrial
PARKS AND GREEN SPACE: The amount of park acreage added by the City of Houston each year Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
25.21
0
1.02
71.04
15.87
91.81
4786.6
29.56
10.64
34.72
2.08
0.08
Source: Houston Parks and Recreation Department
AIR QUALITY: The number of days that Houston’s air quality was designated unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, or very unhealthy by the EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
43
38
45
27
37
32
31
35
38
Source: EPA Air Data – Air Quality Index Report
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: The number of uncontrolled and abandoned hazardous waste sites in Harris County designated by state law Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2009
2011
Indicator
7
7
7
7
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
Source: Texas Superfund Registry, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: The number of uncontrolled and abandoned waste sites in Harris County identified by the EPA which are eligible for clean up under the Superfund Act Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2012
Indicator
8
8
8
7.5
7
6.5
10
13
13
13
13
12
10
12
12
Source: National Priorities List Sites in Texas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
46
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
LEAD POISONING: The number of Harris County children ages 0 to 14 that were tested, with blood lead levels of 10 micrograms deciliter or greater Year
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
507
430
840
802
549
501
385
373
395
360
Source: Texas Department of Health Services, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2009
2011
State Sites
7
7
7
7
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
Federal Sites
8
8
8
7.5
7
6.5
10
13
13
10
12
7
Source: Texas Superfund Registry, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Source: National Priorities List Sites in Texas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prevalence of Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites in the Greater Houston area THE WOODLANDS
ATASCOCITA
HOUSTON BAYTOWN
SUGARLAND
LEAGUE CITY
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
47
Prevalence of Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites in Texas OKL AHOMA
Amarillo
NEW ME XICO Lubbock
Dallas Shreveport
Abilene Midland Waco
TE X AS Austin Houston San Antonio
Corpus Christie
ME XICO
Matamoros Source: Environmental Protection Agency
48
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
OBESITY
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
49
OBESITY Case Study
Last winter, Linda Rosemeyer, a school nurse and mother of three, found data revealing that 21% of students at her local school, Greenwood Forest Elementary, were obese.1 This hit close to home for Rosemeyer, whose adopted son struggles with a junk food habit he formed before his adoption.2 Childhood obesity is known to increase a child’s risk for diabetes and is a potential cause of stigma that can contribute to poor grades and test scores.3 Recognizing the problem in her community and wanting to make a change, Rosemeyer applied for a $2,500 grant to fund obesity prevention programs for her school. Using those funds, Rosemeyer’s program helps students maintain gardens, inspires physical activity, and educates parents about nutritional grocery shopping.4
Issue at a Glance
• Childhood obesity is a widespread problem that is deeply rooted in the lifestyles of many families in Harris County. • Texas teens drink more soda, watch more television, and have fewer family meals than the national average. • Children living in poverty and suffering from hunger are also at risk for obesity, since nutritious, fresh food is often out of their families’ price range. • Childhood obesity carries many health risks, including diabetes, sleep apnea, and joint problems.
Statement of Need
Childhood obesity is an increasingly recognized problem in Harris County. A multitude of factors contribute to an eating culture among Houston families that too often does not revolve around healthy foods. Childhood obesity is common, and studies show that poorer test scores, higher
dropout rates, and serious health problems, including diabetes and sleep apnea, follow close behind. Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as weight (kg) divided by height (m), and is the standard measure used to make distinctions between underweight, overweight, or obese individuals.5 For adults, a BMI above 25 is classified as overweight, and a BMI above 30 is obese.6 Children, however, do not grow on a linear path when it comes to height and weight, so in order for a child to be considered obese, they must fall within the 95th percentile of BMI for children from 1970.7 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lists two main causes for the obesity epidemic: “an increased intake of energy-dense foods that are high in fat, salt and sugars but low in vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients; and a decrease in physical activity due to the increasingly sedentary nature of many forms of work, changing modes of transportation, and increasing urbanization.”8 A survey of Texas youth by the UT School of Public Health in 2010 identified some specific sources of childhood obesity in Texas. Twentythree percent of students surveyed said that they drink more than two sodas per day, while 22% reported eating fast food three or more times per week.9 Seventy-seven percent of students get fewer than 60 minutes of exercise per day, compared with the 72% who reported spending two or more hours in front of a screen on a daily basis.10 Confirming these findings, the CDC released a report in 2011 showing that Texas teens drink more soda, watch more television, and have fewer family meals than the national average by around 3% in each category.11 In addition, the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey showed that 53% of Texas children eat vegetables one or more times per day, a relatively low number when compared to the highest percentage in Vermont, where 74% of children eat vegetables one or more times per day.12 In 2007, 32% of Texas children were overweight or obese.13 Thus far, Latino children have been the primary targets of the obesity epidemic; in 2007 it was revealed that 46% of Latino children in Texas were obese,
Latino children have been the primary targets of the obesity epidemic; in 2007 it was revealed that 46% of Latino children in Texas were obese, as opposed to 26% and 23% for Black and White children, respectively. 50
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
as opposed to 26% and 23% for Black and White children, respectively.14 The obesity trend has not escaped the notice of local young people, who sometimes attempt to cope with it in unhealthy ways: 15% of Houston high schoolers reported that they had not eaten for a 24-hour period in order to lose weight or to keep from gaining weight.15 While hunger and obesity would seem to be incompatible, hunger has been linked to obesity through the recognition of the “food desert” phenomenon. Food deserts are neighborhoods that lack grocery stores or healthy produce available for purchase. In the Houston area, the ratio of supermarkets to people is 1:12,000, much higher than the national ratio of 1:8,600.16 It is estimated that the Greater Houston area has a need for 185 additional supermarkets.17 Within Houston, areas as large as 10 miles have been identified as containing a single food source: gas stations that sell tobacco, alcohol, and fatty snacks.18 Since their families have little to no access to sources of healthy foods, children from low-income families that struggle with hunger are sometimes also at risk of obesity. Children living in densely-populated urban areas often lack access to safe, clean green spaces and parks in which to play. It is estimated that 56% of children in Houston do not live within half a mile of public green space.19 This shortfall keeps them indoors and prompts children to pursue less active entertainments that keep them from burning calories. The Texas Tech Health Sciences Center and School of Nursing, in cooperation with the College of Human Sciences, conducted a survey which revealed that children with televisions in their bedrooms are more likely to engage in the type of sedentary lifestyle that leads to obesity. They found that a majority (70%) of children had televisions in their rooms at home, and these children also ate more fast food and exercised significantly less often than children without bedroom televisions.20 The health risks for obese children are numerous, and they are extremely prevalent among Houston youth. Obese children often experience joint problems, gallbladder problems, and sleep apnea.21 In addition, metabolic syndrome, defined as a group of risk factors that heighten a child’s risk for coronary failure, stroke, and diabetes, is found in 29% of obese adolescents as opposed to just 0.1% of non-obese adolescents.22 Mentally, obese children can suffer from low self-confidence, which is correlated to lower test scores, more absences, and a path that leads to a low-income job as an adult.23
Percentage of children classifed as overweight or obese by the 2012 FITNESSGRAM assessment
HARRIS COUNTY
T E X A S AV E R A G E
Childhood obesity is also beginning to show its teeth as a financial liability. Medical bills for asthma, pneumonia, and appendicitis are 29%, 26%, and 28% more expensive, respectively, for children with a secondary diagnosis of obesity.24 These increased costs are partially due to the fact that obese children stay in the hospital 0.85 days longer than normalweight children.25 In 2005, a study deduced that if there was a 1% drop in the obesity rate among twelve-year-olds, over $260 million in medical costs could be avoided over their lifetimes.26 In addition to medical costs, obesity is linked to lower wages among females, who may suffer from cuts in wages that range from 2% to 15%.27 Parenting obese children also requires more time spent at the doctor’s office. Obese children have 4.4 visits to the doctor per year as opposed to a 2.4 yearly visit average for non-obese children.28 This disparity persists among Medicaid-insured children as well, with obese children making 3.6 visits to the doctor per year, versus 1.7 trips for their more healthy peers.29
Community Response
Childhood obesity is a widespread problem that is deeply rooted in the lifestyles of families across Harris County. Fortunately, there are many organizations that work to address the obesity epidemic and prevent children from forming unhealthy habits. Childhood obesity must be tackled at the individual, school, and community levels; ensuring that Houston’s children are at healthy weights requires not only the altering of a mindset, but the reallocation of resources in order to ensure that each person has the ability to make healthy choices. After all, if the parent of an obese child is educated to buy more fruits and vegetables, but they live in a “food desert,” they will have a hard time finding any fresh produce, and the problem will be only half-solved. In 2010, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston conducted a study and found that dialogue between parents and pediatricians is crucial from the time children are infants in order to monitor obesity. The clinic found 16% of 6-month-olds were already obese; this number rises to 52% for Latino infants.30 Keeping in mind that even infants can fall prey to obesity, doctors now check even the youngest children for obesity, and families receive nutrition information that can help to offset the effects of their lifestyles and/or genetic makeup.31
Within Houston, areas as large as 10 miles have been identified as containing only a single food source: gas stations that sell tobacco, alcohol, and fatty snacks.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
51
Educating parents and family members about childhood obesity is key – one study found that, while children may view themselves as overweight, their parents and grandparents are often much slower to recognize obesity in their children.32 School is one place where low-income, hungry students can expect to receive relatively nutritious meals. The free and reduced-price school lunch program is widespread and well-utilized by qualifying students. Less well-known is that many schools are able to offer free breakfast to needy students. School meals are held to nutritional standards set by the federal government, and students who eat breakfast and lunch at school are guaranteed at least two well-rounded meals during the day. Studies show that students who eat breakfast at school are more likely to meet or exceed dietary vitamin and mineral recommendations.33 However, the free school breakfast program is underutilized; for every 100 children who eat free or reduced-price lunch, just 56 eat free or reduced-price breakfast.34 CAN DO (Children and Neighbors Defeat Obesity) Houston is a group that unites childhood obesity prevention organizations and deploys them in low-income neighborhoods and elementary schools, where they marshal available resources to help communities combat the barriers impeding healthy lifestyles. To date, projects have included working with the police to address safety concerns in nearby parks, offering healthy cooking classes, and starting a walking club for local schoolchildren.35 Harris County has also mobilized around the issue of childhood obesity. Healthy Living Matters is a childhood obesity prevention program composed of community leaders from a wide variety of backgrounds. The group aims to create policy change in Harris County that will promote environments which facilitate healthy lifestyles for children.36 The epidemic of childhood obesity has not gone unnoticed at the federal level. For years, the food pyramid was used as a guide to a healthy diet, and its brightly-colored tiers appeared in kindergarten classrooms and pediatrician offices across the country. However, as of 2011, the pyramid has been replaced with a plate. The U.S. Department of Agriculture scrapped the pyramid, replacing it with “Choose My Plate.” Taking the place of the iconic pyramid is the image of a plate divided into four sections: fruits, vegetables, grains and protein, with dairy represented in a circle mimicking a glass of milk on the side. The Choose My Plate website has tips for weight management that include physical activity suggestions and sections explaining how calories function within the human body. As a symbol, the plate has been praised for its simplicity (as opposed to the more ambiguous pyramid) and its informative website, which contains free programs like the SuperTracker, which customizes a health and nutrition plan users and provides guidelines for a healthier lifestyle.37
A Path Forward
In order to effectively combat childhood obesity, it is important to have a firm grasp of the problem; clear, consistent, comprehensive data is essential. Unfortunately, the definitive statistics around childhood obesity are difficult to find. For years, a program called FitnessGram has collected health data (including data around weight and obesity) for all students enrolled in public schools, providing researchers with a large database. FitnessGram measures the true physical health (rather than simply the athletic ability) of a child and lets parents know the specific ways in which their children could be healthier. However, the collection of FitnessGram data is no longer mandatory, meaning that data around childhood obesity
52
in Texas is spotty and no longer comprehensive. Reinstating FitnessGram as a mandatory data collection tool would go a long way toward helping researchers gauge the true extent of the childhood obesity problem. In order to prevent childhood obesity, children need to be more active. Ensuring that parks and green spaces are safe, clean, and accessible will provide children with open fields and playgrounds. Schools can also play a part in this process, by offering recess and physical education for students. Children can even gain exercise as they go to and from school: participants in a “walking school bus” program, which provided routes and staff members to help children walk to their neighborhood school, had increased levels of daily moderate-to-vigorous daily activity.38 Another key strategy for preventing childhood obesity is ensuring that children have access to nutritious foods. This is particularly a challenge for young people living in food deserts where grocery stores are few and far between. Access to healthy food is linked to a lowered risk for obesity. Encouraging supermarkets to open locations in low-income areas, increasing shelf area for fresh produce in small corner stores, and starting community gardens help eliminate food deserts and give greater numbers of children access to healthful foods. For students who arrive at school hungry, a free school breakfast is a nutritious lifeline that helps them concentrate and keeps them from snacking on less healthy options. However, since free school breakfast is offered to low-income students, there is often a stigma associated with participating. Schools can combat this by offering universal free school breakfast to all of their students, with the help of federal funding. This would be a particularly effective strategy at campuses where over 80% of students live in poverty, as the vast majority of students are likely to be in need of breakfast. In addition, the implementation of universal free school breakfast may be cost-neutral.39
Additional Resources
• CAN DO Houston: www.candohouston.org • FitnessGram Texas: www.fitnessgram.net/texas • Choose My Plate, U.S. Department of Agriculture: www.choosemyplate.gov
OBESITY: Percentage of elementary school students in the Houston Independent School District (HISD) classified as obese by their Body Mass Index (BMI) Year
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
34.2%
33.4%
33.2%
Source: HISD School Health Advisory Council
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
ADOLESCENT S E X U A L H E A LT H A N D TEEN PREGNANCY
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
53
ADOLESCENT SEXUAL HEALTH AND TEEN PREGNANCY Case Study
Mary, a pregnant 17-year-old, came in to the Teen Health Clinic nervous and uncertain about her future. Her parents told her that they would not offer her support, and she had a lot of questions on her mind: Would her baby be born healthy? How would she provide for the baby? Would her boyfriend stay with her and help support their child? How would she graduate from high school and make something of her life while also caring for a baby? Mary’s exam went well and the medical staff answered her questions and treated her with respect. She was referred to a social worker who listened to her and offered her encouragement, information and resources. The case manager helped her apply for Medicaid and WIC and scheduled her prenatal appointments at the Ben Taub OB clinic. With the encouragement of her case manager, Mary had a healthy pregnancy, keeping all her prenatal appointments while continuing to go to school. Now 27 years old, Mary is no longer a patient at the Teen Health Clinic, but she still stops in to visit. She is a high school graduate with her own apartment, and she is able to support herself and her daughter. She works as an EMT while studying to become a Paramedic, and her goal is to continue her education and become a nurse. At the Teen Health Clinic, Mary found the support she needed to have her baby without giving up her well-being and life goals. Unfortunately, the majority of teen pregnancies do not have such happy endings. Research shows that teen parents are more likely to drop out of school, live in poverty, suffer from deteriorated mental health, experience physical health issues, and live in an unstable environment. Sadly, Mary’s story is not the norm, but it proves what is possible with supportive services for teens.
Issue at a Glance
• In 2010, Texas was ranked 4th in the nation for the highest number of teen births and 1st in the nation for repeat teen births. More than 20% of the teen births reported statewide were repeat teen births. • The teen birth rate in Harris County has been on the decline during the past several years, however Harris County rates, like the Texas teen birth rate, are still much higher than the average for the U.S. • Ninety-three percent of Harris County parents support the teaching of sex education in schools.
Statement of Need
In 2010, the U.S. reported an all-time low in the number of teen births: 34.3 births per 1,000 teens aged 15-19.1 This was a 9% drop from the teen birth rate in 2009.2 While this decrease reflects positively on the country, Texas and Harris County are still showing high rates of teen births. In 2010, Texas reported 52.2 births per 1,000 15 to 19 year olds and a total of 47,719 teen births.3 That year Texas was ranked 4th in the nation for the highest number of teen births and 1st in the nation for repeat teen births.4 In 2010, Harris County reported a similar teen birth rate, 52.1 births per 1,000 15 to 19 year
54
olds, and a total of more than 7,500 teen births.5 Harris County accounted for 15% of all teen births in the State of Texas.6 Teen pregnancies have both social and economic consequences. Teen mothers are more likely to drop out of school, give birth prematurely, experience emotional and physical health issues, live in poverty, and face single parenthood.7 Teen fathers are more likely to have lower incomes, experience depression, obtain less education, and be homeless or live in an unstable environment.8 And the children of teenage parents are more likely to drop out of school, experience health issues, be abused or neglected, face poverty, be arrested, and become teen parents themselves.9 From an economic perspective, Texas’ taxpayers spend over $162 million per year in direct medical costs and over $1 billion per year in all costs related to teen births.10 Sexual health is also a troubling problem among Texas teens. In 2010, Harris County reported that 667 per 100,000 teens had gonorrhea, 2,603 per 100,000 teens had chlamydia, and 51 per 100,000 teens had syphilis.11 These sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have their own dangerous side effects, and can lead to infertility, chronic disease, cervical cancer, stillbirths, ectopic pregnancies, an increased likelihood of contracting HIV, and other long-term health complications.12 Every year the U.S. spends close to $6 billion to treat STIs in adolescents.13 Texas ranked 4th in the nation for the greatest number of teen births, with 52.2 births per 1,000 teens. In comparison, California ranked 29th with 31.5 births per 1,000 teens.14 California and Texas are comparable in their racial demographics, but California has a much lower teen birth rate than Texas.15 One possible reason for the disproportionality in the teen birth rates between the two states may be due to the inclusion of abstinence-plus sex education in California schools. Studies show that abstinence-only programs do not significantly delay sexual initiation or reduce STI rates among teens.16 Alternatively, comprehensive sex education programs do demonstrate a significant reduction in teen pregnancy rates when they are compared to abstinenceonly programs or to no sex education.17 There is a wide array of evidencebased sex education programs for teens that are proven to increase condom or contraceptive use, delay the initiation of sex, and decrease teen pregnancy.18 Currently in Texas, 96% of Texas school districts implement abstinence-only sex education, and 41% of school districts in Texas use sexual health materials that contain factual errors about condoms and STIs.19 In 2011, a telephone survey of parents of children 18 years or younger in Harris County was conducted, assessing their opinions about sex education. Ninety-three percent of these parents indicated that they support teaching school-based sex education in schools, and many believed it should start in middle school.20 Latino parents demonstrated the highest levels of support for teaching sex education in middle school (86%), followed by White (79%), Black (76%), and Other parents (61%).21 As for the content of the message that such sex education programs should include, 66% of Harris County parents think that sex education should
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
include information about condoms and contraception, be medically accurate, and be presented starting in middle school or earlier.22
Community Response
Teen births and STIs are commonplace in Texas and in Harris County. Teens risk serious health, social, and economic consequences from teen births and STIs.23,24 When comparing Texas to states with lower teen birth and STI rates, one major difference is Texas’ lack of sex education programs that teach medically accurate information in addition to abstinence.25 While surveys and studies show that more than 90% of parents in Harris County and Texas support school-based sex education programs that teach abstinence and medically accurate information, it is difficult to find any hard evidence on community responses due to the sensitive nature of this issue.26 School- and policy-level responses to the problems of teen sexual health are defined by the Texas Education Code. Current law requires that sex education programs in schools emphasize abstinence as the only effective method to prevent pregnancy, STIs, HIV/AIDS, and emotional trauma from teenage sex.27 Decisions surrounding the implementation of sex education in schools are made by school districts in conjunction with their local School Health Advisory Committees (SHAC). A SHAC is made up of a group of volunteers from a school district, including health teachers, school nurses, parents, doctors, etc.28 By law, the majority of members in the group must be parents who are not employed by the school district.29 SHACs are appointed by the school district to make recommendations to the school board on a variety of issues that relate to students’ health and well-being. Their recommendations are based on their own professional and personal observations about the effectiveness of coordinated school health programs.30 Studies report that in more than 80% of Texas school districts, the SHACs did not address sex education at all in their formal recommendations to their school boards.31 The University of Texas Prevention Research Center is an organization within the UT School of Public Health focused on preventing teen births and STIs through research and by organizing communities to call for improved sexual health education programs in Houston-area schools.32 The Prevention Research Center has developed a program called It’s Your
Game: Keep it Real! that sets out to prevent teen pregnancy, encourage abstinence, and decrease risky sexual behaviors by providing students with decision-making skills to help them set boundaries, identify threats, and say no to unwanted pressure.33 This program is currently implementing evidence-based sex education in 84 middle schools in ten Greater Houston area school districts.34 The Texas Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy is another community organization working in the area of adolescent sexual health. The Texas Campaign works to organize the community, and bring in parents and youth to the conversation around how best to prevent teen pregnancy.35
A Path Forward
Texas’ Education Code requires that sex education programs in schools stress abstinence as the only effective method to prevent pregnancy, STIs, HIV/AIDS, and emotional trauma from teenage sex.36 It states that abstinence-focused programs can teach contraception in addition to abstinence.37 While abstinence is essential to sex education, it is also important for teens to have medically accurate information as well. Parents have an important role in teens’ sex education. Education begins at home, and sex education is no exception. Research shows that teens who have learned about sex, contraception, pregnancy, and relationships from their parents delay sexual initiation, use condoms and birth control, have fewer sexual encounters, and demonstrate better communication skills in their relationships.38
Additional Resources
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/HealthCareProviders.htm • National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy: www.thenationalcampaign.org • Prevention Research Center at UT Health Science Center: sph.uth.tmc.edu/tprc/ • Texas Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy: www.txcampaign.org
TEEN BIRTH RATES FOR U.S. AND OTHER COUNTRIES Birth rate, per 1,000 15-19 year olds
Teen Birth Rate for Harris County per 1,000 15-19 year olds. Source: The World Bank; Kaiser State Health Facts; and Texas Department of State Health Services
Harris County 52.1 Texas 52.2 California 31.5 United States 33 United Kingdom 30 New Zealand 24 Australia 14 Israel 14 Canada 12 Spain 12
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Finland 9 Norway 8 Germany 7 France 6 Japan 6 Sweden 6 Denmark 5 Italy 5 Netherlands 5 Switzerland 4 55
TEEN BIRTHS: The rate of teen births ages 15 to 19 per 1,000 females in Harris County Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
79
80.9
81
77.9
78.8
75.3
74.7
75.5
73.1
71.9
67.5
63.7
63.7
61.5
60
59.3
61.9
62.7
61.3
59.6
52.1
Source: Bureau of Vital Statistics, Statistical Services Division, Texas Department of State Health Services
CHLAMYDIA: The rate of chlamydia cases reported for children ages 15 to 19 per 100,000 people in Harris County Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
1941.9
1733.1
1829.5
1535.5
1569.8
1505.3
1525
1428.6
1415.9
1646.7
2014.8
2008.7
2603.8
2689.3
Source: City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services
GONORRHEA: The rate of gonorrhea cases reported for children ages 15 to 19 per 100,000 people in Harris County Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
942.4
817.6
802.4
904
687.4
667.9
548
520.1
410.6
447.4
426
597.3
622.6
645
524.8
666.9
659.4
Source: City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services
SYPHILIS: The rate of syphilis cases reported for children ages 15 to 19 per 100,000 people in Harris County Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Indicator
252.2
249.1
259.7
162.2
152.7
117.9
68.7
55.6
35.7
25.4
16.5
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
19.8
14.1
15.2
13.9
20.6
30.4
37.5
54.7
43.8
51.5
48.9
Source: City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services
Teen fathers are more likely to have lower incomes, experience depression, obtain less education, and be homeless or live in an unstable environment.
56
Studies report that in more than 80% of Texas school districts, the SHACs did not address sex education at all in their formal recommendations to their school boards.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Harris County Teen Birth Rate by Zip Code, 2010 MAGNOLIA
HUFFMAN
TOMBALL
WALLER
NEW CANEY
CONROE KLEIN
DAYTON
HUMBLE
SPRING CY-FAIR ALDINE
CROSBY SHELDON
NORTH FOREST
KATY
CHANNEL VIEW
SPRING BRANCH
GOOSE CREEK
GALENA PARK HOUSTON
DEER PARK
ALIEF
LA PORTE FORT BEND PASADENA MANVEL
STAFFORD
PEARLAND
FRIENDSWOOD
CLEAR CREEK
TEEN BIRTH RATE: The rate of teen births per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19 < 34 34 - 51 Above U.S. Average 52 - 69 Above Texas Average 70+
Above 7%
Source: Texas Department of State Health Services, 2010
The University of Texas
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
57
Mental health problems in young people can lead to tragic consequences, including suicide, substance abuse, inability to live independently, involvement with the correctional system, failure to complete high school, lack of vocational success, and health problems. -American Psychological Association
58
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
M E N TA L H E A LT H
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
59
MENTAL HEALTH Case Study
Weaver, age 15, is an avid athlete who trains in multiple sports with exemplary focus and work ethic. His dedication and drive today are a stark contrast to several years ago, when behavior problems in 6th grade jeopardized his athletic future. Struggles in school exposed Weaver to taunts from others, to which he responded with fists. Being pulled from the classroom cost Weaver instruction time, which cost him his grades and eventually his athletic eligibility. This pattern of constant class disruption, work avoidance, and fighting led Weaver’s counselor to deem him “a child you would not want in your classroom if you were a teacher, plain and simple.” With discipline both at school and home making no difference on her son’s conduct, Weaver’s mother reached out to DePelchin Children’s Center for school-based counseling. One-on-one sessions offered Weaver a chance to speak openly, revealing that his antagonism was rooted in a belief that he was a “mistake.” In response, DePelchin employed comprehensive methods with Weaver, coupling goal setting and self-esteem building exercises with treating previously undiagnosed ADHD. After a year of counseling, DePelchin discharged Weaver. Thanks to his proactive mother and the community-based resources available to him, Weaver now has a positive outlook on life.1
Issue at a Glance
• Funding for mental health services in Texas continues to remain low; Texas ranks last nationally in per capita mental health spending, at $38.38. • Many families in Houston experience difficulty in accessing mental health services for their children, as 14,000 children in Houston cannot access mental health services. • Alcohol and substance abuse continues to affect many children in Texas; nearly 1 in 4 Texas teens are frequent binge drinkers.
Statement of Need
More than just a classification of disorders, mental health comprises how people think, feel, and act as they process daily life.2 This broad definition invites a multifaceted approach to evaluating mental health in children. By including the prevalence of substance abuse, teen suicide, and students enrolled in special education programs, a clearer picture of children’s mental health emerges. Just over one in five children in the U.S. have suffered from a seriously debilitating mental health disorder at some point in their lives.3 Thirteen percent of adolescents have faced mental illness within the past year,4 but only half of the children in the U.S. with mental illnesses received treatment within the past year.5 With Texas spending the least per capita in the nation on mental health services, the treatment gap is more pronounced in Houston. Due to insufficient capacity, limited availability of services, expense, and lack of knowledge about available programs, an estimated 14,000 Houston children with severe mental illness do not have access to publicly or privately funded systems of care.6 In fact, only a quarter of the children needing public mental health services in Harris County have access.7 Financial and clinical needs are substantial among the families accessing Harris County’s public mental health services. In 2011, the median annual income for those enrolled in Children and Adolescent Services of the Harris County Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority (MHMRA) was $14,736. Over 95% of families accessing MHMRA fell below the Federal Poverty Level. Many of these families rely on public assistance to facilitate payment; 35.1% of children on MHMRA’s caseload in 2011 used Medicaid or CHIP, while an additional 25.8% were uninsured.8 Severe mental illness (defined as impacting daily activity) proves common among MHMRA’s Children and Adolescent Services clients.
233,294 The estimated number of children in Harris County in 2011 who have had a diagnosable severe mental illness in their lifetime
60
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnoses are most prevalent, representing 29.2% of children enrolled. Behavior and mood disorders follow closely behind at 22.4% and 18.9%, respectively.9 Harris County Systems of Hope, a community partnership dedicated to holistic and family-based mental health treatment, reports very similar numbers: 30% of children in their program face ADHD, while Adjustment, Oppositional Defiant, and Bipolar Disorders represent 10% each.10 Children suffering from such mental health conditions can face academic and social struggles beyond the emotional toll they inflict. Children with mental health disorders have special education needs. Enrolling in these programs remains a complex process, but parents retain direction over their childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education. Students are first referred for evaluation by the school, but cannot proceed without parental consent. From there, the student will receive services if their evaluation shows impairment in one of twelve physical and mental categories. Parents have the right to request a reevaluation or an independent second evaluation at the expense of the school. Once disability is established, parents and school administrators meet to determine the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Individualized Education Plan (IEP), as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IEP sets goals, accommodations, and a learning plan for the student; it must also be reviewed as the child progresses through their schooling.11 Special education enrollment declined slightly during the 2010-2011 school year, continuing a decade-long trend for Harris County. Learning disabilities were the leading primary impairment, representing 39.6% of students, while speech impairment, autism, and intellectual disability comprised 18.1%, 9.8%, and 9.3% of students, respectively.12 For decades, substance abuse has remained a constant disrupting factor of youth and families across the U.S. In particular, adolescence presents a period of heightened vulnerability to addiction. Contributing factors exist beyond social pressures. Research indicates adolescents are biologically prone to higher rates of dependency than adults with similar alcohol and tobacco intake.13 With these figures in mind, substance use among Texas teens continues to follow trends. According to the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students reporting tobacco usage within the past month fell to 17.4%, a
three percentage point drop from 2009. The rate of alcohol consumption within the past thirty days also declined slightly, from 44.8% to 39.7%. Marijuana remains the most popular illicit substance used among teenagers, with 20.8% using within the past month. Cocaine and crack usage rose slightly, but not at a statistically significant level, to 4.1% of teens.14 Although alcohol consumption has declined, Texas teens continue to place themselves at high risk of dependency through binge drinking, defined as having five or more drinks of alcohol within a few hours. In 2011, while 39.7% of high school students reported having at least one drink of alcohol in the previous 30 days, 23.5% of all students reported binging at least once in the same time frame.15 Mental illness and substance abuse are oftentimes contributing factors to teen suicide, the third-leading cause of death among 15-24 year olds.16 Although teen suicides in Harris County in 2010 and 2011 remained comparable to recent years, statewide data shows a significant percentage of youth at risk. Among Texas high school students, 29.2% reported feeling sad or hopeless for at least two weeks in a row, 15.8% seriously considered suicide, 13.2% made a plan, and 10.8% of students attempted to kill themselves.17
Community Response
An increasing number of community organizations are raising awareness about mental illness among Texasâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; children and treating children in need. Founded by Ima Hogg in 1954, Mental Health America of Greater Houston (MHA) is a mental illness advocacy, education, and resource organization. MHA trains legislators, stakeholders, and grassroots activists on action issues ranging from childhood obesity to mental health and aging. Among these issues, MHA convened a school behavioral initiative to increase early diagnosis and treatment of mental illness in children. As a result, parents, teachers, child welfare services, and health care providers are in dialogue to facilitate productive learning environments and more manageable classrooms.18 The Council on Alcohol and Drugs Houston works with individuals and families affected by substance abuse. In addition to inpatient and outpatient treatment, the Council provides training and outreach to
Just over one in five children in the U.S. have suffered from a seriously debilitating mental health disorder at some point in their lives. CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
61
employers, resources and communities for recovery, and prevention specialists and counselors to schools. By addressing addiction and recovery at all levels of the community, the Council assisted 65,000 clients in fiscal year 2011.19 Over 3,800 of those clients were students participating in school-based prevention programs.20 With this record of direct service, the Council continues to strengthen families facing substance abuse and ensure access to holistic, supportive recovery. Since its inception in 2005, Systems of Hope has served as a model for public/private collaboration in children’s mental health. A project of the interagency Harris County Alliance for Children, Systems of Hope receives grants from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to offer comprehensive, holistic “wraparound” treatment for children and families affected by mental illness. Participating sites and organizations include the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, Harris County Protective Services, MHMRA of Harris County, DePelchin Children’s Center, and the City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services. Acting as a resource clearinghouse, Systems of Hope accepts children 6-15 years old with an IQ above 70, referring them to one of their eight care teams throughout Harris County. Once enrolled, caseworkers and families work together to create a family-driven, youthguided, and culturally competent care plan.21 Systems of Hope has increased its cohort of children enrolled each year since its inception, reaching 240 in 2010-2011.22 Between its continued expansion and wraparound approach to care, Systems of Hope serves as a cost-effective model for community-based mental health services. At the school level, Communities in Schools (CIS) plays a key role in referring students to support services. Social service providers placed in the 99 CIS sites in the Greater Houston area combat dropouts through intervention and intensive care. As part of their Project Mental Health, CIS partners with the DePelchin Children’s Center, Depression Bipolar Support Alliance, Houston Galveston Institute, and Montrose Counseling Center to ensure students have access to professional resources.23 Beyond treatment programs, Harris County continues to make strides in mental health and teen suicide prevention. Houston ISD responded to recent suicides in neighboring districts by establishing an Anti-Bullying Awareness Week.24 At Cypress Ranch High School, students led their own
Treating mental disorders, substance abuse, and learning disabilities improves the quality of life for those afflicted and those close to them.
anti-bullying campaign, filming a video including a large portion of the student body. As of August 2012, their video had nearly half a million views on YouTube.25
A Path Forward
Treating mental disorders, substance abuse, and learning disabilities improves the quality of life for those afflicted and those close to them. Children and families in wraparound care can overcome the pitfalls of mental illness and avoid self-harm or juvenile incarceration. Students in inclusive and well-staffed special education programs can not only adjust, but also thrive alongside their peers. The early intervention, diagnosis, and monitoring of conditions in children also offer a cost-effective policy solution for communities. Unfortunately, Houston children from low-income families face public mental health services with the least funding per capita in the nation. Without robust funding for MHMRA centers and community-based treatment programs, the burden of care will be placed on emergency rooms, juvenile justice systems, and other costly programs.
Additional Resources
• Mental Health America of Greater Houston: www.mhahouston.org • Harris County Systems of Hope: www.systemsofhope.org • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration: http://store.samhsa.gov/home • The Arc of Texas: www.thearcoftexas.org • National Alliance on Mental Illness – Metro Houston: www.namimetropolitanhouston.org • National Alliance on Mental Illness – West Houston: www.namiwesthouston.org
Children Served by Systems of Hope, 2011, disaggregated by diagnoses
8% 3% (OTHER)
3%
4%
30%
5%
9% 10%
8% 10%
10%
Source: Systems of Hope
62
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
ADHD Adjustment Disorder Oppositional Defiant Disorder Bipolar Disorder Mood Disorder N.O.S.* Depressive Disorders Disruptive Behavior Disorder N.O.S.* Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Conduct Disorders Familial Relational Problems *N.O.S. - Not Otherwise Specified
MENTAL ILLNESS PREVALENCE: The estimated number of children in Harris County who have had a diagnosable severe mental illness in their lifetime Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2011
Indicator
161,001
168,064
179,163
185,249
191,295
196,911
201,537
210,463
214,064
229,055
229,567
233,294
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; National Institute of Mental Health
ALCOHOL: The percentage of Houston Independent School District (HISD) students in grades 7 through 12 who have consumed beer, wine, and/or liquor in the past month Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2003
2004
2006
2008
2010
Indicator
41%
31.8%
39%
34%
36.5%
33%
34%
34%
33%
30%
32%
NA*
Source:Texas Department of State Health Services, Texas School Survey *Note: HISD did not participate in the 2010 Texas School Survey
TOBACCO: The percentage of HISD students in grades 7 through 12 who used tobacco in the past month Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Indicator
16%
12.5%
21%
20.5%
22.6%
18%
15%
14%
11.7%
9.8%
NA*
Source:Texas Department of State Health Services, Texas School Survey *Note: HISD did not participate in the 2010 Texas School Survey
COCAINE/CRACK: The percentage of HISD students in grades 7 through 12 who reported having used cocaine/crack in the past month Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Indicator
0.7%
1.0%
2.0%
2.0%
3.1%
1.9%
2.4%
2.9%
2.9%
2.0%
NA*
Source:Texas Department of State Health Services, Texas School Survey *Note: HISD did not participate in the 2010 Texas School Survey
MARIJUANA: The percentage of HISD students in grades 7 through 12 who used marijuana in the past month Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Indicator
5.9%
5.1%
14%
14%
13.4%
12.4%
14%
13%
11.4%
11.9%
NA*
Source:Texas Department of State Health Services, Texas School Survey *Note: HISD did not participate in the 2010 Texas School Survey
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT: The number of Harris County youth served as clients for inpatient substance abuse programs funded by the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Indicator
718
746
836
398
754
680
791
1049
1257
423
466
237
260
Source:Texas Department of State Health Services
TEEN SUICIDE: Intentional deaths by suicide of 15 through 19-year-olds in Harris County as shown by the death rate per 100,000 Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
16
17.9
12.3
11.7
13.3
9
11.1
8.6
11.2
7.6
8.3
9
8.3
9
8
Source: Texas Department of State Health Services
COURT ORDERED EVALUATIONS: The number of referrals of children received from the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department (HCJPD) in which requested or court ordered psychiatric or family evaluations or consultations are conducted Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2007
2008
2010
2011
Indicator
948
NA
1,136
1,289
1,809
1,409
1,474
1,989
2,167
3,314
2,948
2,646
2,653
Source: Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority (MHMRA) of Harris County
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
63
SYSTEMS OF HOPE: The number of children served by the Harris County Systems of Hope program
Teen Suicide in Harris County by Cause, Ages 15-19 2011
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Firearms
12
Indicator
7*
98
177
175
Hanging, strangulation, suffocation
10
Toxicity
0
Multiple Blunt Force
0
Source: Harris County Systems of Hope *Note: The program began accepting referrals in October 2006
Mental Health Spending per Capita, FY 2009
Other
2
Total
24
Rank
State
Mental Health Spending Per Capital
1
District of Columbia
$388.83
2
Maine
$345.97
3
Alaska
$289.71
Year
Harris County Teens Committing Suicide
4
Pennsylvania
$270.67
1990
33
5
New York
$241.59
1992
35
6
Vermont
$232.66
1994
26
….
….
….
1996
26
46
Kentucky
$55.06
1998
31 23
Source: Texas Department of State Health Services
Total Number of Teen Suicides in Harris County, Ages 15-19
47
Idaho
$44.00
2000
48
Arkansas
$42.77
2002
29
49
Georgia
$42.60
2004
23
50
Florida
$40.90
2005
31
51
Texas
$38.38
2006
21
2007
23
2008
26
2009
25
2010
27
2011
24
Source: National Alliance on Mental Illness
Source: Texas Department of State Health Services
64
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
PARE NTIN G
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
65
PARENTING Case Study
John grew up going everywhere with his father. He cherished the time he spent with him and thought that when he one day had children of his own he would set an example for them, just the way his father had done for him. With this recognition, John vowed to be an even better father to his children than his father had been to him. As John started a family of his own, he acknowledged that he needed to adopt a parenting style different from what he received in his own childhood. As a result, John adopted something of a friendship with his children, leading to a lenient parenting style. While John maintained a good relationship with his children, it became clear that he needed make adjustments in his parenting approach when his son, Joshua, began getting into trouble at both home and school. John sought the help of family members and colleagues to provide insight into how he could be a better parent. Unfortunately, Joshua ultimately found himself in trouble with the law. This was a clear message to John that he had an obligation to his children to seek help and change his parenting method. John desperately searched for help among many different sources until he finally found the help he needed from a community-based organization that provided structured and proven parenting classes. Through these classes, John was able to understand the deficits in the parenting he himself had received, as well as how to make positive adjustments in his own parenting style. He was able to find a balance between being a friend to his children while also maintaining his responsibility to provide leadership in a disciplined and nurturing home environment. The application of the new parenting techniques and practice skills led to a better relationship with his children and a positive shift in the family dynamic. This positive transformation was most evident in the stronger father-son bond between John and Joshua, with Joshua staying out of trouble and achieving better grades in school. Unfortunately, John’s
66
experience is not the norm, since most parents do not have access to parent education programs.1
Issue at a Glance
• With an increasing child population in Harris County, there is a need for a population-based parent education program, since parenting is without question a critical influence on a child’s mental health, development, and positive family environment, as well as the overall population’s wellbeing. • Effective parent education promotes protective factors including: nurturing and attachment, knowledge of child development, parental resilience, and social connections. • It is estimated that less than 1% of parents in Harris County have access to evidence-based parent education programs. • Evidence-based parenting programs have numerous benefits including decreases in parental depression; increases in parental confidence; and decreases in social, emotional and behavioral problems in children.
Statement of Need
Family risk factors such as poor parenting, family conflict, and marriage breakdown strongly influence children’s risk of developing mental health problems as they grow up. Specifically, the lack of a warm positive relationship with parents; insecure attachment; harsh, inflexible or inconsistent discipline practices; inadequate supervision of and involvement with children; marital conflict and breakdown; and parental mental illness (particularly maternal depression) increase the risk that children will develop major behavioral and emotional problems of their own.2 There is no greater influence in the life of a child than that of a parent. Parents serve as a child’s first teacher, providing guidance and
How do parents benefit when they receive parent education?
Risks without it?
Confidence Positive Parent-Child Emotional Communication Parental Resilience Social Connections Child Development Skills/Knowledge Nurturing Positive Parent-Child Interaction CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Child Maltreatment Depression Stress
reassurance, and serving as the first role model in a child’s life. In 2010, there were 828,517 parents to children under the age of 18 in Harris County, 20% of which were single parents.3 Determining the best practices in parent education is challenging, and since children do not come with an instruction manual, many parents face struggles as they raise their children. However, it is estimated that only 1% of Harris County parents have access to evidence-based parent education programs. Parent education is proven to impact the prevention of social, emotional, and behavioral problems in early childhood; academic failure, truancy, and failure to complete school; conduct disorders; delinquency; substance abuse; childhood and adolescent anxiety disorders; teenage parenthood; and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.4 Research also suggests the most effective parent education programs maintain a clear and consistent focus on parenting skills and information of child development.5 The National Parenting Education Network describes parent education as a process that involves the expansion of insights, understanding and attitudes and the acquisition of knowledge and skills about the development of both parents and their children.6 Parenting education is designed to improve parenting skills and family communication, prevent child and family problems, and educate parents on child development and positive parenting practices, with a goal of developing safe, stable, and nurturing parentchild relationships.7 To be considered evidence-based, a parent education program must be consistent with the best research available, intersect with sound clinical judgment and experience, and align with the goals and values of the child/family being served.8 Evidence-based parenting programs such as The Incredible Years, Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, and Triple P – Positive Parenting Program have been widely studied and are proven to be efficacious in improving parenting skills, problem behavior in children, and parental well-being.9 Under the current system in Harris County, many parent education programs are perceived as punitive, such as those associated with divorce or Child Protective Services. The appeal of population-based parenting programs is that they remove the stigmatization associated with punitive parenting programs by providing parental enrichment services to the entire community. While studies of evidence-based parenting education programs are well-established in children with behavioral problems, evidence-based
parent education can have long-term positive effects in child outcomes for a variety of children and families, including children of first-time parents, stable married couples, single parents, and grandparent caregivers. Research confirms the benefit of evidence-based parent education programs to parents, children, and the community. Effective parent education promotes protective factors including: nurturing and attachment, knowledge of child development, parental resilience, and social connections. Specifically, parents that have completed evidencebased parent programs have lower rates of depression and stress and higher rates of confidence, an understanding of appropriate use of discipline techniques, and knowledge of child development. Children whose parents have completed evidence-based parent programs have demonstrated increases in confidence and academic success, as well as lower rates of emotional and behavioral problems.10 The cost-effectiveness of parent education programs are validated by research that demonstrates a reduction in cases of child abuse and a reduction in the number of children and families requiring child protective services, medical treatment, legal proceedings, and police investigations. These reductions decrease the financial burden of poor parenting to taxpayers and communities.11 An additional cost benefit of evidencebased parent education programs is their ability to operate within existing organizations and structures without requiring additional staffing, the redefinition of relationships between care providers, or redesigning referral systems, minimizing the financial burden for caregivers, providers, and stakeholders.12 The high prevalence of ineffective or inadequate parenting, coupled with community concerns about children’s behavioral and emotional difficulties in school, necessitates the need to develop, implement, and evaluate parenting interventions that can be disseminated on a large scale with a cost-effective approach. For such an effort to be effective, a public health approach is needed.13 The positive implications for parenting education that focuses on prevention rather than intervention through a public health approach are robust since by design, public health programs lend themselves to large-scale application.
Family risk factors such as poor parenting, family conflict, and marriage breakdown strongly influence children’s risk of developing mental health problems as they grow up. CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
67
Community Response
Studies of new parents report their struggles to raise their children and feelings of loneliness when coping with the adjustments and demands of caring for a young child.14 Studies suggest that families who participate in evidence-based education programs derive multiple benefits from effective parent education, with parents benefiting directly through the development of new skills that lead to increased confidence, insight and self-esteem, and children receiving indirect benefits through their parentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; modified behaviors.15 Unfortunately, within Harris County there are limited options available for parents seeking evidence-based parent education. It is estimated that less than 1% of parents currently access evidence-based parenting education programs in Houston, representing a missed opportunity to have a positive impact on the well-being of our families. However, organizations across the greater Houston area have recognized the need in our community to increase the availability of parent education and are coming together to address this community need and identify solutions. Serving as the largest helpline of its kind in the country, the 2-1-1 United Way HELPLINE connects community members with needed services and information. Coinciding with the yearly growth in the child population, the United Way reports a yearly increase in requests for parent education. In 2011, there were 839 requests for parent education, compared to 522 requests in 2008 in Harris County.16 The 2-1-1 Texas/ United Way HELPLINE serves as a resource to address the growing need for parental education, serving as a centralized gateway for directing parents to parent education. Organizations such as the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC) and the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP) provide access to vital information regarding the effectiveness of child welfare programs and serve as important resources for the implementation of evidence-based practices. The information provided by such clearinghouses and registries has aided in the implementation and dissemination of evidence-based parenting programs such as The Incredible Years, Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, and Triple P â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Positive Parenting Program.
A Path Forward
A promising vehicle for the promotion of family strengthening exists in the implementation of a population-based approach to evidence-based parenting education. For the successful implementation of evidencebased programs, three critical challenges need to be overcome: parenting interventions need to be delivered in a context that is non-stigmatizing; interventions need to be flexible with respect to delivery formats, ease of administration, and accessibility to the child welfare system, and; the program needs to provide continuity across settings, situations, and service providers.17 Overcoming the challenges associated with evidenced-based parenting interventions is not impossible. Utilizing existing systems and organizations such as schools, hospitals, childcare centers, and nonprofit organizations facilitate a relatively seamless transition to populationfocused, evidence-based parent education support system. For example, all new parents could be provided with information on child development and parenting tips through hospitals and their medical providers. One opportunity for the expansion of parenting education is through Title I, a federally-funded program. Annually, it provides over $14 billion to school systems across the country for students at risk of failure and living at or near poverty.18 Title I was developed with the purpose of ensuring that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a highquality education and serves as an important funding source for community and school initiatives. 19,20 Section 1118 of the Title I Act devotes funds solely to promoting parental involvement with their children.21 This could be done through the implementation of evidence-based parenting classes. Title I was founded to enrich the education of high-risk students, and evidence-based parenting programs have the capacity for profound benefit to students by promoting parental involvement and increased academic achievement.
CALLS TO 211: The number of calls the 2-1-1 Texas/United Way HELPLINE received for parenting classes from parents in Harris County 2008
2009
2010
2011
522
728
741
839
Source: 2-1-1 Texas/United Way HELPLINE
How do children benefit when their parents receive parent education? Academic Success Self-Esteem Positive Parent-Child Interaction Confidence Positive Parent-Child Emotional Communication 68
Year Indicator
Risks without it? Anxiety Depression Emotional and Behavioral Problems Substance Abuse Risky Sexual Behavior and Teen Parenthood Truancy and Risk of Dropping out of School
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
PARENT TRAINING ON MENTAL HEALTH: The number of parents receiving training through Harris County MHMRA to help attain positive mental health prevention outcomes Year
1990
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Indicator
NA
NA
450
48
533
524
NA
845
1,734
2,042
3,062
2,747
Source: Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority (MHMRA) of Harris County
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT: The percentage of parents paying court-ordered child support in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
30%
38%
44%
47%
44%
50%
54%
NA
58%
58%
57%
54%
56%
58%
Source: Office of the Texas Attorney General
The Number and Percentage of Parents Paying Court-Ordered Child Support Year
Obligated Cases
Percent of Obligated Cases Paying
1990
19,574
30%
1992
30,404
38%
1994
44,737
44%
1996
65,217
47%
1997
74,583
45%
1998
63,984
44%
2000
75,886
50%
2001
83,333
54%
2002
90,439
52%
2003
92,778
54%
2006
120,395
58%
2007
131,531
58%
2008
142,025
57%
2009
149,836
54%
2010
155,031
56%
2011
161,917
58%
Additional Resources
• CHILDREN AT RISK Center for Parenting and Family Well-Being: http://childrenatrisk.org/policy/cpfwb/ • 2-1-1 Texas/United Way HELPLINE: www.unitedwayhouston.org • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Registry of Evidenced-Based Programs and Practices: www.nrepp.samhsa.gov • California Evidenced-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare: www.cebc4cw.org
Source: Office of the Texas Attorney General
Children whose parents have completed evidence-based parent programs have demonstrated increases in confidence and academic success, as well as lower rates of emotional and behavioral problems. CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
69
We believe that when we focus on healthy child development and supporting families and citizens in the communities they live inâ&#x20AC;Ś great things can happen for children and for the nation. -James Hmurovich, Prevent Child Abuse America
70
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
71
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT Case Study
There is no such thing as a typical day for a Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworker. However, Hannah often fills her days with visits to homes and schools to interview guardians and children involved in investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect. Depending on the details of a case, a visit can last from one hour to over three, with time spent hearing from parents and children and formulating an action plan to help the family function better. The challenges Heather faces are what one might expect: there are never enough hours in the day to cover all of the cases, and since visits are unannounced, it might take several tries to actually reach a parent/ guardian while they are home. Caseloads can be heavy, and Heather covers an average of about 28 cases per month. Additionally, coming unannounced into a home to discuss allegations of child abuse, neglect, and maltreatment can create an awkward dynamic. It’s not rare for Heather to encounter a hostile parent or guardian during the course of an investigation. Patience and respect are essential skills for dealing with these situations and being an effective caseworker. While there are definitely some difficult challenges, for Heather the successes make the job worth every minute. Parents frequently call Heather to thank her for helping their family become more cohesive and form more meaningful relationships. It’s a great feeling for her when a parent who was initially hostile becomes open, receptive, and invested in creating a nurturing family environment. Being a CPS caseworker is “the toughest job you will ever love,” but it is “intensely rewarding.” For Heather, the good days outnumber the bad ones, and knowing that she has been successful in helping families live up to their full potential is what gets her out of bed each morning.1
Issue at a Glance
• There were 5,493 confirmed cases of child abuse in Harris County in 2011. • There were 4,961 hospitalizations due to child maltreatment in Texas and 895 in Harris County from 2004-2009. • In 2011, there were 231 confirmed fatalities due to child abuse in Texas and 38 in Harris County alone. • Victims of child abuse often develop emotional/behavioral problems, do poorly in school, and are more likely to enter the criminal justice system than their non-abused peers. • Community-based programs focusing on prevention are essential to reducing rates of child abuse and neglect.
Statement of Need
Child maltreatment is defined by the federal government as any act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation of a child.2 Child maltreatment is often referred to as a silent epidemic; it receives far less attention than other, less prevalent, sources of child harm. Even though schools, childcare centers, medical centers, and all individuals in Texas are required to report suspected cases of child abuse, many cases each year go unreported and uninvestigated. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes four common types of child maltreatment: physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect.3 Child abuse and neglect impacts many children every year. In 2011, Harris County Child Protective Services (CPS) received 32,074 reports of child abuse and 27,565 of those reports were assigned to investigation, resulting in a total of 5,493 confirmed cases of child abuse/neglect.4 Children of all races, ages, and socioeconomic statuses are affected by abuse. Texas law mandates the reporting of suspected child abuse by all
Nationally, an estimated 32-43% of child abuse cases go unreported. Source: 2010 National Incidence Study
72
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
individuals to law enforcement, the Department of Family and Protective Services, the agency that licenses the facility where the abuse took place, or an agency designated by the court to protect children.5 Failure to report suspected abuse is a Class A misdemeanor, one step below the lowest level of felony.6 However, despite these reporting requirements, there is a discrepancy between projected, alleged, and confirmed cases of child maltreatment. The 2010 National Incidence Study found that CPS investigates only 32-43% of child abuse cases nationally, and the remaining cases are never reported, or reported but not investigated, suggesting that the majority of child abuse cases remain unknown to CPS.7 Furthermore, of the 86% of reported cases that were assigned to be investigated by Harris County CPS in FY 2011, 20% were confirmed as being child abuse or neglect.8 There are several possibilities that explain the apparent inconsistency in the data. The National Incidence Report found that at least two-thirds of individuals who are federally mandated to report child abuse do not report suspected cases.9 Cultural differences may also be a factor in the reporting of abuse statistics. While some cultures may view practices such as corporal punishment as abuse, others might view corporal punishment as an acceptable punishment for misbehaving children. These issues help explain why the projected numbers of child abuse cases are much higher than the numbers of investigated and confirmed cases. Given that so many cases go unreported, it is likely that there are many more actual cases of child abuse than those uncovered by CPS. For years â&#x20AC;&#x153;bad parentsâ&#x20AC;? were thought to be the sole cause of child abuse. However, research shows that the roots of child abuse lie within the community and not only with parents. Neighborhood structure is a contributing factor to child maltreatment. Neighborhoods with a high resident turnover rate make it difficult for parents to find positive support networks, and oftentimes neighborhoods are self-selecting in the residents they attract. Drug and alcohol abuse by caregivers also raises the risk that child abuse will occur in the home, as does having caregivers with untreated mental illnesses. Children have even worse outcomes when drug/alcohol abuse and mental illness are combined. In addition to substance abuse and mental health problems, socioeconomic status plays a large role in child maltreatment. Single-parent households and those near or below the poverty line all have higher incidences of child maltreatment.10
CPS Investigations into Child Maltreatment in Texas Year
Alleged Victims
Confirmed Victims
Children removed from home
2006
275,539
67,737
17,536
2007
278,303
71,344
15,920
2008
280,557
70,589
14,295
2009
283,922
68,326
12,107
2010
288,080
66,897
16,347
2011
297,971
65,948
17,108
All of these factors contribute to the perpetuation of child abuse and put children at risk of maltreatment by their caretakers. The negative effects of child maltreatment include toxic stress, emotional/behavioral problems, poor performance in school, an increased likelihood of contact with the criminal justice system, and an increased probability of victims going on to abuse their own children. While moderate levels of stress are healthy, children in the custody of an abusive guardian are exposed to high levels of stress hormones, which over time and without a positive outlet can lead to toxic stress. Toxic stress, caused by frequent and prolonged adversity in the absence of protective relationships, affects brain and organ development and can cause permanent cognitive impairment in children and adolescents.11 The developmental damage caused by toxic stress can cause abused children to exhibit behavioral and emotional problems ranging from attention deficit disorder to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.12 These disorders often lead to poor school performance due to higher rates of inattentiveness, impulsive behavior, over-activity, learning difficulties, and disorganization.13 The combination of these behavioral issues puts abused children at a higher risk for school failure and dropping out than their non-abused peers.14 Since success in school is integral to a healthy life, some abused children struggle with leading a normal adult life. This inability to function normally as an adult can manifest itself in several ways, including a perpetuation of the child maltreatment cycle, as children who have been abused and neglected are likely to abuse their own children.15 Additionally, children who have been maltreated have a 59% greater chance of being arrested as a juvenile and a 28% greater chance of being arrested as an adult.16 The most severe cases of child abuse and neglect can lead to hospitalization and even death. There were 4,961 hospitalizations due to child maltreatment in Texas between 2004 and 2009, and 932 of those hospitalizations were for multiple types of abuse. Of the total hospitalizations in Texas, 895 came from children living in Harris County.17 Undoubtedly, this number is smaller than the number of needed hospitalizations since parents who abuse their children are unlikely to take them to receive proper medical attention. In a handful of cases, child maltreatment can even lead to the death of the abused child, and in FY 2011, there were 38 confirmed fatalities due to child abuse in Harris
The myriad of negative effects of child maltreatment include toxic stress, emotional/behavioral problems, poor performance in school, an increased likelihood of contact with the criminal justice system, and an increased probability of victims going on to abuse their own children.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
73
County and 231 in Texas.18 Those deaths are 100% preventable. The impacts of child maltreatment can be felt long into adulthood. Aside from the physical and emotional problems arising from child abuse and neglect, there are also economic consequences. Child abuse puts unnecessary strain on society and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The CDC estimates that each case of nonfatal child abuse costs $212,012 in medical, criminal justice, and child welfare costs over the course of that child’s lifetime.19 Fatal child abuse is estimated to cost $1,272,900 in medical and loss of productivity costs.20 As these staggering numbers show, child maltreatment carries severe consequences that ripple across society. The long-term physical, emotional, educational, and fiscal problems stemming from child maltreatment can be prevented with family support programs. Houston’s children should not have to suffer the completely preventable and long-lasting consequences of child abuse and neglect.
Community Response
CPS is on the front lines in tackling the problem of child abuse. CPS investigates potential abuse cases, takes children into government custody and places them in foster/adoptive families if necessary, and provides many services to abused and high-risk children. When a suspected abuse case is reported to the police, police inform CPS. Harris County CPS is made up of two organizations: the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and Harris County Protective Services for Children and Adults (HCPS). CPS provides a variety of services to all children in Harris County, including TRIAD, Community Youth Services (CYS), and the Kinder Emergency Shelter. The TRIAD program operates under the belief that there are no bad kids, but only bad choices, and is made up of three organizations dedicated to serving at-risk youth. TRIAD provides court and diversion services for high-risk youth, as well as parenting classes and mental health services.21 CYS provides free “crisis intervention, counseling and case management services” for families and children experiencing domestic problems.22 Based in 18 Harris County school districts and one law enforcement agency, CYS aims to prevent youth from running away, being abused, dropping out of school, or entering the juvenile justice system.23 The Kinder Emergency Shelter serves
CPS Investigations into Child Maltreatment in Harris County
74
Year
Alleged Victims
Confirmed Victims
Children removed from home
2006
35,033
6,883
2,456
2007
34,013
6,315
2,135
2008
35,388
6,365
1,980
2009
34,277
6,671
1,866
2010
35,729
6,535
2,636
2011
36,198
5,493
2,388
youth aged 12-17 who “need to be separated from threatening home situations.”24 The shelter provides housing, school services, counseling, and case management so that youth can eventually return to a safe home environment, while having their needs met in the interim. All of these programs are available to any Harris County child who needs them. In addition to services provided to all Harris County children, Harris County Protective Services offers additional services to children who are in CPS custody. Medical and dental clinics serve children referred by CPS, and the Children’s Crisis Care Center partners with public and private organizations to improve and enhance services for children and families.25 Services such as adoption and foster care are available but are used as a last resort, as CPS is mandated to keep families together whenever possible. Help for Parents, Hope for Kids (Help and Hope) is a Texas-wide media campaign launched in the summer of 2012 by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. Help and Hope provides resources for parents such as parenting tips, emergency hotlines, information on recognizing child abuse, and other community resources aimed at preventing child abuse before it happens.26 The campaign is broadcasted through a number of social media sites including Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest, ads in movie theaters and retail stores, and on traditional media such as TV and the radio. Advertisements are also posted in Spanish in order to reach more families.27 CPS and other service providers are working hard to provide adequate services to victims and reduce the rate of child abuse, but many existing services are reactive rather than preventative, addressing the problem after the abuse has happened rather than preventing the abuse from occurring in the first place. Even services like TRIAD, which is a preventative program, is serving children already at high risk of being abused. While there has been a recent trend moving towards a model to prevent (rather than mitigate) child abuse, more collaborative efforts focused on prevention at the community level rather than on the individual level are needed.
A Path Forward
More funding for family support services that are evidence-based and preventative would go a long way towards reducing the incidence of child
Physical Abuse 27.9%
Sexual Abuse 12.1%
Physical Neglect 10.6% Neglectful Supervision 41.8%
Medical Neglect 4.7% Abandonment 0.1%
Completed CPS Investigations in Harris County
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Emotional/Verbal Neglect 2.0%
Refusal To Assume Parental Responsibility 0.5%
maltreatment. Socially-isolated parents are more at risk for abusing their children, and parents who lack a social support network are at a higher risk of abusing their children than parents with an extensive network of friends whom they can turn to when they need support. Additionally, funding for parent education on child development would help parents become better informed regarding their child’s development and the behavior to be expected at various points of their growth. Rather than focusing solely on the individual parent level, efforts to prevent child abuse and neglect need to focus on the community by offering collaborative services that are preventative rather than reactive. Efforts such as the Nurse-Family Partnership and Triple P programs have been successful in reducing rates of child maltreatment. The Nurse-Family Partnership improves outcomes for children by scheduling home visits by nurses for new mothers until their child turns two.28 Triple P takes a tiered approach to child abuse prevention with programs ranging from community awareness to group discussions with self-evaluations. Funding
and support for these and other evidence-based and preventative programs is integral for reducing child abuse.
Additional Resources
• If there is immediate danger to a child, call 911 • National Parent Hotline 855-427-2736 • Texas Runaway Hotline 888-580-4367 • To report child abuse, call the Texas Abuse Hotline 1-800-252-5400 • Children’s Assessment Center: www.cachouston.org • Department of Family Protective Services: www.dfps.state.tx.us • Harris County Child Abuse Task Force: www.hccatf.org • Prevent Child Abuse Texas: www.preventchildabusetexas.org • The Center for Parenting and Family Well-Being: http://childrenatrisk. org/policy/cpfwb/ • Help for Parents, Hope for Kids: http://www.helpandhope.org/findhelp.html
PROJECTED ABUSE/NEGLECT: The number per 1,000 children in Harris County who are projected to be abused or neglected Year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
68.2
85.3
87.4
86.3
84.5
81.8
137.1
150.6
143.3
139.7
156.9
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Incidence Study; CPS in Harris County, Annual Report, 2009, 2010
CASES REPORTED: The number of cases of child abuse or neglect in Harris County reported to Child Protective Services Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
23,452
23,925
23,827
26,545
30,235
30,621
30,972
32,038
30,794
33,189
32,074
Source: Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Data Book, 2010, 2011
INVESTIGATIONS: The percentage of investigations carried out by Child Protective Services of reports alleging child abuse and/or neglect in Harris County where there was reason to believe abuse or neglect had occurred Year
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
33.0%
29.4%
27.9%
27.8%
22.8%
21.6%
20.3%
19.3%
20.4%
19.2%
16.3%
Source: Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Data Book, 2010 - 2011
The number of fatalities caused by child abuse or neglect in Harris County
Texas law mandates the reporting of suspected child abuse by all individuals.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
30 35 67 44 38 75
AVERAGE CASELOAD: The average caseload per caseworker in investigations for the Houston Region (Region 6) Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
31.0
26.6
22.3
19.6
29.9
27.9
HOSPITALIZATIONS: The number of Harris County children hospitalized in the state of Texas with a discharge code for child maltreatment
Source: Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Data Book, 2006 - 2011
Year
2000
2002
2004
6,127
6,908
7,980
2006
2007
2008
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Indicator
69
119
119
215
185
188
Source: Texas Health Care Information Collection Inpatient Discharge Database, 2004 - 2009
CPS AT HOME: The annual number of children in Harris County confirmed to have been abused who are determined to be safe and living at home while the child and family receive counseling and direct services to enhance the safety of the child Indicator
Year
2009
11,604 10,595 10,050 11,807
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: The total number of children subjected to physical punishment in independent school districts in the Greater Houston area
2010
Year
2004
2006
2009
Indicator
1285
665
660
Source: Department of Education Office of Civil Rights
13,101
Source: CPS in Harris County Annual Report, 2009, 2010
TEMPORARY CUSTODY: The number of children in Harris County taken into temporary managing conservatorship by Child Protective Services until decisions are made about the safety of returning the child to his or her home or a permanent out-of-home facility Year
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
1,139
1,085
1,213
1,343
1,951
1,732
2,456
2,135
1,980
1,866
2,636
Source: CPS in Harris County Annual Report, 2009, 2010
KINDER EMERGENCY SHELTER: The number of children in Harris County placed in the Kinder Emergency Shelter for temporary placement because of threatening home situations Year
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
403
315
465
501
300
355
395
313
270
344
366
357
Source: CPS in Harris County Annual Report, 2009, 2010
FOSTER CARE: The number of Harris County children placed in foster care Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
3,460
3,761
4,151
4,217
4,040
4,356
4,799
4,714
4,368
4,122
4,633
4,888
Source: Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Data Book, 2010, 2011
The number of Harris County children in CPS custody that were returned to their own families
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
478 620 593 448 447
Source: CPS in Harris County Annual Report, 2009, 2010
76
Number of Children Subjected to Corporal Punishment by District in the Greater Houston area
Total Number of Children Subjected to Corporal Punishment in the Greater Houston area CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
School District
2009
Dayton Deer Park Friendswood Goose Creek Pasadena Spring Branch TOTAL
215 10 30 80 40 280 655
Source: Department of Education Office of Civil Rights
CONSERVATORSHIP: The number of children in Harris County in the custody of Child Protective Services by a civil court under the Texas Family Code Year
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
3,865
4,001
3,183
3,092
3,962
3,654
5,180
5,219
5,108
4,962
5,640
Source: CPS in Harris County Annual Report, 2009, 2010
ADOPTION: The number of children adopted through Child Protective Services in Harris County Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
310
315
361
414
493
515
542
623
687
702
786
839
Source: Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Data Book, 2010, 2011
FAMILY VIOLENCE: The number of reports of family violence in Harris County Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
32,470
31,853
31,055
31,246
31,709
33,801
35,161
36,215
34,913
Source: Texas Department of Public Safety, The Texas Crime Report, 2002 - 2010
CASES OPENED: The number of family cases opened in Region 6 for services as a result of a completed investigation Year
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
NA
988
2,079
3,267
3,470
4,947
4,755
4,265
4,725
5,450
5,776
4,432
Source: Data Book, Texas Department of Family Protective Services, 2010, 2011
CYS: The number of client contacts served through Harris County’s Community Youth Services (CYS) Program Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
18,694
21,686
21,562
28,543
28,784
26,140
19,741
21,588
22,137
23,039
25,253
25,082
Source: Community Youth Services
TRIAD: The number of children served through Harris County’s TRIAD Program Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
20,900
21,564
42,573
49,133
45,400
20,479
19,944
22,061
20,779
Source: CPS in Harris County Annual Report, 2009, 2010
STAR: The number of children served through Harris County’s TRIAD’s Services to At-Risk Youth (STAR) Program Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
952
777
245
559
357
293
348
369
428
Source: CPS in Harris County Annual Report, 2009, 2010
UNINTENTIONAL DEATHS: The number of children 17 years and younger that died from an unintentional death in Harris County Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
70
101
94
81
105
100
108
92
83
84
93
95
94
90
84
62
Source: Houston/Harris County Child Fatality Review Team
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
77
And so our message today, to them, is -- to the millions around the world -- we see you. We hear you. We insist on your dignity. And we share your belief that if just given the chance, you will forge a life equal to your talents and worthy of your dreams. Our fight against human trafficking is one of the great human rights causes of our time. -President Barack Obama
78
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
79
HUMAN TRAFFICKING Case Study
Keisha was moved around from relative to relative growing up. Eventually she was placed in foster care. Keisha’s foster father sexually harassed her, so she eventually ran away. On the streets she met a man named Devon who promised to care for her and help her find her biological family. Soon, Devon induced Keisha to go on “dates” with strangers, where she had to exchange sex for money. If she did not, she would be severely beaten.1
Issue at a Glance
• Human trafficking continues to grow as one of the largest criminal enterprises in existence today, with more people enslaved worldwide than at any other time in history. • While international trafficking is a big problem in the U.S., the number of American child victims trafficked with in the U.S. far surpasses the number of victims brought into the country each year. • Although the Texas Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that children under the age of 14 in Texas are victims and therefore cannot be charged with the offense of prostitution, lack of rehabilitative residential placements result in the charging of these children with other offenses in order to remove them from their exploitive situations.
Statement of Need
Human trafficking is modern day slavery. With increasing demand for labor and advances in technology that facilitate communication and travel across the globe, more people are enslaved worldwide today than at any other time in history.2 In fact, trafficking in persons is among the most lucrative criminal enterprises in existence today; second only to drug trafficking. Texas is a hub of human trafficking. The U.S. Department of Justice identified the I-10 corridor as the #1 human trafficking route in the U.S.,
with as many as 1 in 4 four victims in the U.S. passing through Texas.3 In 2011, Texas was responsible for the second highest number of calls to the National Human Trafficking Hotline.4 Houston is a hub for all forms of human trafficking due to its proximity to the border, national airports and seaports, major sporting events, national conventions, and diverse population. Human trafficking exists in many forms, with sex and labor trafficking being the most prevalent forms. Just as there are many forms of trafficking, victims come from all age, race, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds. In the U.S., many victims include international victims brought into the U.S for sex or labor trafficking. But what many people are unaware of is that U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents are also trafficked within our country. In fact, although labor trafficking is the most prevalent form of trafficking worldwide, sex trafficking of domestic victims is the most prevalent form of trafficking in the U.S. today. Within the realm of domestic sex trafficking, domestic minor sex trafficking is especially prevalent, and shows that as many as 300,000 U.S. children are at risk for sexual exploitation, including sex trafficking, every year.5 Most youth at risk for sexual exploitation are runaways or “throwaway” youth who have left home due to experiencing neglect or abuse in their homes. Traffickers, also known as pimps, prey upon the vulnerabilities of these youth, providing them with love, attention, affection, and other voids that prompted the youth to run in the first place. While many traffickers are complete strangers who prey upon these youth, traffickers have also included acquaintances, neighbors, and even relatives, including parents of the victims who traffic their children within their own homes. Many domestic minor sex trafficking victims are runaways who were recruited by pimps while on the street. While we do not have concrete numbers regarding the number of children who run away in Houston each
To address the lack of residential services for victims of domestic minor sex trafficking, Freedom Place, Texas’ first safe house dedicated exclusively for domestic minor sex trafficking victims opened its doors in the spring of 2012. 80
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
year, the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department (HCJPD) tracks the number of children referred for running away. In 2011, 732 children were referred to the HCJPD for running away.6 In 2010, 937 children were referred.7 While these numbers are high, it is important to note that the numbers may underrepresent the true number of child runaways in Houston, as some child runaways may have been referred to the HCJPD for other offenses, or may not have been referred at all. The FBI Innocence Lost Task Force investigates federal crimes involving the victimization of children. In 2011, the Houston Innocence Lost Task Force identified 38 victims of domestic minor sex trafficking.8 In 2010, 41 victims were identified.9 Just as it is difficult to determine an accurate number of child runaways, it is difficult to determine the number of children who are victims of sex trafficking, as many of these children are charged with other offenses or not identified by law enforcement or services providers. Victims of domestic minor sex trafficking may commit offenses such as drug possession, failure to ID, or even prostitution, which subjects them to jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. In 2010, the Texas Supreme Court made a landmark decision, In the Matter of B.W., which addressed the issue of charging children with the offense of prostitution.10 In recognizing that children cannot legally consent to sex, the Court held that children under the age of 14 cannot be charged with prostitution. While the case was a major win for child trafficking victims, the question still remains with respect to the service response for these victims.
Community Response
The State of Texas has emerged as a national leader in its implementation of a comprehensive anti-trafficking legislative framework. Anti-trafficking omnibus bills were passed in the 80th, 81st, and 82nd Texas Legislative Sessions in 2007, 2009, and 2011, respectively, which among many changes, enhanced penalties against traffickers, “Johns,” and facilitators, and increased protections for child victims. The Human Trafficking Prevention Taskforce, convened by the Office of the Texas Attorney General and established during the 81st Legislative Session, brings statewide stakeholders together to develop policy solutions to continue to strengthen Texas’ anti-trafficking laws.
Relationships that Facilitate Human Trafficking
Victim
Trafficker (Pimp)
Buyer (John)
In recognition of the growing problem of trafficking within our community, the City of Houston and Harris County have experienced a growing coalition of law enforcement, service providers, attorneys, and advocacy groups who have joined together to provide a holistic approach to combatting trafficking. • The Human Trafficking Rescue Alliance is a multi-agency, multidisciplinary, diverse group of criminal justice and non-governmental agencies, and was established to build the community’s capacity to provide services, to educate the community about human trafficking, and to develop a coordinated response to human trafficking. Through the core training group, law enforcement trainings are conducted to teach officers how to identify trafficking victims. As of August 2012, all Houston police officers have completed a four hour training on human trafficking. • The Houston City Attorney’s Office and the Special Prosecutions Unit of the Harris County Attorney’s Office target unlicensed sexually oriented businesses within their jurisdiction, many of which are mere fronts for trafficking, prostitution, and other illicit activities. Multiple sexually oriented businesses have been shut down by these concerted efforts. • The Mayor of Houston has established an advisory committee on human trafficking, bringing together law enforcement and key stakeholders to develop strategies to combat all forms of trafficking within the City. • The GIRLS Court was established in Harris County in 2011 as a juvenile specialty court for girls who are actively engaged in or at risk of becoming involved in prostitution and/or human trafficking.11 In recognizing the unique rehabilitative needs of girls engaged in the commercial sex industry, this Court was created to address the underlying trauma associated with their at-risk behaviors and related delinquent conduct. To address the lack of residential services for victims of domestic minor sex trafficking, Freedom Place, Texas’ first safe house dedicated exclusively for domestic minor sex trafficking victims opened its doors in spring of 2012. Domestic minor sex trafficking victims present many difficulties when identified and rescued. Because of trauma bonds and coercion, many are loyal to their pimps and are unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement and service providers. Victims of trafficking thus face unique
Calls to the National Human Trafficking Hotline Number, 2011 California
15.76%
Texas
13.96%
Florida
7.07%
New York
5.74%
Illinois
4.44%
District of Columbia
3.58%
Virginia
3.02%
Georgia
2.83%
Ohio
2.75%
North Carolina
2.68%
SUPPLY
VICTIMS VICTIMS
DEMAND
SEX TOURISM CHILD PORNOGRAPHY COMMERCIAL SEX INDUSTRY
Source: Polaris Project
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
81
challenges that require long-term, intensive rehabilitation. Since 2010, the Trafficked Persons Assistance Program of YMCA International Services has served as the case manager for the majority of domestic minor victims of sex trafficking that are rescued in Houston. Utilizing Freedom Place and other local non-profit organizations, victims are provided with shelter, counseling, education, and reunification with their family if possible. To date, the YMCA has provided services to 45 domestic minor sex trafficking victims.12
professionals as well as CPS case managers are needed to fill the gaps among first responders, as many child trafficking victims are directed to their care and custody. While children under the age of 14 cannot be charged with the offense of prostitution, children ages 14 and older are still being charged with the crime. Furthermore, due to a lack of placement options across the state, children under the age of 14 are being charged with other offenses, such as failure to ID, in order to keep them off the streets. Texas state law does not provide for a comprehensive framework to decriminalize child trafficking victims and provide them with services, also known as “safe harbor” laws. There are several reasons for this, however the main issues stem from the fact that funding for rehabilitative residential services for domestic minor sex trafficking victims is extremely costly. The unique needs of child trafficking victims present additional long-term medical, psychological, legal, and social challenges. Without a sustainable funding stream to provide services for victims, current service providers are limited in their capacity to serve victims as well as the scope of services they can provide.
A Path Forward
Although the State of Texas has made great strides in combatting human trafficking, there is still much more work left to be done. Since runaways are among the most vulnerable children who fall victim to domestic minor sex trafficking, a comprehensive statewide effort is needed to understand the extent and needs of this population and to explore approaches to improving services. A statewide system for identifying and tracking child runaways currently does not exist, and the sharing of information on a statewide level could be instrumental in helping to identify and prevent child trafficking. When first responders such as medical professionals and law enforcement encounter child runaways and children engaged in prostitution, it is imperative that these first responders have a sound understanding about human trafficking. Mandatory law enforcement training on human trafficking was implemented in Texas as part of legislative reform during the 81st Legislative Session. This training is crucial to helping police officers identify trafficking victims and direct them to proper services. Human trafficking training for medical
Additional Resources
• Center to End the Trafficking and Exploitation of Children (CETEC), CHILDREN AT RISK: http://childrenatrisk.org/policy/cetec/ • Trafficked Persons Assistance Program, YMCA International Services: www.ymcahouston.org • Houston Rescue and Restore Coalition: www.houstonrr.org • Catholic Charities: www.catholiccharities.org • National Human Trafficking Hotline: 888-3737-888
DOMESTIC MINOR VICTIMS: The number of domestic minor sex trafficking victims identified in the Greater Houston area Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator
9
26
4
14
52
41
38
28*
Source: FBI Innocence Lost Task Force *Note: Data for 2012 is YTD through August 2012.
RUNAWAYS: The number of referrals to Harris County Juvenile Probation for runaways - Children in need of supervision (CHINS) Year
1990
1994
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
4,288
6,921
4,261
2,207
3,083
2,527
1,459
1,094
937
732
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
82
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
JUVENILE JUSTICE
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
83
JUVENILE JUSTICE Case Study
As a 16-year-old attending a suburban Houston high school, “Joe” made good grades and never got into trouble. However, his Asperger’s Syndrome and poor social skills drew unwanted attention from a school bully. Joe’s mother asked the school to do something about the bully, but the school failed to take action and never informed Joe’s mother of her son’s right to move to another classroom or school. One day, the bullying turned physical, and Joe was attacked in the school hallway. Joe managed to hit his attacker once in self-defense, but it was anything but an even fight; Joe ended up going to the emergency room for stitches while his attacker walked away without injury. Still, at the principal’s request, school police issued both youth citations for assault.1
Issue at a Glance
• The 82nd Texas Legislature implemented significant juvenile justice reform through the merger of the Texas Youth Commission and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission to form the new Texas Juvenile Justice Department. • The juvenile justice system in Texas continues to serve as the largest provider of mental health services for youth across the state, indicating the need for greater availability of community-based services. • The use of Class C misdemeanor ticketing as a method of school discipline has resulted in students receiving multiple tickets throughout their educational years, and has not been effective in reducing recidivism rates for student misbehavior.
Statement of Need
Each year, thousands of youth are referred to county juvenile probation departments across the state of Texas for reasons ranging from minor
Local juvenile probation departments are challenged with providing the best rehabilitative services and treatment for the youth in their care on smaller budgets. 84
offenses (such as theft) to serious offenses, including sexual assault and homicide. In 2010, there were 86,548 formal referrals of youths to juvenile probation departments in Texas.2 Local juvenile probation departments face the challenge of providing high-quality rehabilitative services and treatment for the youth in their care, even as department budgets decline. In 2011, the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department operated on nearly $6 million less than in 2010.3 As the largest provider of mental health services for youth in the state of Texas, the juvenile justice system is often the first opportunity for youth suffering from mental illness to receive treatment. Many of the offenses committed by youth can be attributed to mental illness; it is estimated that 70% of youth in the juvenile justice system suffer from mental illness.4 In addition to referrals to the juvenile justice system, hundreds of thousands of youth are referred to the adult criminal system each year in Texas. A small percentage of these youth have been transferred to the adult system through the process of adult certification, where youth who commit more serious offenses are removed from the juvenile justice system and certified to stand trial as an adult in the criminal system. The remaining youth have been sent to the adult system through Class C misdemeanor referrals. The issuance of Class C misdemeanor tickets for student misconduct in schools has resulted in large numbers of Texas students being issued tickets for low-level offenses, with a disproportionate number of minority and disabled students being ticketed. When a student is charged with a non-traffic-related Class C misdemeanor, the student’s parent must appear in municipal or JP court with his or her child.5 The fine for a Class C misdemeanor can be as much as $500, and if the student fails to appear in court or pay the fine, a warrant for the child’s arrest may be issued upon their 17th birthday.
In 1995, a theft was committed by a juvenile every 24 minutes.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
In 2010, a theft was committed by a juvenile every 48 minutes.
behavior in substance abusing and dependent juvenile offenders.11 • Juvenile Gang Court: Established in 2011, the Juvenile Gang Court, GRIP, is a voluntary, specialized, intensive supervision program for identified gang members.12 The court is only the second of its kind in the nation and aims to reduce youth recidivism by holding gang-involved youth accountable while redirecting them towards healthy alternatives to gang activity.
Community Response
In 2011, the 82 Texas Legislature implemented statewide juvenile justice reform with the merger of the Texas Youth Commission and Texas Juvenile Probation Commission to form the Texas Juvenile Justice Department.6 The reform was implemented after many years of review of the juvenile justice system in Texas and the realization of the need to focus on community-based prevention as well as cost savings. Although the merger of the two agencies is complete, the successful implementation of systemic change will be an ongoing process to improve the juvenile justice system in Texas. In Harris County, a number of initiatives have been implemented within the past several years that have produced positive outcomes for juveniles. In 2007, Harris County was selected to participate in the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The JDAI serves to reduce unnecessary detention while focusing on reducing juvenile crime and keeping communities safe. Various JDAI task forces focus on special detention cases, alternatives to detention, and disproportionate minority contact. Specialized court programs have also been developed within Harris County. Instead of being processed through the traditional avenues of the juvenile justice system, specialty courts provide cost-effective rehabilitative services that are tailored to the individual needs of the youth while reducing recidivism rates. nd
• Juvenile Mental Health Court: Established in 2009, the Juvenile Mental Health Court is a voluntary, specialized diversionary court program for youth in the juvenile justice system that have mental health problems.7 The Mental Health Court utilizes a wraparound model to access community services to provide families with an alternative to relying on the juvenile justice system for treatment.8 In 2011, 41 youth and families completed the program, for an 86% completion rate.9 • GIRLS Court: Established in 2011, the GIRLS Court is designed for girls who are actively engaged in or at risk of becoming involved in prostitution and/or human trafficking.10 • Juvenile Drug Court: Established in 2010, the Juvenile Drug Court, SOAR, is designed to address the underlying clinical causes of delinquent
Texas Juvenile Crime Clock: Calendar Year 1995 v. 2010 1995
2010
Theft
1 : 24 Minutes
1 : 48 Minutes
Burglary
1 : 52 Minutes
1 : 2.25 Hours
Motor Vehicle Theft
1 : 1.5 Hours
1 : 10.5 Hours
Drug Offense
1 : 1 Hour
1 : 45 Minutes
Robbery
1 : 3.5 Hours
1 : 8.5 Hours
Sexual Assault
1 : 5.5 Hours
1 : 6.5 Hours
Homicide
1 : 1.5 Days
1 : 6.5 Days
Unlike the variety of diversionary programs and services for youth referred to the juvenile justice system, services for youth processed in adult Justice of the Peace (JP) or municipal courts for Class C misdemeanors are far more limited. The TRIAD Prevention Program in Harris County is a partnership of the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, Harris County Protective Services, and the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority. The Justice of the Peace Court Family Service Case Manager Program at TRIAD provides services, such as crisis intervention and sentence recommendations during court dockets, to youth and families who appear before the JP Court for various Class C misdemeanor offenses. The case managers are instrumental in providing students and families with the vital information needed to make decisions on the student’s case. The JP Court Family Service Case Manager Program offered by TRIAD is unique to Harris County, as many counties across Texas do not have such programs in place. However, TRIAD has capacity to serve only a fraction of the students issued Class C misdemeanor tickets in Harris County each year.
A Path Forward
Significant steps have been taken in Texas to improve outcomes for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Initiatives which address prevention of delinquent behavior and the reduction of recidivism at the community level must continue to remain a priority. Increased funding for community-based mental health services is vital in helping to reduce the number of children who enter the system as well as to stop the cycle of youth who exit the system from returning. Although many of the juvenile specialty courts in Harris County are still within their first few years of operation, the preliminary data show low recidivism
Instead of being processed through the traditional avenues of the juvenile justice system, specialty courts provide cost-effective rehabilitative services that are tailored to the individual needs of the youth while reducing recidivism rates.
Source: Texas Juvenile Probation Commission
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
85
among participating youth, positive outcomes for families, and cost savings. These outcomes demonstrate the effectiveness of measures which focus on the rehabilitation of the youth rather than on punishment. The negative consequences associated with a criminal record for students who have been issued a Class C misdemeanor ticket warrant an examination of the practice. Alternative school discipline programs, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, provide highly effective school-wide disciplinary measures that do not result in criminal records for students. Successful interventions have included programs focusing on truancy prevention and reduction in student misbehavior using peer mediation, parent involvement, in school youth-court programs, and training for school-based police officers. While these programs have proven successful in reducing the use of Class C misdemeanor violations, suspensions, and alternative educational programs, many have been cut for lack of funding. Considering the vital importance of encouraging student success, it is imperative that we prioritize programs that keep children in
school rather than taking them out of the classroom for detention. Other successful interventions have included programs focusing on truancy prevention and reduction in student misbehavior using peer mediation, parent involvement, in school youth-court programs, and training for school-based police officers.
Additional Resources
• Texas Appleseed: www.texasappleseed.net • Earl Carl Institute, Thurgood Marshall School of Law: www.earlcarlinstitute.org • Disability Rights Texas: www.disabilityrightstx.org • Center for Effective Justice, Texas Public Policy Foundation: www.texaspolicy.com
INTAKE REFERRALS: The number of referrals to the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
20,296
29,221
34,027
30,422
27,046
24,641
24,335
20,812
22,738
26,072
23,488
24,877
23,164
20,866
19,828
17,978
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
HOMICIDE: The number of referrals to the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department for homicide Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
32
62
71
30
16
15
17
16
14
13
16
14
27
16
18
10
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
FELONY ASSAULT: The number of referrals to the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department for felony assault offenses Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
336
560
666
363
286
282
273
298
360
382
383
350
328
336
352
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
SEXUAL ASSAULT: The number of referrals to the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department for sexual assault offenses Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
152
211
181
147
95
109
94
124
146
189
186
171
149
148
142
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
FELONY THEFT: The number of referrals to the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department for felony theft offenses Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
159
213
215
124
90
63
64
77
91
67
110
106
84
110
83
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
FELONY DRUG: The number of referrals to the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department for felony drug offenses Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
584
647
675
566
679
599
550
644
630
758
689
762
740
407
349
309
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
86
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
RUNAWAYS, TRUANCY, and MINOR OFFENSES: The number of children in Harris County referred to the Harris County Youth Services Center (YSC) for runaways, truancy, and other minor offenses Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
5,218
3,879
3,446
3,204
9,764
3,854
3,373
2,769
2,696
2,214
1,968
1,537
1,620
1,832
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
CHILDREN REFERRED TO COURT SUPERVISION: The number of referrals of children in Harris County determined by the court to be in need of supervision because of status offenses Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
4,288
6,700
7,292
5,338
5,319
4,824
4,520
2,451
3,566
2,115
2,893
1,858
1,620
1,367
1,125
1,715
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
DETENTION: The number of children placed in detention by the courts in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
6,598
7,052
6,144
8,113
6,605
6,411
6,215
6,616
6,098
6,935
6,639
6,597
5,095
4,384
4,328
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
AVERAGE COST: The average cost per child per day in Harris County juvenile detention facilities Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Indicator
$88.00
$99.66
$96.25
$98.36
$88.09
$127.02
$117.34
$132.18
$125.69
$133.40
$126.44
$160.00
$210.96
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
JUVENILE MENTAL HEALTH COURT: The number of youths served in the Harris County Juvenile Mental Health Court Year
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
35
24
41
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department Note: Data for 2010 and 2011 include youth who entered the Mental Health Court in 2009 and 2010, respectively
TJJD COMMITMENTS: The number of youth committed to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department* (TJJD) from Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
572
428
405
469
591
619
404
401
527
580
569
573
318
195
172
97
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department Note: The Texas Youth Commission was abolished in December 2011 and replaced with the Texas Juvenile Justice Department
TJJD AVERAGE COST: The average cost per day to house a juvenile committed to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department* (TJJD) Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
$76.03
$81.33
$86.00
$85.39
$110.11
$129.36
$151.28
$155.02
$153.20
$162.88
$190.07
$270.49
$323.05
$359.58
$209.06
Source: Legislative Budget Board Note: The Texas Youth Commission was abolished in December 2011 and replaced with the Texas Juvenile Justice Department
AVERAGE CASELOADS: The average number of caseloads per juvenile probation officer in Harris County Year
1991
1992
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
68
71
38.4
51.3
47
54
55
55
64.5
53
55
67
56
57
40
37
35
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
87
FIELD SERVICES: The average monthly number of children on probation receiving field services in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
NA
3,089
3,298
NA
3,503
3,760
3,650
NA
4,756
5,140
5,235
5,429
5,208
4,330
3,665
3,544
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
RECIDIVISM: The percentage of children on probation who relapsed back into criminal and antisocial behavior within one year of original referral Year
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
19%
19%
NA
13.3%
16.1%
14.4%
13.4%
13.9%
14.7%
15.6%
17.0%
18.4%
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
JUVENILE GANG MEMBERS: The number of youths who fit the gang member criteria in Houston Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Indicator
1,098
2,645
2,640
2,125
1,556
NA
306
NA
300
230
222
363
566
607
Source: Houston Police Department
ADULT CERTIFICATION: The number of juveniles certified as adults in Harris County Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
170
155
105
64
73
38
84
49
55
56
90
81
83
78
57
36
Source: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
88
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
E A R LY E D U C AT I O N
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
89
EARLY EDUCATION Case Study
When Tina arrived in a pre-kindergarten program in Washington, D.C., she was unable to recognize any sounds or letters. By the time she left for kindergarten, she knew all her letters and more sounds than the standards require. Now, six years later, Tina’s teachers say she’s “on a roll” in school.1 Children across the nation – and especially children of low socioeconomic status – greatly benefit from early education. Quality pre-school programs give children the foundation they need to excel academically. Pre-school students are better able to transition into elementary school, and once there, they have heightened behavioral and participatory skills that allow them to better engage with and benefit from instruction at school.
Issue at a Glance
• It is important that children receive high quality education during the early years of their lives, which are most crucial to development. • Quality early education increases school readiness and contributes to better student academic outcomes, especially in children of low socioeconomic status. • Texas Pre-K programs have lost $223 million in recent education budget cuts. • The number of NAEYC accredited child care providers operating in Harris County has decreased over 70% since 2006.
Statement of Need
There are many studies that examine the relationship between early education and scholastic achievement. While the data consistently shows that early education is beneficial, many children are not enrolled in quality early education programs. This is particularly problematic for children of low socioeconomic status – the same group that has the most to gain
Head Start Enrollment in Harris County 2010-2011
7,882 Since the 82nd Texas Legislative Session, Texas Pre-K programs have lost $223 million in discretionary grant cuts. 90
from quality early education. National focus tends to be centered on higher education, yet it would be a mistake to ignore early education. These first years of schooling provide the foundation for academic excellence that will allow children to obtain higher education. The benefits of early education cannot be overstated, as the first years of a child’s life are the most crucial to their development. A child’s brain architecture is established from birth to five years old, creating the foundation upon which all later learning, behavior and health depend.2 During these early years, it is important that a child receives a high quality education. In addition to a teacher with appropriate credentials, one of the most important markers of a high quality early education experience is an optimal teacher-to-child ratio.3 Texas’ publicly funded Pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) program is an educational program for 3- or 4-year-old children that develops skills necessary for kindergarten curriculum. Pre-K enrollment is not mandatory in Texas; however, 80% of Texas public and charter schools offered either half-day or full-day Pre-K programs in 2007.4 Current law does mandate that a school district must offer a free, half-day Pre-K program if at least 15 eligible 4-year-olds live within the district’s boundaries.5 Districts can only be exempt from this mandate if they would have to build new classroom facilities in order to offer the program.6 According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an estimated 85% of the state’s 4-year-olds attend a public or private Pre-K program.7 In Harris County, 40,229 children were enrolled in a Texas Education Agency administered Pre-K program in 2010, up from 30,731 in 2003.8 Texas has the highest state-funded Pre-K enrollment in the nation.9 However, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), early education programs in Texas are not necessarily high quality. Texas met only four of ten criteria the institute uses in its evaluations of Pre-K programs. Two criteria not met were maximum
Head Start Enrollment in Harris County
2006-2007
7,779
2007-2008
7,328
2008-2009
7,196
2009-2010
7,861
2010-2011
7,882
Source: Harris County Department of Education; AVANCE Houston; Neighborhood Centers, Inc.; Gulf Coast Community Services Association
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
class size and staff-child ratio. The NIEER also tracks resources for early education, and in 2011 Texas ranked 22nd in state spending on Pre-K. However, recent education budget cuts have impacted early education further. Since the 82nd Texas Legislative Session, Texas Pre-K programs have lost $223 million in discretionary grant cuts.10 As a result, many fullday Pre-K programs have been reduced to half-day programs or eliminated entirely. In addition to public and private pre-kindergarten programs, there is also a need for additional quality programs to care for children with working parents. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) regulates child care licensing, which includes center-based and home-based child care. In 2011 there were 1,521 facilities in Harris County that met standards and were licensed under the DFPS Child Care Licensing program, and these facilities had a capacity of approximately 190,000 children.11 As of July 2012 there were 43 child care providers operating in Harris County that were accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and this is down from a high of 158 in 2006.12 Some programs pay all or part of a child’s care based on eligibility guidelines; however these subsidy programs are not regulated by DFPS. In 2011, 4.2% of Harris County children under the age of 14 were receiving subsidized child care through the Workforce Commission and its Gulf Coast Workforce Development Board.13
Community Response
There are several state grants that assist districts with funding Pre-K programs. Head Start, for example, is the longest-running national school readiness program in the U.S. It provides comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families. Head Start was originally conceived in 1965 as a catch-up summer school program that aimed to bridge the achievement gap between low-income children and their more affluent peers. As the program took hold, it became apparent that six weeks of pre-school could not make up for five years of poverty, and the program was expanded in 1981 to last a full school year. Data shows that the Head Start program shows immediate improvement in the IQ scores of participating children.14 Even Start is another statewide program that encourages early
4.2% 2011 percentage of all children under the age of 14 in Harris County receiving subidized child care through the Workforce Commission and its Gulf Coast Workforce Development Board
education. The program offers grants to support local family literacy projects that integrate early childhood education, adult literacy, parenting education, and interactive parent/child literacy activities. It is offered to low-income families with parents who are eligible for services under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and their children from birth through age 7. The program aims to help children reach their full potential as learners, provide literacy training for parents, and help parents to become full partners in education of their children. Extensive research shows that parents are more influential in their children’s lives than anyone else, shaping their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Thus, part of receiving a quality early education program is involving the parents.15 Within the Greater Houston community there are many other organizations working to promote early education. Avance Houston seeks to strengthen families in at-risk communities by enhancing parenting skills, promoting family literacy, and providing early childhood development programs. Early childhood education and Head Start programs are one of their biggest initiatives. The House of Tiny Treasures is Houston’s only nationally accredited early childhood development center dedicated to serving homeless children and families. It provides early childhood care, education, and therapy to homeless pre-school age children. Collaborative for Children is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of early care and education in the Houston area. They focus on helping parents find child care, providing parents with resources pertaining to child care and development, supporting early care and education professionals, increasing public awareness surrounding the impact of quality early education, and strengthening early care and education systems through policy development and systems change.
A Path Forward
Early education has definite implications for our communities. Early education increases school readiness, contributes to higher student academic outcomes, increases high school graduation rates, and reduces the prison population.16 For the money, there may be no better investment the state can make that will yield this type of return. Texas’ 82nd Legislature cut over $5 billion from the public education budget for the 2012-2013 biennium, which has impacted the availability
One of the most important markers of a high quality early education experience is an optimal teacher-to-child ratio. CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
91
of early education in some districts. For example, El Paso ISD cut nearly 93% of its pre-kindergarten teaching positions.17 We must invest in early education, as it is vital to the development of a child and not something that can be supplemented later in life. Once children are out of the early developmental stage, the opportunity is gone.
Breakdown of Children Receiving Subsidized Child Care by Age in Harris County
Additional Resources
• Collaborative for Children: www.collaborativeforchildren.org • National Institute for Early Education Research: http://nieer.org/ • Texas Head Start State Collaboration Office: http://thssco.uth.tmc.edu/
Infants (0-17months)
Toddlers (18-35 months)
Preschool (3-5 years)
School Age (Kindergarten-14 years)
2000
4,497
6,498
10,647
10,492
2001
5,097
6,914
11,494
12,182
2002
3,415
5,568
10,903
12,182
2003
4,014
6,058
11,458
16,200
2004
7,348
8,633
13,206
15,496
2006
7,537
7,945
13,344
17,559
2007
7,540
8,018
13,728
16,993
2008
6,932
7,532
12,723
14,143
2009
6,670
7,852
13,077
13,724
2010
8,460
9,695
15,428
14,809
2011
6,741
8,563
14,132
11,939
Source: The WorkSource - Gulf Coast Workforce Board
PRE-K: The number of children enrolled in the pre-kindergarten public school program designed for the improvement of the social, intellectual, language, aesthetic, and physical development of children in Harris County* Year
1990
1992
1994
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
14,551
17,897
20,475
22,958
24,563
25,254
28,743
30,731
32,683
35,381
34,965
36,022
38,179
39,842
40,229
Source: Texas Education Agency, LONESTAR * Note: This indicator excludes charter school enrollment
HEAD START: The number of children enrolled in the federal Head Start Program in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1999
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
3,424
3,806
4,149
5,512
5,178
5,670
7,215
7,568
7,760
8,589
7,679
7,328
7,386
7,861
7,882
Source: Harris County Department of Education; AVANCE Houston; Neighborhood Centers, Inc.; Gulf Coast Community Services Association
SUBSIDIZED CARE: The percentage of all children under the age of 14 in Harris County receiving subidized child care through the Workforce Commission and its Gulf Coast Workforce Development Board Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
3.5%
3.8%
3.9%
4.3%
4.9%
4.8%
4.9%
4.9%
5.0%
4.2%
Source: The WorkSource - Gulf Coast Workforce Development Board
LICENSED FACILITIES: The number of facilities that meet standards and are licensed under the Child Care Licensing program within the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
1,095
1,236
1,382
1,322
1,503
1,566
1,588
1,596
1,618
1,622
1,648
1,548
1,528
1,521
Source: Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Child Care Licensing
CHILDREN IN CHILD CARE: The capacity/number of children receiving care in state licensed or registered child care facilites in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
111,617
122,811
134,849
139,195
145,625
148,605
158,053
182,650
184,511
188,238
191,277
192,150
189,840
191,151
Source: Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Child Care Licensing
NATIONAL STANDARDS: The number of child care providers in Harris County that are accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator
NA
62
59
73
77
86
89
124
149
158
107
60
50
47
NA
43
Source: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC); Collaborative for Children
92
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
D R O P O U T R AT E
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
93
DROPOUT RATE Case Study
For some students, graduating from high school is a given. For others, like Dominique Stewart, it is a daily struggle to stay in school. When Dominique entered Furr High School in Northeast Houston as a sophomore in August 2010, she met multiple criteria of a student at risk of dropping out of school. She had been abandoned by her parents and subsequently moved in and out of foster care and the juvenile justice system. She was also one of approximately 3,000 students HISD identified as homeless, based on a broad definition of those who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. Because of these risk factors, Dominique was well on her way to becoming part of the 37% of high school students in Harris County who did not graduate in 2010. However, she overcame those obstacles. As part of an accelerated charter program offered by HISD, she was able to do extra work in order to quickly complete requirements and successfully graduated in December 2010.1
Issue at a Glance
• The 4-year graduation rate for the 2006-2007 first-time freshman cohort was 68.9% in Harris County. • 51.8% of Harris County students were identified as at risk of dropping out in 2011. • High school dropouts face limited earning potential, a higher likelihood of committing a crime, and a shorter life span. • At-risk students can be identified as early as 3rd grade with an early warning system.
Statement of Need
The national high school graduation rate is 75.5%,2 which translates into one student dropping out every 26 seconds in the United States.3 In Harris County, the 4-year graduation rate for the 2006-2007 first-time freshman
cohort was 68.9%,4 which means that of the class of students that entered high school in the fall of 2006, 31.1% failed to graduate within four years. How does this stack up with the rest of the state? Among the four major metro areas in Texas – Houston, Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio – Houston leads with the highest graduation rate. For the 2006-2007 first-time freshman cohort, the 4-year graduation rate was 68.1% for Bexar County (San Antonio), 66.7% for Dallas County (Dallas), and 66.9% for Travis County (Austin). Statewide, Texas has a 4-year graduation rate of 71.6%, slightly ahead of Harris County. While there is no single root cause of the dropout problem, there are clear risk factors that put students at risk. In 2011, 51.8% of Harris County students were identified by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) as at risk of dropping out.5 “At-risk” students (as designated by TEA) were held back a grade, failed core classes, did not perform satisfactorily on assessments, are pregnant or a parent, have limited English proficiency, have been referred to the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, are homeless, or reside in a placement facility.6 Research shows that the road to dropping out can begin as early as the third grade, with an especially strong link between third grade reading skills and graduation; students who do not read proficiently by third grade are four times more likely to drop out than those who do read on grade level.7 In Harris County, only 42% of third graders were reading at the Commended level on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills in 2011.8 Ninth grade is another crucial stage for at-risk students, as academic success in core ninth grade subjects is highly predictive of graduation.9 In Harris County, only 64% of ninth graders passed the core class of Algebra I in 2011.10 Disciplinary issues and lower socioeconomic status are also linked to increased dropout rates. In recent years there has been as much as a 14 percentage point gap between graduation rates for economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged students.11 This is not insignificant in Harris County, where 65% students are economically disadvantaged.12
In 2011, 51.8% of Harris County students were identified as at-risk of dropping out.
94
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
The repercussions of high dropout rates include a variety of social and economic challenges. Not surprisingly, dropping out severely limits economic potential. The lifetime earnings of a high school graduate are, on average, approximately $260,000 more than a high school dropout.13 And that is only if a dropout manages to obtain a job in the first place – in 2009 the unemployment rate for dropouts was 15.4%, compared to 9.4% for high school graduates and 4.7% for those with a Bachelor’s degree.14 This loss of potential income not only affects the dropout personally, but also represents a loss to the state and national economy. Researchers at Texas A&M University estimated that the Texas gross state product would lose at least $4.9 billion due to the loss of potential earned wages from class of 2012 dropouts.15 Moreover, a high school degree is only becoming more valuable in the current global job market. It is estimated that in 2018, over 60% of jobs will require at least some education beyond high school.16 In Harris County specifically, the 2009 median income for a high school dropout was $18,522, while the median income for a high school graduate (with no additional education) was $26,081.17 And the impact of failing to complete high school is not only economic. High school graduates live longer,18 and more than 80% of Texas adult prison inmates are high school dropouts.19
Community Response
National organizations such as America’s Promise Alliance, as well as President Obama’s administration, have set a target of reaching a 90% national graduation rate by 2020. This is a leap from the current rate of 75%, but federal programs such as the High School Graduation Initiative and GradNation’s Dropout Prevention Campaign are currently working toward this goal by providing funding for dropout prevention programs and raising national awareness around the issue. However, in order to impact dropout rates here in the State of Texas we need to address the issue at three different levels: the individual level, the school level, and the community level. At the individual level, children need positive role models to encourage graduation. Ideally parents or guardians will create an expectation of success and offer the support and encouragement needed to finish school. If a student does not have that positive relationship at home, there are
Percentage of 3rd grade Harris County students who met Commended Performance on TAKS Reading in 2011
Asian Students
White Latino Students Students
resources to find that support elsewhere. Project Hope was established in Houston in 1998 with the mission of providing at-risk high school students with hope, direction, and encouragement. This mission is achieved by pairing students with trained mentors who assist them in setting and achieving goals, including graduation, and coping with issues that hinder performance at school such as truancy or domestic crisis. At the school level, there are several programs in place to combat the dropout crisis. The HISD Student Engagement Department provides district-wide leadership to help students stay in school, improve the HISD graduation rate, and support all aspects of school reform. The department is responsible for the planning, implementation, and coordination of all dropout recovery strategies, as well as dropout and truancy prevention efforts. Dropout Prevention Specialists work with school faculty and community members regularly to encourage dropouts to return to class and to prevent at-risk students from dropping out. Alternative and charter schools are available to meet the needs of students who would benefit from a nontraditional educational environment. In addition, HISD provides services to specific at-risk populations, such as the SuCasa Homeless Education Program that works with homeless students. At the community level, there is a clear desire for higher graduation rates. Project GRAD, a national organization, brought its mission of supporting quality public education and increasing graduation rates to Houston. Each year the organization reaches over 44,000 HISD students, 73% of whom are at-risk. It uses a system of curricular, methodological, and student and family support programs to build academic skills, improve student behavior, and address family needs. Communities in Schools of Houston is a campus-based nonprofit organization that reaches students who meet the criteria of the state’s at-risk indicators. Communities in Schools’ mission is to surround students with a community of support, empowering them to stay in school and achieve in life. In order to do this, they provide the “Five Basics”: a one-on-one relationship with a positive adult role model; after-school programs focused on academics and life skills; access to health care, food programs, and counseling services; career development and readiness; and community service activities. During the 2010-2011 school year, Communities in Schools of Houston served 36,156 at-risk students and their families, and 88% of case-managed seniors
Black Students
61% 56% 39% 30%
Economically Disadvantaged Students
35%
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
All Students
42% Source: Texas Education Agency
95
graduated from high school.20 In addition to preventing dropouts, there are also efforts to bring students who have already dropped out back to school. A Houston group called Expectation Graduation hosts an annual Reach Out to Dropouts Walk, where groups of volunteers go door-to-door encouraging students to return to school. Just as there is no single profile of an at-risk student, there is no single approach to dropout prevention. We need to employ multiple strategies to address the variety of risk factors, and collaboration between the individual, the school, and the community is essential.
and monitor students who are off track is needed. The current Ninth Grade Transition and Intervention Program targets students as they leave 8th grade, in order to monitor them in the critical transition period of their first year of high school. Additionally, since we know that warning signs can appear as early as 3rd grade, we should be flagging students who are at risk that early. By looking for warning signs of disengagement and low performance, even elementary-aged students can receive the interventions and support they need to get them back on track for graduation.
A Path Forward
• Texas Education Agency: www.tea.state.tx.us • Communities in Schools of Houston: http://cishouston.org • Grad Nation Guidebook: www.americaspromiseo.org • Texas Education Agency Ninth Grade Transition and Intervention Program: www.tea.state.tx.us
Additional Resources
The act of dropping out is not an isolated event. It is the end result of a long process of disengagement from school, which can start at least as early as third grade. Therefore, we need to focus our efforts on early identification of students at-risk of dropping out, and interventions to keep those kids on track for graduation. Adoption of an early warning system to identify
LITERACY: The percentage of 3rd grade students in the 8-county Greater Houston region who met Commended Performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
24.5%
34.2%
34.6%
39.5%
34.7%
36.6%
45.2%
47.6%
43.3%
Source: Texas Education Agency
NUMERACY - ALGEBRA I: The percentage of Harris County 9th Graders who passed Algebra I Year
2010
2011
Indicator
66.8%
64.0%
Source: Texas Education Agency
AT-RISK STUDENTS: The percentage of students identified as at risk of dropping out of school in Harris County based on criteria defined in the Texas Education Code Year
1990-91
1994-95
1998-99
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Indicator
20.0%
42.1%
40.5%
44.3%
44.4%
44.7%
48.5%
51.4%
55.1%
53.6%
53.9%
53.9%
52.0%
51.8%
Source: Texas Education Agency
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED: The percentage of students enrolled in Harris County public schools who are economically disadvantaged Year
1989-90
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Indicator
30.5%
49.8%
51.6%
52.5%
54.0%
55.6%
56.9%
59.0%
60.0%
59.4%
59.6%
62.2%
63.2%
60.5%
65.4%
Source: Texas Education Agency
GRADUATION RATE: The average percentage of a freshman cohort in Harris County that graduates within 6 years Year
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
Indicator
59.1%
60.4%
62.7%
63.8%
67.2%
68.1%
67.8%
66.8%
65.4%
67.2%
Source: CHILDREN AT RISK using data from the Texas Education Agency
96
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: The percentage of students in Region 4 (Houston) with disciplinary placements Year
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09*
2009-10
Indicator
1.7%
2.2%
2.8%
3.1%
2.7%
2.5%
2.2%
2.3%
2.2%
1.8%
13.8%
1.6%
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency *In 2008-09 only, the disciplinary placements count included In-School Suspensions
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Disciplinary Actions in Region 4 (Houston), 2010-11 Disciplinary Action
Mandatory
Discretionary
Total Actions**
Count
Percent*
Count
Percent*
Count
Percent^
Expelled to JJAEP
316
32.3
661
67.7
977
0.2
Expelled
338
20.1
1,341
79.9
1,679
0.4
Removed to a DAEP
7,306
38.5
11,665
61.5
18,971
4.8
In-School Suspension
1,639
0.4
392,613
99.6
394,252
100
Out-of-School Suspension
6,407
4.1
150,130
95.9
156,537
39.7
Total - All Disciplinary Actions
16,006
2.8
556,410
97.2
572,416
145.2
Source: Disciplinary Data Products, Texas Education Agency * Refers to the percentage of actions (by action category) that were mandatory versus discretionary ** These counts refer to the number of actions taken; therefore, these figures are greater than counts of students disciplined (due to multiple disciplinary actions for some students) ^ Refers to the percentage of total actions (mandatory and discretionary combined) that fall within each action category
Race/ethnicity of economically disadvantaged students in Harris County, 2011-2012
23.5% ASIAN
66%
3.1%
WHITE BLACK
6.1%
LATINO
Source: Texas Education Agency
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
97
The highest-income countries have the highest rates of enrollment in secondary school and the smallest share of informal employment that is vulnerable to an economic downturn. There is a cost to not educating young people. -Derek Thompson, The Atlantic
98
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
C O L L E G E AT T E N DA N C E AND READINESS
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
99
COLLEGE ATTENDANCE AND READINESS Case Study
Nelda Contreras teaches remedial writing at a community college near Dallas, where she instructs college students on writing fundamentals that should have been mastered in high school or earlier. Most of her students have recently graduated from nearby Texas high schools and passed TAKS, however they still are not ready to do college level work. Justin Rudder, one of the students in her class, is just one of the estimated 70% of Dallas County Community College students who need to take a remediation class in at least one subject area. He says he thought he was more prepared for college work, but after his first two years of high school he didn’t write many papers.1
Issue at a Glance
• Only about 19% of Texas students will complete college. • Of the Texas students enrolled in four-year public colleges and universities, 23% require remediation; this number rises to 51% in two-year colleges. • In 2010, only 54% of Greater Houston students met the Texas Education Agency’s criterion for college ready graduates. • It is estimated that 60% of jobs will require a career certificate or college degree, but only 31% of Texas adults currently have an associate’s degree or higher.
Statement of Need
The journey of a Harris County student through completion of a postsecondary degree is filled with obstacles. Of a cohort of 100 7th grade students in Greater Houston, only 66 will graduate with a high school diploma, and only 54 of those will actually enter college.2 Moreover, of those 54 entering college, only 19 will continue through completion of a higher education credential.3 In other words, while 54% of Greater
Houston students will enter college, only 19% will complete college. One reason students do not complete college degrees is that they are unprepared to be successful in college coursework. This is apparent in the rates of students enrolling in remedial classes, which are required by a college when students have not retained the necessary knowledge in a subject area from high school. For Texas students enrolled in four-year public colleges and universities, 23% require remediation.4 Of that group, 52% fail to complete those remediation courses and only 30% eventually graduate in six years.5 For two-year colleges, the problem is even more serious. There, 51% of freshman students need remedial classes, and only 30% of that group completes them.6 For two-year college students requiring remediation, only 6% go on to graduate in three years.7 For those students who do persist in college, the average time it takes to complete a degree has increased. For college graduates in the class of 2008, full-time students took an average of 4.5 years to complete a two-year degree, and 5.3 years to complete a four-year degree.8 Given more time to graduate, a higher percentage of students do complete their degrees, but the numbers are still low. Of students that started full-time at a Texas two-year college in 2004, 3.1% graduated with a degree in two years, 7.8% graduated within three years, and 11.2% graduated within four years.9 Blacks were the most likely to drop out, with only 8.1% graduating within four years, as compared to 11.3% of Latinos and 11.7% of Whites.10 Given the challenge of completing college, it is essential that students are well-prepared for the rigorous coursework they will face. One way of doing this is encouraging high school students to take advanced classes in Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs. AP and IB courses introduce students to demanding coursework and high standards, and students who pass AP and IB exams are often able to receive credit or advanced placement at postsecondary institutions. Less than a quarter of students in Houston take advantage of this opportunity: in
62.6% of Harris County students took the SAT or ACT in 2010 100
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
2010, 23.1% of 11th and 12th grade students in the Greater Houston area took at least one AP or IB examination.11 Of those students who took the exam, 57.2% scored at or above the criterion for passing.12 In 1998, the percentage of students who passed an AP or IB exam was 73.1%,13 but that number has fallen steadily over time. In order to apply to college, students typically must take a standardized entrance exam like the SAT or ACT. In the Greater Houston area, 63% of students took either the SAT or ACT in 2010.14 That year, while 72% of Black students and 70% of White students took one of the exams, only 47% of Latino students did.15 The average SAT score was 991, which is lower than the national average of 1017. The average ACT score was 21, right on par with the national average. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) tracks college-ready graduates with a set of proficiency standards laid out in coordination with the Texas Higher Education Board. In 2010, 36% of Black students, 44% of Latino students, and 54% of students overall met the criterion for both math and language arts in the Greater Houston area.16 In addition, only about 9% of economically disadvantaged students were college-ready in both subject areas.17 A lack of financial resources is another reason students fail to complete college degrees. Fifty-four percent of students who drop out of college report that it was due to the stress of working and going to school at the same time, and 31% of students who drop out report it was due to the cost of tuition and fees.18 Ironically, a postsecondary degree is one of the primary ways economically disadvantaged students can increase their income potential.19 By 2020, it is estimated that 60% of jobs will require a career certificate or college degree.20 However, just 31% of Texas adults currently have an associateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree or higher.21 This leaves Texas with a significant skills gap, which could send harmful ripples through our communities and economy.
Community Response
Statistics show that those who fail to complete college cost the State of Texas billions of dollars in potential revenue, and worries over a widening skills gap are rising. Organizations across Harris County and beyond are
Mean SAT Score by Race/Ethnicity for Greater Houston area (Region 4) and Texas
HOUSTON - 1113 TX - 1115
working at individual, family, school, and community levels to increase college access and completion among Houston students. At the national and state level, programs like Closing the Gaps by 2015 and Educate Texas are making progress in the field of college access and completion. Closing the Gaps 2015 was adopted by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in 2000 and aims to increase participation and success in higher education. It uses financial aid for low-income students as a major strategy to close college enrollment grants. Educate Texas is also committed to improving college readiness in low-income students in Texas. It developed the Texas College Access Network (TxCAN) in an effort to establish a collaborative network of agencies and organizations working to increase student access and success in postsecondary education. TxCANâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s key initiatives include building awareness of existing college access activities and resources, aligning the strategic efforts of various stakeholders, and providing tools to measure the impact of college access support efforts. Working at the individual, family, and school levels, Houston A+ Challenge operates in 15 Houston-area school districts to ensure that students in the public education system are prepared for successful postsecondary education. Houston A+ Challenge employs coaches that assist teachers, administrators, and district officials to create a more effective and efficient education system. In May 2012, the organization partnered with UT-Austin to facilitate a success initiative between almost twenty public school districts and community college systems in the Houston area. The project, called Gulf Coast Partners Achieving Student Success, seeks to increase readiness, comfort, and eventually success among students moving from public high school to community college. Specifically, the organization is working to lower the number of college freshmen requiring remediation and promote community colleges as cost-effective means to a diploma. Also a community-based organization, College Forward recently expanded its efforts from Austin to the Greater Houston area. College Forward provides free college access and persistence services to economically disadvantaged students to assist them in transitioning from high school to college. Their services include college orientation, college entrance exam preparation, assistance with school and financial aid
HOUSTON - 925 TX - 908 HOUSTON - 1080 TX - 1065
ASIAN
WHITE
HOUSTON - 856 TX - 858
LATINO
While 54% of Greater Houston students will enter college, only 19% will actually end up completing college.
BLACK
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
99
applications, and college persistence support. Institutions of higher education themselves are also taking steps to increase college completion rates. The University of Texas System now offers Finish@UT, a fully online bachelor’s degree completion program. Students who have completed their core credit hours on campus may earn a degree from accredited University of Texas institutions in an accelerated and flexible online format. In another approach, Texas Southern University started a summer school program for incoming freshman that targets student who require remediation in math or English and older students who have spent time away from the classroom. The Summer Academic Enhancement Institute’s primary goal is to help participating students complete a four-year degree on time.22
school students should be challenged to take AP and IB courses before they graduate. Beyond setting high standards for coursework, AP and IB programs offer students the opportunity to earn college credit hours. Gatherings like HISD’s AP/IB Celebration, where former AP students spoke to high school teachers about reaching out to as many students as possible, are important to foster college readiness. Additionally, college counseling resources are currently extremely sparse statewide. The usefulness of college counselors and other outside advisors for getting students into and through college cannot be understated.
Additional Resources
• Complete College America: http://completecollege.org • Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board: www.txhighereddata.org • Project GRAD – Houston: www.projectgradhouston.org • Houston A+ Challenge: www.houstonaplus.org
A Path Forward
In order to introduce them to rigorous, college-level coursework, high
JOB READINESS AND TRAINING: The number of youth participating in job readiness and training programs in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
10,956
6,736
2,258
1,597
806
493
5,612
3,816
4,791
NA
NA
4,459
682
7,453
6,089
2,682
4,592
Source: Workforce Solutions
SUMMER EMPLOYMENT: The number of youth participating in summer youth employment programs in Harris County Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
5,322
7,566
5,153
5,090
6,989
8,000
4,660
2,079
2,360
790
1,550
214
4,412
4,266
87
0
Source: Workforce Solutions
NUMERACY - CALCULUS: The percentage of 12th grade students in Harris County who received credit for a Calculus course since entering 9th grade Year
2010
2011
Indicator
9.2
9.5
COLLEGE ENROLLMENT: The percentage of Harris County graduates entering college Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Indicator
40.8%
56.3%
58.0%
57.6%
Source: Public Education Information Management System, Texas Education Agency
Source: Texas Education Agency
AP/IB - HISD: The percentage of 11th and 12th grade Houston ISD students who scored at or above the criterion for passing on an AP or IB exam Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
71.2%
74.3%
67.4%
64.9%
61.4%
64.0%
66.8%
59.1%
54.7%
54.1%
50.5%
51.2%
49.7%
44.8%
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
AP/IB - REGION 4: The percentage of 11th and 12th grade students in the Greater Houston area (Region 4) that scored at or above the criterion for passing on an AP or IB exam Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
68.6%
71.0%
71.6%
73.1%
70.6%
70.5%
66.5%
68.4%
67.1%
64.5%
62.1%
61.0%
59.5%
58.3%
58.7%
57.2%
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
ACT: The mean ACT score for graduates in the Greater Houston area (Region 4) Year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
20.5
20.8
20.7
20.8
20.7
20.7
20.3
20.3
20.6
20.5
20.5
20.8
21.2
21.2
21
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
100
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
SAT: The mean SAT score for graduates in the Greater Houston area (Region 4) Year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
882
897
1006
1003
1001
1000
1000
1004
1000
1004
1003
1002
994
992
991
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
GIFTED AND TALENTED: The percentage of gifted and talented students in Harris County public schools Year
1990-91
1994-95
1998-99
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Indicator
7.3%
7.1%
8.1%
8.2%
7.2%
7.0%
7.1%
7.2%
7.3%
7.4%
7.3%
7.4%
7.7%
7.8%
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
Top ten fastest growing occupations 2008-2018
Top High Schools for Math and Science - Greater Houston 2012
1
Biomedical Engineers
2
Home Health Aides
HOUSTON ISD
3
Petroleum Engineers Athletic Trainers
Math/ Science Ranking
Campus Name
District Name
1
DEBAKEY HS FOR HEALTH PROF
2
CARNEGIE VANGUARD HS
HOUSTON ISD
4
3
MEMORIAL HS
SPRING BRANCH ISD
5
Personal Care Aides
4
CLEMENTS HS
FORT BEND ISD
6
Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Powerhouse, Substation, and Relay Financial Examiners
5
EASTWOOD ACADEMY
HOUSTON ISD
7
6
KERR HS
ALIEF ISD
8
Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists
7
WESTCHESTER ACADEMY FOR INTERNIO
SPRING BRANCH ISD
9
Biochemists and Biophysicists
8
YES PREP- SOUTHEAST CAMPUS
YES PREP PUBLIC SCHOOLS INC
10
Physician Assistants
9
YES PREP- NORTH CENTRAL CAMPUS
YES PREP PUBLIC SCHOOLS INC
10
CINCO RANCH HS
KATY ISD
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Labor Market & Career Information Department
Source: CHILDREN AT RISK Public School Rankings
The percentage of 11th and 12th grade students in the Greater Houston area (Region 4) taking at least one AP or IB exam Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Test-Takers
6.6%
6.2%
9.4%
9.5%
10.5%
12.0%
13.3%
14.3%
15.4%
16.7%
17.3%
17.7%
19.1%
20.0%
20.6%
23.1%
Passing Rate
68.6%
71.0%
71.6%
73.1%
70.6%
70.5%
66.5%
68.4%
67.1%
64.5%
62.1%
61.0%
59.5%
58.3%
58.7%
57.2%
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
Comparison of Average Verbal, Math, and Writing SAT Scores Verbal Class of 2011
Math
Writing
Texas
National
Texas
National
Texas
National
479
497
502
514
465
489
Source: Texas and College Bound Seniors, College Board
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
99
Educated workers are the basis of economic growth â&#x20AC;&#x201D; they are especially critical as sources of innovation and productivity given the pace and nature of technological progress. -Henry Levin, Teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s College, and Cecelia Rouse, Princeton University
100
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
QUALITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
105
QUALITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Case Study
Like many students in Harris County, Ludreche was not born in America – he and his family immigrated to Houston from Africa in 2009. When it came time for middle school, he enrolled at a public school in the Houston Independent School District. Ludreche’s neighborhood middle school has a history of academic struggles, with students scoring poorly on state standardized tests. However, in 2010 his school joined Houston ISD’s Apollo 20 initiative, which was aimed at turning around low-performing schools. As an eighth-grader at a school with a renewed focus on academic excellence for all students, Ludreche began to thrive. His first language was French, making reading in English a challenge. But with the help of his reading teacher, Ludreche showed an impressive three-and-a-half years of academic growth in reading after only six months. That spring, he was honored with a national award that recognizes students who overcame challenges to become strong readers.1
Issue at a Glance
• As of 2011, there were over 800,000 students enrolled in Harris County public schools; 61% of these students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. • During the 2010-2011 school year, 53% of Harris County students were Latino (up from 50% two years earlier), 20% were Black, and 20% were White. • In 2011, nearly a quarter (24%) of schools in Harris County failed to meet the federal standard for Adequate Yearly Progress. • Among public school freshmen in Harris County who started high school during the 2004-2005 school year, 67% went on to graduate high school within six years.
Harris County is home to an educational landscape that offers a variety of choices for students. 106
Statement of Need
Student bodies in schools across Harris County have boomed in past years; as of 2011, there were over 800,000 students enrolled in Harris County public schools.2 Increasingly, local schools are home to a diverse mixture of students. During the 2010-2011 school year, 53% of Harris County students were Latino (up from 50% two years earlier), 20% were Black, and 20% were White.3 Across the county, 61% of students live in poverty and qualify for free and reduced-price lunch.4 Fifty-two percent of Harris County students are classified by the Texas Education Agency as “at-risk.” About 8% of students are enrolled in special education, and 23% are considered English-language learners. At the other end of the spectrum, 8% of students have been identified as gifted and talented.5 This diverse group of students attends a diverse array of schools. Harris County is home to an educational landscape that offers a variety of choices for students. As the birthplace of the magnet school movement, some of Harris County’s most outstanding schools are magnets, including DeBakey High School for Health Professions, the High School for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Carnegie Vanguard, and the High School for Performing and Visual Arts. In order to attend these selective schools, students living in the district must apply and meet a baseline achievement standard. Alternatively, nearly 37,000 students in Harris County attend charter schools. Harris County is home to a number of high-performing charter school networks, including KIPP, YES Prep, and Harmony. Students elect to attend these schools and are often chosen for spots through a random lottery process. Many charter campuses have long waiting lists of students desiring to attend. Finally, there are 293 private schools located in Harris County, offering students and their families a non-public educational choice.6 In the midst of these diverse school choices, some schools have excelled, while others have faltered. CHILDREN AT RISK’s annual school
16.1% Percentage of teachers in 2011 with over 20 years of experience CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
rankings provide a framework in which to understand the performance of schools in Harris County. These rankings include public schools at all grade levels and use indicators measuring achievement, including graduation rates, students passing TAKS exams at commended levels, college-ready testing, and advanced coursework. Looking across the state, CHILDREN AT RISK divides all the schools included in the rankings into tiers: the top quartile of schools fall into Tier 1, while the bottom 25% of schools are considered to be Tier 4. At the elementary school level, 30% of Harris County schools fall into Tier 1, while 19% are Tier 4. At the middle school level, these proportions are 35% and 20%, respectively. For Harris County high schools the trend reverses, with more high schools falling into Tier 4 (41%) than Tier 1 (32%).7 Harris County is home to nearly 200 Tier 4 schools, and many of these campuses also lag when it comes to national indicators of performance. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a measure used by the national Department of Education to track how well schools are performing. As part of the accountability plan contained in the federal No Child Left Behind law, all public campuses in each state are evaluated yearly to ensure they are making AYP. Schools are measured on Reading/English Language Arts, Mathematics, and either Graduation Rate (for high schools) or Attendance Rate (for elementary and middle schools). Schools that fail to meet AYP for two consecutive years, and who receive federal funds through the Title 1 program, are subject to corrective action.8 In 2011, nearly a quarter (23.9%) of schools in Harris County failed to meet AYP.9 Perhaps the most important aspect of school performance is the ability to prepare students for successful post-secondary careers. Despite a concerted effort to increase college access and success, results have been decidedly mixed. Standardized testing measures the knowledge of students across the state in key academic areas, including Reading/ English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Science. Texas’ standardized testing has undergone dramatic change in recent years. Although the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) exam is in the process of being phased out, it is still the yardstick by which many students are measured. Students can score at either the “proficient” or the higher “commended” level on the exam. Among Harris County 3rd graders during the 2010-2011 school year, 42% scored at the commended
level on the TAKS Reading exam, and 34% scored at the commended level on the TAKS Math Exam. By 11th grade, the percentage of students passing at commended levels drops: in 2010, only 20% and 26% of 11th graders passed the reading and math TAKS exams, respectively.10 Quality public schools should ultimately be preparing students for high school graduation and post-secondary success. Among public school freshmen in Harris County who started high school during the 2004-2005 school year, 67% graduated from high school within six years.11 Among Harris County graduates of the class of 2009, 58% went on to enroll in some form of higher education.12 Once in college, many students require remedial courses before moving on to more rigorous college-level work. Twenty-three percent of Texas students enrolling in four-year colleges in 2008 required remediation, a share that rose to 51% among junior college students, numbers that indicate that many Texas high school graduates are actually ill-prepared for the challenges of higher education. 13
Community Response
Confronted with such clear data, almost everyone agrees with the premise that many of the students in public schools are struggling. Rather than passively bemoaning the state of public education, a range of stakeholders have intervened, utilizing a number of strategies to improve the education our students receive. Not surprisingly, many Harris County parents are concerned about the quality of their children’s schools. A range of grassroots groups, including Moms Rising, Stand for Children, Spring Branch Speaks, and HISD Parent Visionaries serve as combination watchdogs and activists. These groups help parents stay abreast of the latest education policy decisions in their districts, as well as in the state at large. Other groups of parents aim to promote excellent education by encouraging parents to consider the educational choices open to their children in Harris County. Families Empowered, for example, spreads the word about high-performing schools of choice and helps low income parents navigate the sometimes-daunting school application process. Harris County is also home to many nonprofits focused on improving public schools. Groups like Communities in Schools and Neighborhood Centers work closely with schools and neighborhoods to provide support to low income and at-risk students. Communities in Schools places staff
TOP THREE HIGH SCHOOLS IN HOUSTON ISD
1 Debakey H S For Health Prof 2 Carnegie Vanguard H S 3 Eastwood Academy CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
107
on school campuses to help connect students with social supports, while Neighborhood Centers plays a central role in creating a “cradle-to-career” pipeline for children living in Houston’s Gulfton neighborhood. Other nonprofits place a focus on providing unique opportunities to local students. One of these, Citizen Schools, partners with middle schools to bring in citizen teachers to instruct students during the after-school hours. Another group, Genesys Works, trains high schoolers in professional skills and places them in internships at prominent local businesses. Project GRAD puts its focus on nudging low income students to consider college through an approach of adopting struggling high schools and exposing their students to college campuses and the higher education experience. Another nonprofit group, Houston A+ Challenge, focuses on school staff and leader development, and works with principals and teachers to help them develop the skills and strategies they need to make their schools outstanding. By their very nature, local Independent School Districts (ISDs) have a mission to promote quality public schools. In most ISDs, the results are mixed, with outstanding and struggling campuses located within the same district. This disparity has caught the attention of many districts, where leaders are working to bring all their schools up to par. In Houston, these reform efforts are mainly channeled through the Apollo 20 program. After identifying the 20 highest-need schools in Houston ISD, each campus was targeted with intensive turnaround efforts. Each campus underwent drastic changes in leadership, as well as in its teaching corps. The length of the school day was extended, and some students were targeted with focused tutoring in math.14 The State of Texas recently revamped its standardized testing regimen in an effort to make it more rigorous and better-aligned to college readiness standards. In the 2011-2012 school year, the new State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) was introduced. Under STAAR, exams for grades 9-11 will be end-of-course assessments that are tied to specific classes.15 State officials hope that the STAAR assessments will be more rigorous and will provide a more accurate picture of students’ knowledge and readiness for college. Finally, at the federal level, education reform is an issue that has garnered strong support on both sides of the aisle. Federal School
Improvement Grants (SIGs) have been awarded to struggling schools across the country. SIGs provide funds to struggling schools to implement turnaround plans, which can include components such as extended learning time, replacements of leadership and teachers, and new curriculum and instruction models. In Texas, 48 schools have received SIGs, including 8 in Harris County.16
A Path Forward
After looking at the evidence, it is clear that public schools in Harris County are a mixed bag. Some are flourishing, while others lag below state standards. Stakeholders ranging from the federal government to individual parents recognize this and are already working to improve public schools. CHILDREN AT RISK applauds these efforts, and sees other areas where much work remains to be done. Charter schools represent some of the very best – and very worst – schools in Harris County. A network of outstanding, nationally-recognized charter schools call Houston home, and their growth and expansion should be encouraged, allowing them to reach more kids with their high expectations and passionate staff. On the other hand, charter schools that abuse their charters and consistently underperform need to be shuttered. Already a national model for charter school innovation, Harris County needs to work to ensure that all of its charter schools are of the highest quality. One trait shared by nearly all high-performing charter schools is their creative use of time. On many charter campuses, school days last into the evening and the school year reaches into the summer. Some even open their doors on the weekends for tutoring and more intensive academic interventions. By maximizing the time their students spend on task, these schools allow teachers to delve more deeply into lessons and their students. A focus on extended learning time (ELT) is not confined to charter schools. HISD’s Apollo 20 program has garnered national attention for its attempts to implement ELT in struggling public schools. More schools in Harris County should be given the opportunity and funding needed to experiment creatively with time. Pilot programs in public schools would allow education leaders to determine the best practices around ELT and could eventually be expanded throughout the county.
23.9%
Many of Harris County’s schools are struggling, and leaders should not be afraid to make sweeping changes in order to ensure that students 2011 number of campuses in Harris County that did not meet Adequate are receiving an excellent Yearly Progress (AYP) education now. 108
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
The focus on ELT is just one of the distinguishing markers of HISD’s Apollo 20 program. Designed by school leaders and academics, this program also places an emphasis on college-bound expectations for students, high-quality teachers, and strong school leadership. CHILDREN AT RISK applauds the ambitious attempt at school turnarounds embodied by HISD’s Apollo 20. Rather than settling for incremental improvements, Apollo 20 draws upon a number of best practices to revolutionize the way some of Houston’s worst schools do business. Many of Harris County’s schools are struggling, and leaders should not be afraid to make sweeping changes in order to ensure that students are receiving an excellent education now. The ability of Harris County’s worst schools to turn themselves around – as well as the ability of the best schools to maintain their excellence – is threatened by the severe budget cuts handed down by the state legislature during the 82nd Legislative Session. In the wake of the cuts, some schools have been creative, using tactics like energy audits and advertising to bring in extra income. However, virtually every district in Texas has been forced to confront serious budget shortfalls, resulting in the loss of teachers, early education programs, and remediation opportunities for struggling students. Harris County is no exception to this trend. CHILDREN AT RISK urges the state legislature to take a sober look at the education budget. Our children are truly our future, and our families, communities,
and economy will suffer if they are unable to obtain a good public education that prepares them for a productive future. In order for its schools to be effective, the State of Texas must provide adequate and efficient education funding.
Additional Resources
• Apollo 20 Program: http://dept.houstonisd.org/apollo20/ • Communities in Schools: http://cishouston.org/ • Families Empowered www.familiesempowered.org • Genesys Works: www.genesysworks.org/houston • Neighborhood Centers: www.neighborhood-centers.org • School Improvement Grants: www2.ed.gov/programs • Stand for Children: http://stand.org
AVERAGE CLASS SIZE: Average class size in Region 4 2008
2009
2010
2011
Kindergarten
19.8
20
20.2
19.3
Grade 1
19.9
19.8
20
19.2
Grade 2
19.9
20.1
20.3
19.2
Grade 3
20.1
20.4
20.5
19.4
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
LEP STUDENTS: The percentage of students in the Greater Houston area (Region 4) who are identified as limited English proficient based on criteria defined in the Texas Administrative Code Year
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Indicator
14.4%
15.5%
15.2%
16.2%
16.8%
17.2%
17.9%
18.2%
18.1%
18.4%
19.6%
20.2%
20.4%
20.3%
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
BILINGUAL EDUCATION ENROLLMENT: The percentage of students enrolled in bilingual education or English as a second language programs at schools in the Greater Houston area (Region 4) Year
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Indicator
12.3%
13.5%
14.0%
14.6%
15.4%
15.9%
16.7%
17.0%
16.9%
17.2%
18.4%
19.1%
19.4%
19.1%
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
SPECIAL EDUCATION ENROLLMENT: The percentage of students enrolled in special education in Harris County public schools Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
10.3%
10.0%
9.9%
9.8%
9.9%
9.9%
9.5%
9.4%
8.7%
8.1%
7.8%
7.7%
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT: The average expenditure per student in Harris County based on the total current operating expenses of the school districts divided by the number of students for that year Year
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Indicator
$3,850
$4,304
$4,552
$5,347
$5,702
$6,498
$6,724
$7,045
$7,283
$6,936
$6,151
$6,249
$6,679
$7,157
$7,182
$7,479
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency Note: Charter schools are excluded from this calculation
PRIVATE SCHOOLS: Number of private schools operating in Harris County Year
1995-96
1997-98
1999-00
2001-02
2004-05
2005-06
2007-08
2009-10
Indicator
344
419
361
392
333
335
298
293
Source: Private School Universe Survey, National Center for Education Statistics
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
109
CHARTER SCHOOLS: The number of charter operators in Harris County Year
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Indicator
6
7
17
36
39
43
45
44
45
45
46
46
48
45
44
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS: The number of campuses in Harris County that did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011*
Indicator
8.4%
6.6%
11.8%
9.9%
9.8%
13.1%
5.1%
4.0%
23.9%
Source: Texas Education Agency *Note: The large increase in 2011 may be attributable to an increase in AYP performance standards for 2011 to 80% for Reading/English Language Arts and 75% for Mathematics
AVERAGE SUPERINTENDENT PAY: Average superintendent salary in Harris County
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF TEACHERS: Percentage of teachers by degree 2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
No degree
0.7%
1.0%
0.7%
0.8%
Indicator
$126,312
$135,095
$142,260
$129,184
Bachelors
76.7%
76.8%
76.5%
75.8%
Masters
21.7%
21.4%
22.0%
22.6%
Ph.D.
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
Source: Public Education Information Management System, Texas Education Agency
AVERAGE PRINCIPAL PAY: Average principal salary in Harris County Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
$88,662
$89,354
$90,075
$89,278
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
Source: Public Education Information Management System, Texas Education Agency
TEACHER TURNOVER: Teacher turnover ratio in the Greater Houston area (Region 4) Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
Indicator
16.2
15.3
12.2
12.8
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
TEACHER EXPERIENCE: Percentage of teachers by years of experience 2008
2009
2010
2011
Beginning
8.9%
8.1%
7.0%
6.4%
1-5 years
32.4%
33.3%
34.1%
33.4%
6-10 years
19.6%
20.0%
20.4%
21.6%
11-20 years
21.5%
21.6%
22.0%
22.6%
20+ years
17.6%
17.0%
16.5%
16.1%
Source: Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency
TEACH FOR AMERICA: The number of first-year teachers Teach For America placed in Houston schools Year
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Indicator
70
86
136
100
118
137
149
201
227
246
295
212
251
Source: Teach For America
110
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
CHILDREN AT RISK School Rankings Introduction Since 2006, the high school ranking system developed by CHILDREN AT RISK has highlighted the successes and need for improvement of Houston area high schools. The rankings are a tool for parents and students and provide information to campuses and districts on how they perform relative to their peers, showcasing successful models of high performing public schools. In 2009, CHILDREN AT RISK extended the ranking system to include all eligible elementary, middle, and high school campuses across the state of Texas. There are a myriad of factors responsible for the overall success or failure of a campus, and the data used in CHILDREN AT RISK’s ranking system represents a compilation of factors that indicate the degree to which a campus has prepared students for secondary and post-secondary success. The data used were obtained from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and are reported for the most recent year available. Much like the methodology used by other institutions to rank higher education, CHILDREN AT RISK’s method uses the z-score statistic to standardize the data and compute a ranking for the campuses included in the analysis. When the 16 variables used for CHILDREN AT RISK’s high school rankings are examined in conjunction with each other, they provide a more accurate assessment of how well a campus has prepared students for a post-secondary education. Included indicators are specifically geared toward determining the college-readiness of graduates: • TAKS Commended Reading • TAKS Commended Math • TAKS Commended Social Studies • TAKS Commended Science • Recommended High School Program • Advanced Courses • AP/IB Test-Takers • AP/IB Students Passing • Attendance Rate • Graduation Rate • SAT/ACT Test-Takers • Mean SAT Score • Mean ACT Score • Percent Economically Disadvantaged • Reading Gain/Loss • Math Gain/Loss
Similarly, a middle school campus has data for 12 variables and elementary campuses have data for 16 variables that provide a picture of how primary schools are preparing students for secondary and post-secondary success. Middle schools are evaluated based on the following variables: • TAKS Commended Reading • TAKS Commended Math • TAKS Commended Social Studies • TAKS Commended Science • TAKS Commended Writing • TAKS Commended All Tests • Attendance Rate • Retention Rate, Grade 7 • Retention Rate, Grade 8 • Percent Economically Disadvantaged • Reading Gain/Loss • Math Gain/Loss Criteria for elementary campuses are as follows: • TAKS Commended Reading – 3rd Grade • TAKS Commended Reading – 4th Grade • TAKS Commended Math • TAKS Commended Writing • TAKS Commended All Tests • Attendance Rate • Class Size, Grade 1 • Class Size, Grade 2 • Class Size, Grade 3 • Retention Rate, Grade 1 • Retention Rate, Grade 2 • Retention Rate, Grade 3 • Retention Rate, Grade 4 • Percent Economically Disadvantaged • Reading Gain/Loss • Math Gain/Loss One adjustment variable is included for all campuses. Research has consistently shown that poverty is a predictor of whether or not a student will graduate and achieve post-secondary academic success. The percentage of students that are economically disadvantaged at each campus is thus included in the rankings analysis. CHILDREN AT RISK assumes a school must put forth more effort to retain and support these students through primary and secondary education. For this reason, these schools are given credit for having this at-risk student population.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
111
CHILDREN AT RISK School Rankings (cont.) Houston Rank
Texas Rank
School Name
District
TEXAS TIER 1
112
1
3
Debakey H S For Health Prof
Houston ISD
2
4
Carnegie Vanguard H S
Houston ISD
3
6
Eastwood Academy
Houston ISD
4
11
YES Prep - Southeast Campus
YES Prep Public Schools Inc
5
15
Kerr H S
Alief ISD
6
17
YES Prep - North Central Campus
YES Prep Public Schools Inc
7
20
Harmony Science Academy
Harmony Science Academy
8
26
East Early College H S
Houston ISD
9
27
KIPP Houston H S
KIPP Inc Charter
10
28
Perfor & Vis Arts H S
Houston ISD
11
30
Challenge Early College H S
Houston ISD
12
35
Memorial H S
Spring Branch ISD
13
36
Clements H S
Fort Bend ISD
14
45
Law Enfcmt-Crim Just H S
Houston ISD
15
49
Houston Academy For International
Houston ISD
16
53
Westchester Academy For Internatio
Spring Branch ISD
17
57
Carver H S For Applied Tech/Engine
Aldine ISD
18
64
Cinco Ranch H S
Katy ISD
19
67
Seven Lakes High School
Katy ISD
20
69
Stratford H S
Spring Branch ISD
21
80
Friendswood H S
Friendswood ISD
22
88
Clear Lake H S
Clear Creek ISD
23
90
Stephen F Austin H S
Fort Bend ISD
24
95
Bellaire H S
Houston ISD
25
108
Taylor H S
Katy ISD
26
125
The Woodlands H S
Conroe ISD
27
135
Lamar H S
Houston ISD
28
136
Dulles H S
Fort Bend ISD
29
145
Cypress Woods High School
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
30
178
Kingwood H S
Humble ISD
31
189
Kempner H S
Fort Bend ISD
32
209
College Park H S
Conroe ISD
33
235
William B Travis H S
Fort Bend ISD
34
258
Barbara Jordan H S
Houston ISD
35
262
Klein H S
Klein ISD
36
273
Jersey Village High School
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
37
284
Cy-Fair High School
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
38
292
Cypress Creek High School
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Houston Rank
Texas Rank
School Name
District
TEXAS TIER 2 39
318
Barbers Hill H S
Barbers Hill ISD
40
340
Lawrence E Elkins H S
Fort Bend ISD
41
341
Hightower H S
Fort Bend ISD
42
348
Foster H S
Lamar CISD
43
357
Clear Brook H S
Clear Creek ISD
44
373
Langham Creek H S
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
45
408
Westside H S
Houston ISD
46
415
Cypress Falls H S
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
47
428
Katy H S
Katy ISD
48
436
Clear Creek H S
Clear Creek ISD
49
440
Magnolia H S
Magnolia ISD
50
461
Quest H S
Humble ISD
51
467
Hargrave High School
Huffman ISD
52
477
Sweeny H S
Sweeny ISD
53
488
Needville H S
Needville ISD
54
494
Stafford H S
Stafford Msd
55
498
Magnolia West H S
Magnolia ISD
56
500
Morton Ranch H S
Katy ISD
57
502
Tomball H S
Tomball ISD
58
517
East Chambers H S
East Chambers ISD
59
545
Sharpstown H S
Houston ISD
60
549
Raul Yzaguirre School For Success
Raul Yzaguirre School For Success
61
591
Montgomery H S
Montgomery ISD
62
596
Waller H S
Waller ISD
63
601
Brazoswood H S
Brazosport ISD
64
603
Hull-Daisetta H S
Hull-Daisetta ISD
65
616
Mayde Creek H S
Katy ISD
66
629
Manvel H S
Alvin ISD
TEXAS TIER 3
67
661
Atascocita H S
Humble ISD
68
664
Pearland H S
Pearland ISD
69
671
Austin H S
Houston ISD
70
692
Klein Collins High School
Klein ISD
71
700
Cypress Ridge High School
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
72
708
Klein Oak H S
Klein ISD
73
717
Lamar Cons H S
Lamar CISD
74
734
Lee H S
Houston ISD
75
740
Reagan H S
Houston ISD
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
113
CHILDREN AT RISK School Rankings (cont.) Houston Rank
Texas Rank
School Name
District
76
758
George Bush H S
Fort Bend ISD
77
772
Milby H S
Houston ISD
78
791
Dayton H S
Dayton ISD
79
801
Alvin H S
Alvin ISD
80
806
B F Terry H S
Lamar CISD
81
807
Chavez H S
Houston ISD
82
814
Oak Ridge H S
Conroe ISD
83
822
Liberty H S
Liberty ISD
84
827
Dobie High School
Pasadena ISD
85
829
Cypress Springs High School
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
86
855
La Porte High School
La Porte ISD
87
862
Deer Park Hs
Deer Park ISD
88
867
Royal H S
Royal ISD
89
873
Waltrip H S
Houston ISD
90
896
Danbury H S
Danbury ISD
91
901
North Shore Senior High
Galena Park ISD
TEXAS TIER 4
114
92
910
Galena Park H S
Galena Park ISD
93
915
Taylor H S
Alief ISD
94
916
C E King H S
Sheldon ISD
95
918
Pasadena Memorial High School
Pasadena ISD
96
926
Spring Woods H S
Spring Branch ISD
97
932
South Houston High School
Pasadena ISD
98
940
Channelview H S
Channelview ISD
99
946
Tarkington H S
Tarkington ISD
100
965
Anahuac H S
Anahuac ISD
101
992
Conroe H S
Conroe ISD
102
994
Madison H S
Houston ISD
103
997
Texas City H S
Texas City ISD
104
998
Brazosport H S
Brazosport ISD
105
999
Crosby High School
Crosby ISD
106
1000
Dickinson H S
Dickinson ISD
107
1006
Angleton H S
Angleton ISD
108
1009
Caney Creek H S
Conroe ISD
109
1011
Davis H S
Houston ISD
110
1019
Aldine H S
Aldine ISD
111
1020
Furr H S
Houston ISD
112
1023
Hastings H S
Alief ISD
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Houston Rank
Texas Rank
School Name
District
113
1026
Klein Forest H S
Klein ISD
114
1031
MacArthur H S
Aldine ISD
115
1039
Lee H S
Goose Creek CISD
116
1041
Willis H S
Willis ISD
117
1052
New Caney H S
New Caney ISD
118
1054
Humble H S
Humble ISD
119
1058
Scarborough H S
Houston ISD
120
1061
Ball H S
Galveston ISD
121
1068
Elsik H S
Alief ISD
122
1071
High Island H S
High Island ISD
123
1075
Sterling H S
Goose Creek CISD
124
1076
Westbury H S
Houston ISD
125
1083
Spring H S
Spring ISD
126
1085
Washington B T H S
Houston ISD
127
1086
Columbia H S
Columbia-Brazoria ISD
128
1087
Hempstead H S
Hempstead ISD
129
1093
Thurgood Marshall H S
Fort Bend ISD
130
1095
Eisenhower H S
Aldine ISD
131
1104
Hardin H S
Hardin ISD
132
1116
Nimitz H S
Aldine ISD
133
1117
Santa Fe H S
Santa Fe ISD
134
1119
Westfield H S
Spring ISD
135
1120
Sam Rayburn H S
Pasadena ISD
136
1123
Splendora H S
Splendora ISD
137
1126
Pasadena High School
Pasadena ISD
138
1136
Cleveland H S
Cleveland ISD
139
1138
Northbrook H S
Spring Branch ISD
140
1144
Willowridge H S
Fort Bend ISD
141
1151
La Marque H S
La Marque ISD
142
1153
Worthing H S
Houston ISD
143
1155
Sterling H S
Houston ISD
144
1160
North Forest H S
North Forest ISD
145
1161
Yates H S
Houston ISD
146
1162
Kashmere H S
Houston ISD
147
1164
Girls & Boys Prep Academy H S
Girls & Boys Preparatory Academy
148
1166
Hitchcock H S
Hitchcock ISD
149
1167
Jones H S
Houston ISD
150
1171
Wheatley H S
Houston ISD
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
115
Special Education Students in Harris County Public Schools by Race/Ethnicity, 2009-2010 school year School Year
Special Education Students
Race/Ethnicity
2009-2010
Non-Special Education Students
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Black
18,634
10.7%
155,177
89.3%
Asian
1,586
3.7%
41,443
96.3%
Latino
28,935
7%
385,209
93%
Native American
141
7.7%
1,688
92.3%
White
15,400
8.6%
162,985
91.4%
Source: Texas Education Agency
Comparison of Special Education Students in Harris County and Texas Public Schools by Disability, 2011 Other Orthopedic Auditory Visual Health Impairment Impairment Impairment Impairment Deaf/Blind
Intellectual Disability
Emotional Disturbance
Learning Disability
Speech Impairment
Autism
Developmental Delay
Harris County
753
7,276
1,346
623
33
6,020
4,110
25,635
11,692
6,320
11
188
718
Texas
4,636
56,032
7,283
4,168
198
34,242
27,501
179,875
89,418
33,685
13
1,481
4,439
Source: Texas Education Agency
116
NonTraumatic Categorical Brain Injury Early Childhood
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
CONCLUSION
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
117
ABOUT CHILDREN AT RISK For more than twenty years CHILDREN AT RISK has been speaking out and driving change for children in Texas. With the release of this twelfth edition of Growing Up in Houston: Assessing the Quality of Life of Our Children, CHILDREN AT RISK continues to highlight the critical issues facing our children. It is only once we know where the problems lie, that we can properly work to improve them. We work hard to make this publication the most accurate and comprehensive source of data around children in the Greater Houston area. Our hope is that service providers, policymakers, and advocates all find the research contained in these pages highly valuable as they support Texas’ children. Over time, this book has also provided CHILDREN AT RISK with the data needed to support and expand its own efforts to improve the lives of children across Texas. CHILDREN AT RISK has experienced substantial organizational growth over the past few years. In 2011, the North Texas office of CHILDREN AT RISK was established in response to the need for an advocacy organization focused on the whole child. Through the North Texas office, CHILDREN AT RISK will work to make children a priority in North Texas and across the state through conducting extensive research and data collection, building cross-sector collaboration, driving needed media and community attention to pressing issues, and advocating for children in North Texas, at a local and state level. One notable development from the last few years was the establishment of CHILDREN AT RISK’s Center for Social Measurement and Evaluation (CSME). CSME spearheads all research and data efforts, which are central to CHILDREN AT RISK’s advocacy work. Working closely with the C@R Institute, CSME is at the forefront of research around children’s most pressing needs, ranging from public education to food insecurity. CSME staff work to ensure that CHILDREN AT RISK is a source of clear, quality data and ground-breaking, original research. Some of CSME’s signature projects include the annual Texas Public School Rankings; the Texas School Budget Study, which aims to gauge the impact of state budget cuts on public schools, and; publication of CHILDREN AT RISK’s two peerreviewed journals, Journal of Applied Research on Children and Journal of Family Strengths. Another recent CHILDREN AT RISK initiative is the Center for Parenting and Family Well-Being. CPFWB advocates to change the way parent education and child abuse prevention is approached in the greater Houston community through prevention and population-based strategies. The Center believes that organizations across sectors should come together to create an infrastructure that strives to provide all parents in our community with effective and accessible parent education. CPFWB does not provide direct services. Instead, the Center collaborates with and supports organizations that provide direct services to ensure that the infrastructure, policies, and partnerships are in place to improve the availability of evidence-based parent education. CPFWB is supported by an Academic Advisory Council of six leading academics, pediatricians, and public health practitioners who are experts in child maltreatment prevention, cost-effectiveness research, evaluation, family demography,
118
policy, evidence-based programs, and dissemination. In order to more cohesively spread the message about the challenges facing children today, CHILDREN AT RISK instituted the C@R MediaLab in 2012. The C@R MediaLab uses traditional and new media to grow awareness, change minds, and advance the role of CHILDREN AT RISK as a catalyst for change. Using a broad range of mediums, (from academic journals to social media, the weekly radio show to the website) C@R MediaLab aims to increase the visibility and prominence of CHILDREN AT RISK, expand the dissemination of research and public policy analysis, broaden education of stakeholders, advance advocacy efforts, and promote collaboration with other organizations. CHILDREN AT RISK’s Center to End the Trafficking and Exploitation of Children (CETEC) is dedicated to raising awareness about child trafficking occurring within Texas and across the nation. With a new collaboration with American General Life (AGL) established in 2011, CETEC works with attorneys across the U.S. to educate the legal community about child trafficking and how they can become advocates for change in their states. Through CETEC, annual statewide human trafficking summits are held each year in Texas to educate policymakers and local communities about human trafficking. Training for CPS workers, law enforcement officers, attorneys, judges, medical professionals, and social workers on human trafficking is also provided through CETEC. The Public Policy and Law Center (PPLC), established in 2006 as the only center of its kind in Texas, continues to serve as the source for policy solutions across all of CHILDREN AT RISK’s priority issue areas. Since the inception of the PPLC, CHILDREN AT RISK has achieved legislative victories in each Texas legislative session. Most notably, major improvements to Texas’ response to child trafficking have been made through the research and drafting of legislation by the PPLC team. Working in collaboration with state and federal public officials and key stakeholders throughout the country, the PPLC not only brings attention to the critical issues facing children but provides solutions to improving the lives of children as well. In the years to come, CHILDREN AT RISK plans to continue to expand its efforts with new and innovative programs that improve the lives of Texas’ children. While much progress has been made over the past twentyone years, much work remains. Many children in Harris County live at or near the poverty line, dropout rates remain high, and too often children are not getting the health care they need. CHILDREN AT RISK hopes to change the root causes of these problems by providing clear data, thorough research, and strong advocacy. Through the efforts of its supporters, volunteers, and staff, CHILDREN AT RISK will continue to push for change in areas affecting the whole child, such as education, juvenile justice, child welfare, health, and human trafficking. We look forward to seeing continued and sustained change in these areas and eagerly anticipate the day when our services are no longer needed.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Disclaimer
A majority of the information, data and statistics found in Growing Up in Houston: Assessing the Quality of Life of Our Children 2012 was obtained from external sources. CHILDREN AT RISK has made every reasonable effort to verify the accuracy of all such information contained herein. Responsibility for actual content rests with the organization providing the information, and accordingly CHILDREN AT RISK makes no representations, guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, or currency of such outside information. CHILDREN AT RISK disclaims any and all liability from claims or damages that may result from information, data or statistics provided by external sources and contained within this publication.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This twelfth edition of Growing Up in Houston would not have been possible without the dedication of those individuals who work hard to make Texas a better place for children. This team of individuals stretches from CHILDREN AT RISK to the Greater Houston community, and CHILDREN AT RISK is deeply grateful to all those whose time and hard work have gone into the creation of this publication. First and foremost, our staff was instrumental in putting together the book, from obtaining data to writing and editing, especially Dawn Lew, Mandi Sheridan Kimball, Anne Hierholzer, and Caroline Neary. Our current staff members in the Houston office did much of the legwork to bring this publication to fruition: Nancy Correa, RJ Hazeltine-Shedd, Kavita Desai, Megan Schneider, Sarah Goff, Jesse Tow, Linda Flores Olson, Angie Martinez Gallagher, Eliza Horn, Jennifer Murphy, and Shannon Nunez. A number of former staff members also contributed to this publication and our thanks goes out to Caroline Holcombe, Steven Goff, Zubin Segal, Sara Prentice, and Jessica Kemp. This publication could not exist without the helpful assistance of the agencies and organizations that supplied the raw data for the 2012 edition of Growing Up in Houston; CHILDREN AT RISK is very appreciative of the support provided by these groups. Once again we owe a huge debt of gratitude to Cole Schweikhardt of Squidz Ink Design, who is responsible for the layout and design of the book. Through each successive edition of Growing Up in Houston he has continued to amaze us with his creativity and endless originality in communicating our message. He has given us a design that is new and innovative while building upon the solid foundation of past editions. In addition, we thank Cole and his Squidz Ink Design team member, Trish Cramblet, for photographing many of the book’s chapter cover images. Special thanks go to the staff and students at JP Henderson Elementary and Pin Oak Middle School for allowing CHILDREN AT RISK to include the photos used in this publication. We also thank Kelly Lee Webeck, Photographer and Visual Arts Educator, for her great work in capturing these photos. Looking beyond the visual aspect, we are equally grateful to the number of talented writers who put together the text for this latest
publication. These include a diverse and well-qualified group of student interns working towards undergraduate, graduate, and law degrees who devoted many semester and summer hours to completing the research and writing for this edition. It is our hope that these internships were instrumental in preparing them for their future professions and that their work on children’s issues allowed them to grow personally as well. Each student’s contribution was important; CHILDREN AT RISK is extremely thankful to the following individuals: Goldie Anderson, Crystal Coulter, Victoria Easton, Mili Gosar, Tessa Graham, Patrick Gremillion, Annie Heinrich, Jonal Hendrickson, Jennifer Hernandez, Muna Javaid, Jenny Kessler, Ruhee Grewal Leonard, Paige Miller, Henry Morris, Erin Nolen, Uche Okoroha, Zack Panos, Payal Patani, Lori Quintal, Kristina Sadler, and Nadeen Siddiqui. The recent establishment of the CHILDREN AT RISK Institute and their involvement in Growing Up in Houston has added great depth and insight to the book. The Institute’s oversight of the process and wise counsel have been invaluable in refining the publication so that it is the most useful to groups and individuals working to improve the lives of children. The Institute was especially helpful this year as we made drastic changes to Growing Up in Houston, and we respect and value for their significant contribution to the quality of this publication. Finally, we must mention those without whose support CHILDREN AT RISK would not be able to speak for Texas’ children and effectively drive the change that is needed. CHILDREN AT RISK’s staff, consultants, Board of Directors, and Honorary Board are an indispensable part of the work that we do, and their commitment is especially evident in the quality of this publication. These are people who truly care about Texas’ children. Each and every person who worked on this edition of Growing Up in Houston made an important contribution. Further, the publication of this book would be impossible without the generous contributions of our financial supporters, whose hope for and commitment to the future sustains Texas’ children. The individuals, corporations, and foundations that have donated funds are responsible for CHILDREN AT RISK’s ongoing presence. A very special thanks to the United Way of Greater Houston for the generous financial support they provided to ensure publication of this book. On behalf of CHILDREN AT RISK, and the children of Texas, thank you all.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
119
HONORARY BOARD AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS HONORARY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Maconda Brown O’Connor, Ph.D.† Dr. Carolyn Farb, h.c. Rev. William Lawson Diana Davila Martinez Virginia McFarland James S. Mickelson Richard W. Mithoff Rev. Joe Samuel Ratliff Jack Segal, Rabbi Emeritus Melissa Wilson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Philamena Baird Community Volunteer Bob Baker Attorney at Law Claire Bocchini, M.D. Baylor College of Medicine Christopher Borreca Thompson Horton David Brast Reliant, an NRG Company Andy Buttacavoli Presenture Craig Cordola Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center David Cordúa Cordúa Catering David DeVane Sysco Houston
120
Angelo Giardino, MD, Ph.D., MPH Texas Children’s Health Plan & Baylor College of Medicine Michael Graff American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc. Christopher Greeley, MD UT Health Sciences Center Lauren Harrison Jones Walker Regay M. Hildreth RMH Marketing & Media James Holtz The Holtz Law Firm, PC Rebecca Hove Bridgeway Pam Humphrey ACE USA Kyle Jennings American General Life Companies Kurt Lyn Lam, Lyn & Philip, PC Shelda Keith-Magistri Logix Communications Susan Kellner Community Volunteer Susan Lindberg Eni Petroleum, Inc. David Loving Univision Michael Maher Presenture Bryan Milton ExxonMobil Chemical
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Anne Nemer Strategic Marketing Services Larry Payne Educational Excellence Resource Group, LLC Jim Perdue Perdue Kidd & Vickery Joe Perillo Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP Alyssa Rodriguez Financial Advisor David Roylance Prism Energy Solutions Lynn Sessions Baker Hostetler Aashish Shah, M.D. Associate Medical Director of Community Health Choice, Inc. Jeffrey Starke, M.D. Texas Children’s Hospital Myron F. Steves, Jr. Myron Steves Megan Sutton-Reed Community Volunteer Mark Troth Bank of River Oaks Robert Westendarp Griffin Americas Frazier Wilson, Ed.D. Shell Oil Company Robert Zincke Former President, Kroger Robert Sanborn, Ed.D. President & CEO
PUBLIC POLICY AND ADVISORY BOARDS AND INSTITUTE LAW ADVISORY BOARD Chair: John Meredith, Greenberg Traurig LLP Wafa Abdin Catholic Charities Bob Baker Attorney at Law Sherie Beckman Mithoff Law Firm Erma Bonadero University of Houston Law Center Chris Borreca Thompson and Horton LLP Melanie D. Bragg Legal Insight Inc. Katherine Cabaniss Crime Stoppers Judie Cross Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan Dennis Duffy Baker Botts LLP Linda M. Dunson Donovan & Watkins
Joshua Farkas Dynegy Inc. Kat Gallagher Beck Redden & Secrest LLP Sally Green Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Texas Southern University Lauren Harrison Jones Walker Eyvette Hetherington Attorney James Holtz Holtz Law Firm PC Bruce Hurley King & Spalding LLP Ellyn Josef Vinson & Elkins LLP Karyl M. Lawson Phillips & Reiter PLLC Susan Lindberg Eni Petroleum Co., Inc.
Karen Maston Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP Silvia Mintz Plake and Mintz PLLC Susan Pennebaker, Esq. Pennebaker Fifth Ring JoAnn Russell Enterprise Products Yohanna Romero Baca Garza & Associates Lynn Sessions Baker Hostetler Lisa Sherrill Attorney Ann Stephens Shell Oil Company Andrew Strong Kalon Biotherapeutics LLC
PUBLIC POLICY ADVISORY BOARD Chair: Larry Payne, Educational Excellence Resource Group, LLC Connie Almeida Fort Bend County Mitzi Bartlett Search/House of Tiny Treasures Dr. Claire Bocchini Baylor College of Medicine Michael Brown Community Volunteer Dorian Burton Stand for Children Laurie Glaze One Voice Texas Brian Greene Houston Food Bank
Angela Hodson Boys & Girls Club of Greater Houston Joel Levine Harris County Protective Services for Children and Adults Dr. Kim Lopez Baylor International Pediatric AIDS Initiative Rosie Valdez-McStay Texas Children’s Hospital Christina Mintner Harris Health System Janet Pozmantier Child Advocate
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Carroll Robinson Texas Southern University Betin Santos Environmental Policy Expert Ann Stiles Project Grad Houston Elaine Stolte Children’s Assessment Center Dr. Steve Schnee MHMRA of Harris County Maria Trujillo Houston Rescue & Restore Coalition Dr. Jonita Wallace Gulf Coast Community Services Association
121
PUBLIC POLICY AND ADVISORY BOARDS AND INSTITUTE INSTITUTE Chair: Angelo Giardino, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H. Baylor College of Medicine Ira Colby, DSW, LCSW-ACP University of Houston, Graduate School of Social Work Frances P. Deviney, Ph.D. Center for Public Policy Priorities Catherine M. Flaitz, D.D.S., M.S. University of Texas Glenn Flores, M.D. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center J. Greg Getz, Ph.D. University of Houston – Downtown Christopher Greeley, M.D. University of Texas, Health Science Center at Houston Rick Halperin, Ph.D. Southern Methodist University Deanna Hoelscher, Ph.D. University of Texas School of Public Health W. Robert Houston, Ed.D. Institute for Urban Education, University of Houston Stephen L. Klineberg, Ph.D. Kinder Institute for Urban Research, Rice University Duncan Klussman, Ed.D. Spring Branch Independent School District Susan Landry, Ph.D. University of Texas, Health Science Center at Houston Linda Lloyd, Ph.D., MBA, MSW University of Texas, School of Public Health
Jason Mendoza, M.D., M.P.H. Baylor College of Medicine Beth Pelz, Ph.D. University of Houston – Downtown M. Douglas Ris, Ph.D., ABPP-CN Texas Children’s Hospital Carroll Robinson, Esq. Texas Southern University Alvin Sallee, LISW, ACSW University of Houston – Downtown Adolfo Santos, Ph.D. University of Houston – Downtown Steve Schnee, Ph.D. MHMRA of Harris County Keely G. Smith, M.D. University of Texas, Health Science Center at Houston Ruth SoRelle, M.P.H. Baylor College of Medicine Jeff Starke, M.D., FAAP Texas Children’s Hospital Lori Taylor, Ph.D. Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University Susan Tortelero, Ph.D. School of Public Health, University of Texas Ruth Lopez Turley, Ph.D. Houston Education Research Consortium, Rice University
OUR SUPPORTERS Individuals
President’s Council Kathryn Baker Robert Baker Claire Bocchini Chris Borreca David Brast Henry Brooks Lisa Cavanaugh Allison Cordola Craig Cordola Nancy Darst
122
David DeVane Linda Dunson Jenny Elkins Kathleen Gallagher Angelo Giardino John Glover Rhonda Graff Ben Guill Cynthia Guill Lauren Harrison Regay Hildreth Pam Humphrey
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Kyle Jennings Susan Kellner Richard Kerr Susan Lindberg David Loving Ginni Mithoff Richard Mithoff Anne Nemer Adam Olszewski Jack O’Neill Joe Perillo Stephany Perkins
OUR SUPPORTERS Ruth Newberry Porterfield David Roylance Bob Sanborn Lynn Sessions Lisa Sherrill Jason Spencer Suzanne Starley Steve Stephens Buddy Steves Mark Troth Ky Troyer Bob Westendarp Bob Zincke Visionary Allies Robert Baker Martha Barvin Marie and Jeffrey W. Carr Carole Colley Catherine Coughlin Dorothy and Charles Reynolds James Richardson
Foundations
Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral Arrow Child and Family Ministries Astros in Action Foundation Austin Community Foundation Blaisdell Family Foundation Boone Family Foundation Brown Foundation Charlotte Azzan Foundation Children’s Assessment Center Christ Church United Methodist Collaborative for Children Coxon Family Foundation Dallas Women’s Foundation Dean Food Foundation Di Portanova Charitable Donald McMahon Foundation Ed Rachal Foundation Embrey Foundation George Foundation Greater Houston Community Foundation Harvey R. Houck, Jr. & Patricia W. Houck Foundation Holthouse Foundation for Kids Houston Endowment
Houston Food Bank Houston Rescue and Restore Illinois Tool Works Foundation Immunization Partnership Jack and Jill Foundation James A. & Isabel M. Elkins Foundation James L. & Kathryn L. Ketelsen Charitable Foundation Jay Leno Foundation Kathryn and Beau Ross Charitable Foundation KDK Harman Foundation Keating Family Foundation Kiwanis Foundation Lakewood Church Light Charitable Trust Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church Merfish Jacobson Foundation Mithoff Family Charitable Foundation Petrello Family Foundation Ray C. Fish Foundation Rees Jones Foundation RGK Foundation Robert & Janice McNair Foundation Robert E. & Janet L. Zincke Charitable Fund Robert R. & Kay M. Onstead Foundation Rowan Foundation Samuels Foundation Scurlock Foundation Simmons Foundation St. Luke’s Episcopal Health Stanford & Joan Alexander Sutton Family Foundation Texas Bar Foundation The Food Trust The Henley Foundation The Samuels Foundation The White Family LIV Trust United Way Vale- Asche Foundation Weaver Private Foundation
Corporations
A. Miller Investment Advisors, LP ABC Dental Academy Sports + Outdoors Ltd. Accenture - Insurance Services Acclaim Energy Advisors
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
ACE Group ACS, A Xerox Company Administaff, Inc. AEG Affiliated Energy Group All Baby & Child Allen Austin Global Executive Search Amegy Bank American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc. American General Life Companies, LLC Amerigroup AmeriSciences AmTex Machine Products, Inc. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Andrews Kurth, LLP Aon plc Arista Development, LLC Arthur Schuman, Inc. AT&T Avondale House Baker and Hostetler, LLP Bank of America Bank Of River Oaks Barclays Capital Baylor College of Medicine; Texas Children’s Health Plan Baylor University Bayou City Event Center Beck, Redden and Secrest, LLP Beirne, Maynard, and Parsons, LLP Belgioioso Cheese Co. Big E Drilling Company Blue Cross and Blue Shield Of Texas BNP Paribas Bodman PLC Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP Bridgeway Capital Management Bud Light/Silver Eagle Distributors, LP Capitiane, Shellist, and Warren, LLP Capstone Associated Services, LTD. Carameros and Rawls Career Placement, Inc. Casa De Novia Bridal CenterPoint Energy Chernosky, Smith, Ressling and Smith ChevronTexaco Christian, Smith and Jewell, LLP Cinco Pipe & Supply, Inc. Cityrocket, Inc. (MyCityRocks™)
123
Clinical Reference Laboratory, Inc. Cockrell Interests, Inc. Congregation Beth Yeshurun Congressman Gene Green Conner & Winters ConocoPhillips Constellation Energy Continental Airlines Cordúa Restaurants Covington Retail Partners, LP Cozen O’Connor - Houston Cushman & Wakefield - Texas Davis and Harman, LLP Deloitte and Touche, LLP Deloitte, LLP Dewey and LeBoeuf, LLP Dibble Institute Dickinson Wright, PLLC Director at R&M Global Advisors Don McGill Toyota of Katy Duncan Interests Edelman Financial Group Capital Management Group Edison, McDowell, and Heatherington, LLP Educational Excellence Resource Group, LLC Elite Surgical Affiliates EMI Builders Employer Plan Services, Inc. Eni Operating EOG Resources, Inc. eRemitt Payment Processing Solutions, LLC ERGOS Technology Partners Inc. ESPA Corporation Event’s Gifts at River Oaks Everyone’s Internet, Ltd. ExxonMobil Corporation First Surgical Woodlands, LP FMC Technologies, Inc. Forethought Financial Group Fulbright and Jaworski, LLP Future Surgical Gail Johnson Interiors Gateway to Care Glenture Group Global Transportation Group Goldman, Sachs & Co. Greenberg Traurig, LLP Griffin Americas Gulf Coast Ford Nissan Toyota Gulf States Toyota, Inc. Gullo Dealerships Harper and Pearson Harris County - 314th District Court (Juvenile) Harris County District Attorney’s Office
124
Harris County Mental Health Mental Retardation Authority Harrison, Bettis, Staff, McFarland & Weems, LLP H-E-B Henry T. Brooks Investments Holtz Law Firm, PC Hotel Zaza Houston A+ Challenge Houston Chronicle Houston Golf Association Houston Group Realty Houston KRIV Fox 26 News Houston Rockets Houston West Chamber of Commerce Huffco Group, Inc. Hunting PLC Iberia Bank Innovative Legal Solutions John Dorsa Attorney At Law Jones Day Jorden Burt, LLP Kades Corporation Karen Landrigan Design, LLC Katy ISD Kimberly Public Affairs Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals KPRC/TV 2 KV Resources Landmark Aviation Legacy Asset Management Leibert and Associates, LLC Lockton Companies, LLC Lockwood International, Inc. Logix Communications Lone Star RV Louisiana Geothermal Louisiana Tank, Inc. Marion Investments & Millenium Seismic Marion Montgomery, Inc. Martha Turner Martin-Duarte Capital Partners Maynard, Cooper and Gale, PC McLane Global MDS Communications MedImmune Memorial Hermann Hospital Systems Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC Mercury Baroque Ensemble MFR Mike Calvert Toyota Minute Maid Co. Minuti Coffee Momentum Jaguar of Houston
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Mom’s Toolbox Murphree Venture Partners Myron Steves Insurance Solutions New Life Ventures, Inc. Norseland, Inc. O’Donnell Snider Construction OTC Global Holdings P & W Architects, LLP Pediatrics Around the Bend Pennebaker Perdue, Kidd and Vickery Pink Pokka Dot, LLC Plake and Mintz, PLLC Pondicheri Presenture, LLC PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP Prism Energy Solutions Project GRAD - Houston Randalls Food Markets, Inc. Randy Gillespie & Associates RDIR Architects RE/MAX Carlton Woods Reliant, an NRG company Renew Body Contouring Resource Development Partners Richards, Baker and Riddlehuber, LLC RMH Marketing & Media, LLC Roth Kase, USA Ltd. RSL Funding, LLC Salient Partners, LP Sand Dollar Autoplex SaveOnEnergy.com Scotia Capital Sedgwick LLP Shell Oil Company Shortt and Nguyen, PC Skadden Arps Slate ETAL SNR Denton, LLP Southeast Texas Cardiovascular, PA Southwest Securities Spark Energy Spencer Stuart Sprinklisms Squidz Ink Design Strategic Marketing Services Sutton Ventures Group, LLC Sysco Corporation TAS Energy Texas Children’s Hospital Texas House of Representatives- District 131 Texas Southern University- Thurgood Marshall School of Law The Houston Group Realty Advisors, Inc. The Immunization Partnership
The Methodist Hospital - Physicians Organization The Plank Companies, Inc. Thompson and Horton, LLP Thomson Reuters TR Moore & Company, PC Tradition Energy TrustMark National Bank Tumey, LLP U.S. Trust UBS Financial Services Unicorp Property Management Union Pacific Railroad University of Houston - Downtown University of Houston University of St. Thomas University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Univision Communications, Inc. Versi Tec Electric, Inc. Vinson and Elkins, LLP Waller County WaterHealth International, Inc. Weingarten Realty Investors Wells Fargo Bank of Texas Weycer, Kapla, Puluski and Zuber William M. Shields, PC Williams Kherkher Willis of Texas, Inc. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker, LLP Winston and Strawn WM Smith and Co. Woodforest National Bank Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Yetter Coleman, LLP
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
125
ENDNOTES
126
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
ENDNOTES Demographics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mackun, Paul and Steven Wilson, “Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 2010,” U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, Mar. 2011, 4 Sept. 2012 http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Deviney, Frances, “Texas’ Child Population: More Kids, More Diversity, More Responsibility,” Center for Public Policy Priorities, May 2011, 4 Sept. 2012 http://www.cppp.org/files/10/ TexasChildPopulation_paper.pdf. Ibid. “Child Population by Race/Ethnicity,” Kids Count Data Center, no date, 4 Sept. 2012 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/Rankings.aspx?order=a&loct=5&dtm=13312&state =TX&tf=11&ind=6417&ch=a&by=a. Ibid.
Poverty “Children of Hard Times,” Children’s Defense Fund, no date, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.childrensdefense.org/policy-priorities/ending-child-poverty/children-of-hard-times-11.html. Frances Deviney, Ph.D. and Kori Hattemer, Texas KIDS COUNT, Center for Public Policy Priorities, “The Texas We Create,” 5 Apr. 2012, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.cppp.org/category. php?cid=10. 3 “Data Across States,” KIDS COUNT Data Center, no date, 21 Aug. 2012 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates. 4 Ibid. 5 Frances Deviney, Ph.D., supra note 2. 6 “Texas Demographics of Low-income Children,” National Center for Children in Poverty, no date, 21 Aug. 2012 http://www.nccp.org/profiles/TX_profile_8.html. 7 Frances Deviney, Ph.D., supra note 2. 8 2010 HHS Poverty Guidelines, United Stated Department of Health and Human Services, no date, 21 Aug. 2012 http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml/. 9 Ibid. 10 Fass, Sarah, “Measuring Poverty in the U.S.,” National Center for Children in Poverty, Apr. 2009, 21 Aug. 2012 http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_876.pdf. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 National Center for Children in Poverty, supra note 6. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 KIDS COUNT Data Center, supra note 3. 18 National Center for Children in Poverty, supra note 6. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq.., 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 24 CFR § 576.2. 25 “Changes in the HUD Definition of Homeless,” National Alliance to End Homelessness, no date, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/3006. 26 Ibid. 27 “Houston/Harris County/Fort Bend County Point-in-Time Enumeration 2012,” Coalition for the Homeless, May 2012, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.homelesshouston.org/images/hh/documents/2012%20PIT%20Executive%20summary%20final.pdf. 28 “The Characteristics and Needs of Families Experiencing Homelessness,” The National Center on Family Homelessness, Dec. 2011, 30 Jul. 2012http://www.familyhomelessness.org/ media/306.pdf. 29 Ibid. 30 Facts on Trauma and Homeless Children, National Child Traumatic Stress Network, no date, 30 Jul. 2012 www.nctsnet.org/nctn assets/pdfs/promising practices/faces on trauma and homeless children.pdf. 31 Ibid. 32 “Capacity and Gaps in the Homeless Residential and Service System, Harris and Fort Bend Counties,” Coalition for the Homeless, 2011, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.homelesshouston.org/ images/hh/documents/Capacity%20and%20Gaps%20in%20the%20Homeless%20Residential%20and%20Service%20System,%20Harris%20and%20Fort%20Bend%20Counties.pdf. 33 “Calculating the SNAP Program Access Index: A Step by Step Guide 2010,” USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Oct. 2011, 20 Jul. 2012 http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/ snap/FILES/Other/PAI2010.pdf. 34 Ibid. 35 Information request to the Houston Food Bank, 24 Aug. 2012. 36 “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Average Monthly Benefit per Household,” United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, 26 Jul. 2012 http://www. fns.usda.gov/pd/19SNAPavg$HH.htm. 1 2
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
127
ENDNOTES Poverty (cont.) 37 “Map the Meal Gap: Child Food Insecurity 2012,” Feeding America, 2012, 12 Jun. 2012 http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/map-the-meal-gap/~/media/ Files/a-map-2010/2010-MMG-Child-Executive-Summary-FINAL.ashx. 38 KIDS COUNT Data Center, supra note 3. 39 “About TANF,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, no date, 24 Jul. 2012 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanf/about.html. 40 Schott, Liz, “Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 24 Jul. 2012 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=936. 41 “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,” Texas Health and Human Services Commission, no date, 25 Jul. 2012 http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/Help/Financial/temporary-assistance. shtml . 42 Ibid. 43 Information request to Texas Health and Human Services Commission, 5 Mar. 2012. 44 Ibid. 45 “Supplemental Security Income,” Social Security Administration, no date, 25 Jul. 2012 http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/. 46 “Annual Statistical Supplement 2011,” U.S. Social Security Administration, no date, 2 Mar. 2012 http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2011/7b.html.
Hunger 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
128
Chilton, Mariana and Jenny Rabinowich, “Toxic Stress and Child Hunger Over the Life Course: Three Case Studies,” Journal of Applied Research on Children, 24 Feb. 2012. Cook, John and Karen Jeng, “Child Food Insecurity: The Economic Impact on Our Nation,” 2009, 11 Jun. 2012 http://feedingamerica.org/our-network/the-studies/~/media/Files/ research/child-insecurity-economic-impact.ashx?.pdf. “Map the Meal Gap,” no date, Feeding America, 5 Jun. 2012 http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/map-the-meal-gap.aspx. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. “Food Insecurity in Australia,” Communities and Families Clearinghouse Australia, 2011, 5 Jun. 2012 http://www.aifs.gov.au/cafca/pubs/sheets/ps/ps9.pdf . “Household Food Insecurity in Canada in 2007-2008: Key Statistics and Graphs,” Health Canada, no date, 6 Jun. 2012 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/insecurit/key-stats-cles-2007-2008-eng.php#b. Kimbro, Rachel, Justin Denney, and Sarita Panchang, “Individual, Family, and Neighborhood Characteristics and Children’s Food Insecurity,” Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk: 2012, Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 8. http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol3/iss1/8. Public information request to the Texas Department of Agriculture, 2012. Ibid. Kimbro, Rachel, Justin Denney, and Sarita Panchang supra note 10. Cook, John and Karen Jeng supra note 2. Kimbro, Rachel, Justin Denney, and Sarita Panchang supra note 10. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. “Calculating the SNAP Program Access Index: A Step by Step Guide 2010,” USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Oct. 2010. Ibid. Public information request to the Texas Food Bank Network, Aug. 2012. WIC, Texas Department of State Health Services, no date, 25 Jul. 2012 http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wichd/. Public information request to the Texas Department of Agriculture, Jul. 2012. “Backing Breakfast: Starting the Day Right! Resource Guide,” 16 Jul. 2012 http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/178235.pdf. Ibid. “Child Nutrition Fact Sheet. Breakfast For Learning,” Food Research and Action Center, no date, 13 Dec. 2011 http://www.dairymax.org/breakfastforlearning.pdf. Ibid. “Benefits of School Breakfast,” American Association of School Administrators, no date, 13 Dec. 2011 http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=20042. “School Breakfast Program 2009 – 2010 Participation,” no date, Food Research and Action Center, 13 Dec. 2011 http://frac.org/federal-foodnutrition-programs/school-breakfast-andlunch/school-breakfast-program/. School Breakfast Program. Provision 2, U.S. Department of Agriculture, no date, 16 Jul. 2012 http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/breakfast/expansion/expansionstrategies.htm#provision2. Provision 2 Guidance, National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, no date, 16 Jul. 2012 http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/prov-1-2-3/prov2guidance.pdf. Summer Nutrition Programs, FRAC, no date, 16 Jul. 2012 http://frac.org/federal-foodnutrition-programs/summer-programs/. Public information request to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, 2012. “Child Hunger Facts,” Feeding America, no date, 16 Jul. 2012 http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Latino Children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Aguilar, Julian, “In-State Tuition Law Now Haunts Candidate Perry,” Texas Tribune: 28 Sept. 2011, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.texastribune.org/immigration-in-texas/immigration/undocumented-students-benefit-what-comes-next/. Demographic Profile of Hispanics in Texas, 2010, Pew Hispanic Center, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/state/tx/. American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau. Ibid. Demographic Profile of Hispanics in Texas, supra note 2. Maxwell, Lesli, “Raising Latino Achievement Seen as ‘Demographic Imperative,’” Education Week, 1 Jun. 2012, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.edweek.org/ew/ articles/2012/06/07/34overview.h31.html. Demographic Profile of Hispanics in Texas, supra note 2. Baum, Sandy and Estella Flores, “Higher Education in Immigrant Families,” Future of Children: 21.1 (2011), 30 Jul. 2012 http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/ index.xml?journalid=74&articleid=545. Macartney, Suzanne, “Child Poverty in the United States 2009 and 2010: Selected Race Groups and Hispanic Origin,” U.S Census Bureau, Nov. 2011, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.census. gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-05.pdf. Maxwell, Lesli, supra note 6. “Para nuestros niños: Expanding and Improving Early Education for Hispanics,” National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics, Mar. 2007, 30 Jul. 2012 http://ecehispanic.org/work/expand_MainReport.pdf. Ibid. Six-year graduation rates for Harris County, CHILDREN AT RISK. Zehr, Mary Ann, “Fewer Latino Students Select Four-Year Colleges,” Education Week: 22 Jul. 2010, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/07/22/37guidance_ep.h29. htm. Maxwell, Lesli, supra note 6. Public information request to Texas Youth Commission, 30 Jun. 2012. Deitch, Michele, “Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Justice System in Texas,” The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, 2011, 30 Jun. 2012 http://www.utexas.edu/ lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/juvenilestexas--final.pdf. “Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs in Texas,” Intercultural Development Research Association, 2009, 30 Jun. 2012 http://www.idra.org/images/stories/IDRA%20DAEP%20 Policy%20Update%20March%202009.pdf. Ibid. Demographic Profile of Hispanics in Texas, supra note 2. Ibid. “What is a Medical Home?” The Children with Special Health Care Needs Services Program, Texas Department of State Health Services, Jan. 2005, 21 Aug. 2012 http://www.dshs.state. tx.us/cshcn/medicalhome/mhresources.shtm. “Texas State Profile,” Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, no date, 21 Aug. 2012 http://childhealthdata.org/browse/snapshots?geo=45#bottom. “Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2010,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Dec. 2011, 30 Jun. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_250.pdf. “Promotores: Vital PRC Partners Promote Nutrition and Physical Activity,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Apr. 2012, 20 Aug. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/prc/stories-prevention-research/stories/promotores-prc.htm.
Health Care “In Harm’s Way: True Stories of Uninsured Texas Children,” Children’s Defense Fund Texas, no date, 20 Aug. 2012 http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/ data/in-harms-way-true-stories-of-uninsured-texas-children.pdf. 2 “U.S. Spends Far for Health Care than 12 Industrialized Nations, but Quality Varies,” The Commonwealth Fund, 3 May 2012, 26 Jul. 2012 http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/ News-Releases/2012/May/US-Spends-Far-More-for-Health-Care-Than-12-Industrialized-Nations-but-Quality-Varies.aspx. 3 “Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA),” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 26 Mar. 2012, 26 Jul. 2012 https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.html?redirect=/emtala/. 4 The Commonwealth Fund, supra note 6. 5 “Questions and Answers,” Insure Kids Now, no date, 18 Jul. 2012 http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/qa/index.html 6 KIDS COUNT Data Center, 20 Aug. 2012 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/. 7 Ibid. 8 “Frequently Asked Questions about Multiple Vaccinations and the Immune System,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 Feb. 2011, 18 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/multiplevaccines.html. 9 Information request to the Texas Department of State Health Services, June 2012. 10 “School and Child-Care Facility Requirements,” Texas Department of State Health Services, 24 Jan. 2012, 26 Jun. 2012 http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/school/default.shtm. 11 “National Immunization Survey,” Texas Department of State Health Services, no date, 20 Aug. 2012 http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/coverage/nis.shtm. 12 Information request to the Texas Department of State Health Services, Jun. 2012. 13 “Frequently Asked Questions About Vaccine Safety,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 8 Feb. 2011, 27 Jun. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/Common_questions.html. 1
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
129
ENDNOTES Health Care (cont.) 14 “Possible Side-Effects from Vaccines,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 27 Feb. 2012, 18 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm. 15 Information request to the Texas Department of State Health Services, Jun. 2012. 16 Ibid. 17 “Mother-to-Child (Perinatal) HIV Transmission and Prevention,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Oct. 2007, 18 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/perinatal/resources/factsheets/perinatal.htm. 18 “Prenatal Care Fact Sheet,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women’s Health, 6 Mar. 2009, 27 Jun. 2012 http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/prenatal-care.cfm. 19 “Table 12 Onset of Prenatal Care within the First Trimester,” Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, no date, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/vstat/ vs10/t12.shtm. 20 Ibid. 21 “Pregnant Women,” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, no date, 27 Jun. 2012 http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Population/Pregnant-Women/ Pregnant-Women.html. 22 Memorial Hermann Health Centers for Schools 2011 Annual Report; Public information request to HISD Health and Medical Services, 16 Aug. 2012. 23 Ibid. 24 Public information request to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Feb. 2012. 25 Public information request to the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Jun. 2012.
Environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
130
Kumar, Sheila V., “La. Lawmakers Address Lead Hazard with Legislation,” Houston Chronicle, 29 May 2012, 05 Jun. 2012 http://www.chron.com/default/article/La-lawmakers-addresslead-hazard-with-legislation-3592085.php. “Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 29 Feb. 2012, 12 Jun. 2012 http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/leadinfo.htm. “Air Quality Index Report,” Environmental Protection Agency, 13 Mar. 2012, 5 Jun. 2012 http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html. “State of the Air,” American Lung Association, 22 Apr. 2012, 5 Jun. 2012 http://www.stateoftheair.org/2012/assets/state-of-the-air2012.pdf. Park-Related Total Expenditure per Resident, by City, Trust for Public Land, 28 Jul. 2010, 2 May 2012 http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_Spending_Reports_2010.pdf. “100 Largest City Parks,” Trust for Public Land, no date, 15 Aug. 2012 http://www.tpl.org. “HPARD Inventory,” Houston Parks and Recreation Department, 15 Aug. 2012, 22 Aug. 2012 http://www.houstontx.gov/parks/pdfs/2012/HPARDInventory.pdf; “Total Parkland per 1000 Residents by City,” Trust for Public Land; “Greenest Cities? Surprise—Houston’s near the top.” 24 Jul. 2007, Houston Chronicle, 22 Aug. 2012 http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Greenest-cities-Houston-s-near-the-top-1827210.php. “Final National Priorities List- By State,” Environmental Protection Agency, 8 Nov. 2011, 22 Aug. 2012 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfin.htm#TX. Soward, Larry, “Houston’s Failure to Meet Smog Limit Can Lead to Opportunities to Improve Air Quality,” Air Alliance Houston, 14 Feb. 2012, 6 Jun. 2012 http://airalliancehouston. org/commentary/detail/houstons_failure_to_meet_smog_limits_can_lead_to_opportunities_to_improve_a/. “Elimination of Childhood Lead Poisoning in Houston by 2010,” City of Houston, Health and Human Services, no date, 16 Sept. 2010 http://www.houstontx.gov/health/Environmental/ Elimination%20Plan%20Childhood%20Lead%20Poisoning%20in%20Houston%202010.pdf. “Air Pollution and Respiratory Disease,” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, no date, 2 Feb. 2012 http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/impacts/respiratory/ . “Possible Link Between Ship Channel Air Pollutants, Cancer Risks,” University of Texas School of Public Health, May 2007, 5 Jun. 2012 http://www.uthouston.edu/distinctions/archive/2007/may/archive.htm?. “Clean Air Act,” Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Apr. 2012, 6 Jun. 2012 www.epa.gov/air/urbanair. 42 U.S.C. 7408. “Houston Air Quality Trends Overview 2009,” Houston Regional Monitoring Corporation, no date, 25 Jun. 2012 http://hrm.radian.com/houston/pdfs/HRM_Trends_2010_draft_4_26.pdf. “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Determination of Failure To Attain the 1-Hour Ozone Standard,” Federal Register 77, 19 Jun. 2012, 25 Jun. 2012 https://federalregister.gov/a/2012-14713. Matthew Tresaugue, “Houston May Finally Meet Smog Standard,” Houston Chronicle, 2 Nov. 2009. “GHASP Ozone Monitoring Project,” Air Alliance Houston, 27 Jan. 2009, 31 Aug. 2012 http://airalliancehouston.org/air_alliance_houston_reports/detail/ghasp_ozone_monitoring_project/. Mission and History, Discovery Green Conservancy, 31 Aug. 2012 http://www.discoverygreen.com/mission-history/. “Waste Identification,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 11 Apr. 2012, 22 Jun. 2012 http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastetypes/wasteid/index.htm. “Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Waste,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, 9 Aug. 2011, 22 Jun. 2012 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/students/clas_aSct/haz-ed/ ff_01.htm. “Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites,” Texas Environmental Profiles, no date, 6 Jun. 2012. “Lead Exposure in Children: Prevention, Detection, and Management,” Committee on Environmental Health, Pediatrics 2005; 116:4 1036-1046. City of Houston, Health and Human Services, supra note 10. “Development Regulations,” City of Houston, no date, 22 Aug. 2012, http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/dev_regs_links.html. “Ground-level Ozone Standards Designations: Frequently Asked Questions,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Jun. 2012, 20 Jun. 2012 http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/faq.htm. “Park-Related Total Expenditure per Resident, by City,” Trust for Public Land, 6 Jun. 2012, 28 Jul. 2012 http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_Spending_Reports_2010.pdf.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Obesity 1 “Greenwood Forest Grizzlies set goals to get fit,” Cypress Creek Mirror, 16 Feb. 2012. 2 Ibid. 3 Arons, Abigail, “Childhood Obesity in Texas: The Costs, The Policies, and a Framework for the Future,” Prepared for Children’s Hospital Association of Texas, Jan. 2011, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.childhealthtx.org/pdfs/Childhood%20Obesity%20in%20Texas%20Report.pdf. 4 Ibid. 5 “About BMI for Children and Teens,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no date, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/childrens_bmi/about_childrens_bmi.html. 6 “About BMI for Adults,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no date, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html. 7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supra note 5. 8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supra note 6. 9 “Health of Houston Survey 2010,” The University of Texas Health Science Center for Houston, no date, 23 Jul. 2012 http://hhs2010.sph.uth.tmc.edu/SingleMapReport/. 10 Ibid. 11 “Children’s Food Environment State Indicator Report,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/ChildrensFoodEnvironment.pdf. 12 “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6104.pdf. 13 Ibid. 14 Arons, Abigail, supra note 3. 15 Ibid. 16 “Food deserts: We need more grocery stores in the right places,” Houston Chronicle, 18 Feb. 2011, 21Aug. 2012 http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Food-deserts-Weneed-more-grocery-stores-in-the-1684906.php. 17 “Food for Every Child: The Need for More Supermarkets in Houston,” The Food Trust, Dec. 2010. 18 “Fresh produce vans will roll into Houston’s ‘food deserts,’” Houston Chronicle, 5 Feb. 2012, 21 Aug 2012 http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Fresh-produce-vans-toroll-into-Houston-s-food-3041408.php. 19 “The Trust for Public Land ParkScore – Houston, Texas,” The Trust for Public Land, May 2012, 23 Aug. 2012 http://parkscore.tpl.org/city.php?city=Houston. 20 “Researchers find link between TV’s, Childhood Obesity,” Texas Tech Today, 1 Dec. 2011, 21 Aug. 2012 http://today.ttu.edu/2011/12/researchers-find-link-between-tvs-childhoodobesity/. 21 Arons, Abigail, supra note 3. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 George, Cindy, “UTMB Study: Dialogue crucial to preventing obesity in babies,” Houston Chronicle, 15 Jun. 2010, 21 Aug. 2012 http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/ UTMB-study-Dialogue-crucial-to-preventing-1706600.php. 31 Ibid. 32 “Using Research to Move Policy in Highly Obese South Texas,” Salud! America, Spring 2012, 21 Aug. 2012 http://www.salud-america.org/sites/www.salud-america.org/files/upload/ SA16thE-N.pdf. 33 “Breakfast for Health,” Food Research & Action Center, Fall 2011, 21 Aug. 2012 http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/breakfastforhealth.pdf . 34 “Why offer school breakfast free to all children?” Food Research & Action Center, no date, 21 Aug. 2012 http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/universal_sbp.pdf . 35 “CAN DO Houston,” Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities, no date, Aug. 22, 2012 http://www.healthykidshealthycommunities.org/communities/houston-tx. 36 “Healthy Living Matters,” Healthy Living Matters, no date, 22 Aug 2012 http://healthylivingmatters.net/. 37 Choose My Plate, United State Department of Agriculture, no date, 7 Aug. 2012 http://www.choosemyplate.gov/. 38 “Walking School Bus program increases children’s physical activity,” Baylor College of Medicine, no date, 22 Aug. 2012 http://www.bcm.edu/news/item.cfm?newsID=4316 . 39 Food Research and Action Center, supra note 34.
Adolescent Health and Teen Pregnancy “Teen Birth Rate Hit Record Low in 2010,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Nov. 2011, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2011/p1117_teen_birthrate. html. 2 Ibid. 3 “U.S. Teen Birth Rates, 2010,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12 Jun. 2012 cdc.gov. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Information request to Texas Department of State Health Services, 31 May 2012. 7 Shuford, Jennifer A., “What Is the Impact of Nonmarital Teenage Pregnancy?” The Medical Institute: Sexual Health for Life. Medical Institute for Sexual Health, Oct. 2008, 17 Jun. 2012 https://www.medinstitute.org/faq/what-is-the-impact-of-nonmarital-teenage-pregnancy/. 8 Ibid. 9 “About Teen Pregnancy,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12 Mar. 2012, 17 Jun. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/AboutTeenPreg.htm. 1
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
131
ENDNOTES Adolescent Sexual Health and Teen Pregnancy (cont.) 10 Tortolero, Susan R., Kimberly Johnson, Melissa Peskin, et. al., “Dispelling the Myth: What Parents Really Think about Sex Education in Schools,” Journal of Applied Research on Children, Article 5 2.2 (2011): n. pag. Web. 12 Jun. 2012 http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol2/iss2/5/. 11 Hallmark, Camden, “Teen STIs Data for Harris County,” email message to the author, 14 Jun. 2012. 12 “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs),” FHI 360. N.p., 2012. Web. 14 Jun. 2012. 13 Tortolero, Susan R., et al., supra note 10. 14 Tortolero, Susan R., et al., “A Tale of Two States: What We Learn from California and Texas,” Journal of Applied Research on Children Article 4 2.2 (2011), 16 Jun. 2012 http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol2/iss2/4/. 15 Ibid. 16 Kohler, P., L. Manhart, and W. Lafferty, “Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy,” Journal of Adolescent Health 42.4 (2008): 344-51. 31 Jan. 2008, 14 Jun. 2012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18346659. 17 Ibid. 18 “Interventions with Evidence of Success,” The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2012, 15 Jun. 2012 http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/programs.aspx. 19 Wiley, David, and Kelly Wilson, “Just Don’t Say Know: Sexuality Education in Texas Public Schools,” Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, Jan. 2009, 28 Jun. 2012 http://www.tfn. org/site/DocServer/SexEdRort09_web.pdf?docID=981. 20 Tortolero, Susan R., et al., supra note 10. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Shuford, Jennifer A., supra note 7. 24 “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs),” supra note 12. 25 Tortolero, Susan R., et al., supra note 14. 26 Ibid. 27 Alterman, Eric, and George Zornick, “Think Again: The Costs of Enforced Sexual Ignorance,” Center for American Progress, May 2008, 29 Jun. 2012 http://www.americanprogress.org/ issues/media/news/2008/05/08/4453/think-again-the-costs-of-enforced-sexual-ignorance/. 28 “School Health Advisory Councils,” Texas Department of State Health Services, 30 Mar. 2012, 29 Jun. 2012 http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/schoolhealth/sdhac.shtm. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Wiley, David, and Kelly Wilson, supra note 19. 32 Prevention Research Center, 22 Jun. 2012 https://sph.uth.tmc.edu/tprc/who-we-are/. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 “What We Believe,” Texas Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 23 Aug 2012 http://www.txcampaign.org/what-we-believe.htm. 36 Alterman, Eric, and George Zornick, supra note 27. 37 Ibid. 38 “Parent and Guardian Resources: Help Your Teen Make Healthy Choices About Sex,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29 Aug. 2011, 28 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/Parents.htm.
Mental Health “Mental Health Matters Part 2: Weaver’s Story,” ABC 13 in conjunction with DePelchin Children’s Center, no date, 2 Aug. 2012 http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=8290065. “Mental Health,” National Institutes of Health – U.S. National Library of Medicine, Feb. 2012, 3 Aug. 2012 http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mentalhealth.html. McMorrow, Stacey and Embry Howell, “State Mental Health Systems for Children: A Review of the Literature and Available Data Sources,” Urban Institute, Aug. 2010, 13 Aug. 2012 http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=child_and_teen_support&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=106948. 4 “Any disorder among children,” National Institute of Mental Health, no date, 8 Aug. 2012 http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1ANYDIS_CHILD.shtml. 5 “Use of mental health services and treatment among children,” National Institute of Mental Health, no date, 8 Aug 2012 http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1NHANES.shtml. 6 “The Rationing of Public Mental Health Services in Houston,” Mental Health Policy Analysis Collaborative, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston- Institute for Health Policy, Apr. 2010, 8 Aug. 2012 http://med.uth.tmc.edu/departments/psychiatry/mentalhealthanalysis/rationing.pdf. 7 “Harris County jail not the place to treat mental illness,” Houston Chronicle, 2 Jan. 2011, 8 Aug. 2012 http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Harris-County-jail-not-the-placeto-treat-mental-1689586.php. 8 Information request to MHMRA of Harris County, 27 Jul. 2012. 9 Ibid. 10 Information request to Harris County Systems of Hope, 14 Mar. 2012. 11 “IDEA: The Manual for Parents and Students About Education Services in Texas,” The Arc of Texas / Disability Rights Texas, Sept. 2011, 3 Aug. 2012 http://www.thearcoftexas.org/site/ DocServer/IDEA_booklet-color.pdf?docID=961. 12 “Special Education Reports,” Texas Education Agency, 5 Mar. 2012, 8 Aug. 2012 http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/adser.html. 13 Chambers, R. Andrew, “Developmental Neurocircuitry of Motivation in Adolescence: A Critical Period of Addiction Vulnerability,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 2003, 3 Aug. 2012 http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=176256. 1 2 3
132
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Mental Health (cont.) 14 “Youth Risk Behavior Survey System,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 22 May 2012, 7 Aug. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/index.htm. 15 Ibid. 16 “Suicide Facts at a Glance,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010, 8 Aug. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_DataSheet-a.pdf. 17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supra note 14. 18 “School-Based Behavioral Health Initiative,” Mental Health America of Greater Houston, no date, 31 Aug. 2012 http://www.mhahouston.org/schoolbased-behavioral-health-initiative/. 19 “Mission, Values, and Core Beliefs,” The Council on Alcohol and Drugs Houston, no date, 31 Aug. 2012 http://www.council-houston.org/About_Us/Mission.aqf. 20 “School and Community-Based Services,” The Council on Alcohol and Drugs Houston, no date, 31 Aug. 2012 http://www.council-houston.org/Services_Programs/School-__Community-based_Services.aqf. 21 “Welcome to the Systems of Hope,” Harris County Systems of Hope, no date, 23 Aug. 2012 http://www.systemsofhope.org/default.aspx. 22 Information request to Harris County Systems of Hope, 14 Mar. 2012. 23 Programs & Services, Communities in Schools Houston, 31 Aug. 2012 http://cishouston.org/programs-services/. 24 “Schools stress tolerance, respect during district-wide Anti-Bullying Awareness Week,” HISD Communications Blog 7, Feb. 2012, 23 Aug. 2012 http://hisdnews.wordpress. com/2012/02/07/schools-stress-tolerance-respect-during-districtwide-anti-bullying-awareness-week/. 25 “Cypress Ranch High School Anti-Bullying Lip Dub ‘Who Do U Think U R?’” Cypress Ranch High School Student Council, 29 Mar. 2012, 23 Aug. 2012 http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=waAqJ6727Hk.
Parenting Interview with Connie Clancy, Family Services of Greater Houston. Sanders, Matthew R., et al., “Every Family: A Population Approach to Reducing Behavioral and Emotional Problems in Children Making the Transition to School,” The Journal of Primary Prevention 29.3 (2008): 197-222. Print. 3 American FactFinder – Results, US Census Bureau, no date, 13 Jun. 2012 http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_ DP02&prodType=table. 4 Prinz, Ron, “Dissemination of a Multilevel Evidence-based System of Parenting Interventions with Broad Application to Child Welfare Populations,” Child Welfare 88 (2009): 142-47. Print. 5 Samuelson, Anne. “Best Practices for Parent Education and Support Programs,” What Works: Effective Prevention Programs for Children, Youth, and Families, Aug. 2010, 06 Jun. 2012 http://whatworks.uwex.edu/attachment/whatworks_10.pdf. 6 “Vision, Mission, and Goals,” National Parenting Education Network, no date, 13 Jun. 2012 http://npen.org/about/background.html. 7 “Center for Parenting & Family Well-Being,” CHILDREN AT RISK, no date, 13 Jun. 2012 http://childrenatrisk.org/policy/cpfwb/. 8 Alexandra, Laine, “California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare,” 23 Apr. 2008, 15 Jun. 2012 http://www.familyresourcecenters.net/assets/library/97_winter07.pdf. 9 Nowak, Christoph, and Nina Heinrichs, “A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Triple P-Positive Parenting Program Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling: Effectiveness and Moderating Variables,” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 11.3 (2008): 114-44. Print. 10 Sanders, Matthew R., supra note 2. 11 Foster, E. Michael, et al., “The Costs of a Public Health Infrastructure for Delivering Parenting and Family Support,” Children and Youth Services Review 30.5 (2008): 493-501. Print. 12 Melander, Leigh. “Triple P: Because Kids Don’t Come with Directions,” Apr. 2008, 15 Jun. 2012 http://www.familyresourcecenters.net/assets/library/97_winter07.pdf. 13 Ibid. 14 “Research Roundup: Parenting,” Child Welfare League of America, Feb. 2005, 17 Jun. 2012 http://www.cwla.org/programs/r2p/rrnews0502.pdf. 15 Ibid. 16 Public information request to the United Way of Greater Houston. 17 Prinz, Ron, supra note 4. 18 Malburg, Sarah. “What Is a Title 1 School? Meeting the Needs of Low-Income Students,” Bright Hub Education, 05 Oct. 2011, 26 Jun. 2012 http://www.brighthubeducation.com/teaching-methods-tips/11105-basics-of-title-1-funds/. 19 “Uses of Title I Funds for Parent and Community Engagement and Community Schools,” Coalition for Community Schools, no date, 26 Jun. 2012 http://www.communityschools.org/ assets/1/AssetManager/Sarah_Pearson_Notes1.PDF. 20 “Title I - Improving The Academic Achievement Of The Disadvantaged,” United States Department of Education, 15 Sept. 2004, 10 Jul. 2012 http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/ esea02/pg1.html. 21 “NCLB Action Briefs: Parental Involvement,” National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education, 28 Jun. 2012 http://www.ncpie.org/nclbaction/parent_involvement.html. 1 2
Child Abuse and Neglect 1 2 3 4 5 6
Interview, Heather Pohl, Child Protective Services caseworker. 42 U.S.C.A §5106(g). “Child Maltreatment Prevention,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 10 Apr. 2012, 12 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/childmaltreatment/. “Annual Report and Data Book: 2011,” Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, no date, 12 Jul. 2012 http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/documents/about/Data_Books_and_Annual_Reports/2011/Combined11.pdf. Texas Family Code §261.103(a). Texas Family Code §261.109.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
133
ENDNOTES Child Abuse and Neglect (cont.) Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, 12 Jul. 2012 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_ neglect/natl_incid/reports/nis_execsumm/nis4_report_exec_summ_pdf_jan2010.pdf. 8 Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, supra note 4. 9 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 7. 10 Goldman et. al., “A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation for Practice,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003, 12 Jul. 2012 http://www. childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundation.pdf. 11 “Toxic Stress: The Facts,” Harvard University Center on the Developing Child, no date, 12 Jul. 2012 http://developingchild.harvard.edu/topics/science_of_early_childhood/toxic_ stress_response/. 12 Hagele, Dana, “The Impact of Maltreatment on the Developing Child,” North Carolina Medical Journal, 66.5 2005, 12 Jul. 2012 http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Hagele.pdf. 13 Lowenthal, Barbara, “Child Maltreatment: Effects on Development and Learning,” Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting, 6 Nov. 2000, 12 Jul. 2012 http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/ pubs/katzsym/lowenthal.pdf. 14 Ibid. 15 “Long-Term Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008, 16 Jul. 2012 http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_ consequences.cfm. 16 “An Update on the Cycle of Violence,” U.S. Department of Justice, Feb. 2001, 16 Jul. 2012 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184894.pdf. 17 Texas Health Care Information Collection Inpatient Discharge Database, 2004-2009. 18 Lowenthal, Barbara, “Child Maltreatment: Effects on Development and Learning,” Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting, 6 Nov. 2000, 12 Jul. 2012 http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/ pubs/katzsym/lowenthal.pdf. 19 “Child abuse and neglect cost the United States $124 billion,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 Feb. 2012, 12 Jul. 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0201_ child_abuse.html. 20 Ibid. 21 “TRIAD Prevention Program,” Harris County Protective Services, no date, 16 Jul. 2012 http://www.hc-ps.org/triad_prevention.htm. 22 “Community Youth Services Resource Directory,” Harris County Protective Services for Children and Adults, no date, 16 Jul. 2012 http://www.hc-ps.org/CYS_Resource_Directory.pdf. 23 “Services Provided by Harris County Protective Services,” Harris County Protective Services, no date, 16 Jul. 2012 http://www.hc-ps.org/services_provided.htm. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 “Help for Parents. Hope for Kids,” Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, no date, 16 Jul. 2012 http://www.helpandhope.org/find-help.html. 27 “Help for Parents, Hope for Kids: New Campaign Prevents Child Abuse with a Helping Hand for Parents,” Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 2 Jul. 2012, 25 Jul. 2012 http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/About/News/2012/2012-07-02_help_and_hope.asp. 28 “The Case for Nurse-Family Partnership,” Nurse-Family Partnership, no date, 25 Jul. 2012 http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/about/The-case-for-NFP. 7
Human Trafficking “Survivor Stories, Keisha: Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking,” Polaris Project, no date, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.polarisproject.org/what-we-do/client-services/survivor-stories/464-keisha-domestic-minor-sex-trafficking. 2 Bales, Kevin, “Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy,” University of California Press, 2004. 3 “Texas Facts on Human Trafficking,” Rescue & Restore, no date, 31 Aug. 2012 www.texasimpact.org/UMW/HumanTraffickFactSheet.doc. 4 Hotline Statistics, Polaris Project, no date, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.polarisproject.org/state-map . 5 “Human Trafficking Fact Sheet,” U.S. Department of Justice, no date, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/factsheets/ojpfs_humantrafficking.html . 6 “Getting Back to the Basics: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department 2011 Annual Report,” Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, no date, 30 Jul. 2012 http://hcjpd.org/ annual_reports/2011.pdf. 7 Ibid. 8 Information request to Human Trafficking Rescue Alliance, 17 Aug. 2012. 9 Ibid. 10 See In re B.W., 313 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. 2010). 11 Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, supra note 6. 12 Information request to Trafficked Persons Assistance Program, YMCA International Services, 15 Jun. 2012 . 1
134
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Juvenile Justice “Texas’ School-to-Prison Pipeline,” Texas Appleseed, Oct. 2007, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.texasappleseed.net/pdf/Pipeline%20Report.pdf . “The State of Juvenile Probation Activity in Texas,” Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, Nov. 2011, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/publications/reports/RPTSTAT2010.pdf. “Getting Back to the Basics: Harris County Juvenile Probation Department 2011 Annual Report,” Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, no date, 30 Jul. 2012 http://hcjpd.org/ annual_reports/2011.pdf. 4 Hammond, Sarah, “Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders,” National Conference of State Legislatures, Jun. 2007, 30 Jul. 2012 http://www.ncsl.org/print/cj/mentaljjneeds.pdf. 5 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure: §45.0215. 6 Senate Bill 653 (Whitmire) – 82nd Texas Legislative Session. 7 Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, supra note 3. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. GIRLS is an acronym for “Growing Independence Restoring Lives.” 11 Ibid. SOAR is an acronym for “Sobriety Over Addiction and Relapse.” 12 Ibid. GRIP is an acronym for “Gang Recidivism Intervention Program.” 1 2 3
Early Education Andrew J. Rotherham, “Are Pre-K Programs About to Get Gutted?” Time Ideas, Apr. 2012, Jul. 2012 http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/05/are-pre-k-programs-about-to-get-gutted/. “The Science of Early Childhood Development,” National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Jan. 2007, Jul. 2012 http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_ working_papers/science_of_early_childhood_development/. 3 Bronfenbrenner, Urie, “The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design,” 1979. 4 “Pre-kindergarten: Should State Support be Expanded?” House Research Organization, 6 Apr. 2010, Jul. 2012 http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/politifact/04062010_hroprekreport.pdf. 5 Education Code Chapter 29, Jul. 2012 http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.29.htm#29.153. 6 Ibid. 7 “Early Childhood Education,” Texas Public Policy Foundation, Nov. 2008, 23 Aug. 2012 https://www.texaspolicy.com/center/education-policy/reports/early-childhood-education-prek. 8 Texas Education Agency, Lonestar Report 2010-2011. 9 “Prekindergarten in Texas,” Texas Association of School Boards, Aug. 2010, 23 Aug. 2012 http://www.tasb.org/legislative/resources/documents/prek2010.pdf. 10 Article III of the State Budget Addresses Funding for Public Education Programs, Texas Association of School Boards, no date, Aug. 2012 http://www.tasb.org/legislative/legislative/ reports/2011/documents/hb1table.pdf. 11 “Child Care Licensing,” Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Data Book 2011, 2011, Aug. 2012 http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/documents/about/Data_Books_and_Annual_Reports/2011/DataBook11.pdf. 12 Public information request to the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Jul. 2012. 13 Public information request to the Gulf Coast Workforce Development Board, Jul. 2012. 14 Garces, Eliana, Duncan Thomas, and Janet Currie, “Longer-Term Effects of Head Start,” The American Economic Review, 92 (4): 999-1012, Sept. 2002, Aug. 2012 http://www.nber.org/ papers/w8054. 15 “The Influence of Parents on Children’s Thoughts, Feelings, and Behaviors,” Building Strong Families, no date, Jul. 2012 http://www.search-institute.org/system/files/InfluenceofParents.pdf. 16 “Research on Early Childhood Education Outcomes,” Public Policy Forum, no date, Jul. 2012 http://www.publicpolicyforum.org/Matrix.htm. 17 Public information request to the Texas Education Agency, Mar. 2012. 1 2
Dropout Rate Len Cannon, “HISD charter program helping homeless students graduate,” KHOU News Online, 19 Nov. 2010, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.khou.com/news/HISD-program-helps-homeless-students-graduate-108989399.html. 2 Chapman, C. et al., “Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2009 (NCES 2012-006),” U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2011, 23 Jul. 2012 http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. 3 “Dropout Crisis Facts,” America’s Promise Alliance, 2011, 23 July 2012 http://www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Grad-Nation/Dropout-Facts.aspx. 4 All Texas state and county level graduation rates are based on Texas Education Agency data and calculated using CHILDREN AT RISK’s unique methodology which divides the number of graduates by the number of students in the first-time freshman year cohort minus any students in that cohort who died. 5 Academic Excellence Indicator System 2010-2011, State Report, no date, Texas Education Agency download of all data, 23 Jul. 2012 http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2011/ index.html. 6 Academic Excellence Indicator System, 2010-2011, no date, Texas Education Agency, 23 Jul. 2012 ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2011/glossary.html. 7 Hernandez, Donald J., “Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation,” The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Apr. 2011, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Education/Other/DoubleJeopardyHowThirdGradeReadingSkillsandPovery/DoubleJeopardyReport040511FINAL.pdf. 8 Public information request to the Texas Education Agency, 27 Jun. 2012. 9 Fact Sheet, Alliance for Excellent Education, Sept. 2010, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.all4ed.org/files/HighSchoolDropouts.pdf. 10 Public information request to the Texas Education Agency, 27 Jun. 2012. 1
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
135
ENDNOTES Dropout Rate (cont.) 11 CHILDREN AT RISK calculations based on Texas Education Agency data. 12 Ibid. 13 Fact Sheet, Alliance for Excellent Education, Sept. 2010, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.all4ed.org/files/HighSchoolDropouts.pdf. 14 Alliance for Excellent Education, “The High Cost of High School Dropouts,” Straight A’s: Public Education Policy and Progress, 14 Sept. 2009, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.all4ed.org/files/ Volume9No17.pdf. 15 Alvarez, Roman, et al., “The ABCD’s of Texas Education: Assessing the Benefits and Costs of Reducing the Dropout Rate,” The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, May 2009, 23 Jul. 2012 http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/96997/TheABCDs.pdf?sequence=2. 16 “About the Crisis: Impact on American Society,” Alliance for Excellent Education, no date, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.all4ed.org/about_the_crisis/impact. 17 “Harris County, Texas - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months by Sex by Educational Attainment: 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates,” U.S. Census Bureau, no date, 23 Jul. 2012 http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_B20004&prodType=table. 18 Alliance for Excellent Education, “The High Cost of High School Dropouts: What the Nation Pays for Inadequate High Schools,” Issue Brief, Nov. 2011, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.all4ed. org/files/HighCost.pdf. 19 “Texas’ School-to-Prison Pipeline: Dropout to Incarceration,” Texas Appleseed Report, Oct. 2007, 23 Jul. 2012 http://www.texasappleseed.net/pdf/Pipeline%20Report.pdf. 20 Fact Sheet, Communities in Schools, no date, 23 Jul. 2012 http://cishouston.org/fact-sheet/.
College Readiness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
136
Hacker, Holly, “Students playing catch-up as they hit college,” The Dallas Morning News online, 21 Mar. 2010, 22 Aug. 2012 http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/ headlines/20100320-Students-playing-catch-up-as-they-4288.ece. “Gulf Coast P-16 Pipeline,” All Kids Alliance, no date, 22 Aug. 2012 http://www.allkidsalliance.org/Documents/7th%20grade%20cohort%20pipeline%20and%20costs%202010.pdf. Ibid. “Texas 2011,” Complete College America, no date, 24 Jul. 2012 http://www.completecollege.org/docs/Texas.pdf. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas Education Agency. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. “The Cost of College,” Center for Public Policy Priorities, 31 May 2012, Jun. 2012 http://www.cppp.org/files/2/2012_05_JO_Cost_Of_College.pdf. Ibid. “Texas 2011,” Complete College America, no date, 24 Jul. 2012 http://www.completecollege.org/docs/Texas.pdf. Ibid. “Summer Academic Enhancement Institute,” no date, Texas Southern University, 24 Jul. 2012 http://www2.tsu.edu/saei2011/.
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
Quality Public Schools “Student at Fondren MS, an Apollo 20 campus, receives Scholastic All-Star Award,” Houston Independent School District, 13 Apr. 2012, 22 Aug. 2012 http://www.houstonisd.org/ HISDConnectDS/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c71826e33bda6310VgnVCM10000028147fa6RCRD&vgnextchannel=051bdfb83de94310VgnVCM10000028147fa6RCRD. 2 Academic Excellence Indicator System, 2010-2011, State Report, no date, Texas Education Agency download of all data, 13 Aug. 2012 http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2011/ download.html. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Private School Universe Survey, National Center for Education Statistics, 2010, 22 Aug. 2012 http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/. 7 CHILDREN AT RISK calculation based on Texas Education Agency data reported in the Academic Excellence Indicator System. 8 “Adequate Yearly Progress,” Texas Education Agency, 15 Aug. 2012 http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/. 9 Information request to the Texas Education Agency, 27 Jun. 2012. 10 Student Assessment System, 2010-2011, State Report, no date, Texas Education Agency download of all data, 13 Feb. 2012 http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reporting/ taksagg/dnload.html. 11 CHILDREN AT RISK calculation based on Texas Education Agency data reported in the Academic Excellence Indicator System. 12 Public Education Information Management System, State Report, no date, Texas Education Agency, 27 Jul. 2012 http://www.tea.state.tx.us/peims/. 13 “Texas 2011,” Complete College America, no date, 24 Jul. 2012 http://www.completecollege.org/docs/Texas.pdf. 14 “Apollo 20,” Houston Independent School District, no date, 22 Aug. 2012 http://dept.houstonisd.org/apollo20/. 15 “STAAR to Replace TAKS,” Texas Education Agency, 26 Jan. 2010, 22 Aug. 2012 http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=7874. 16 Information request to the Texas Education Agency, 5 Apr. 2012. 1
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
137
INDEX
138
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
INDEX A Adult Certification, 84, 88 Alcohol Abuse, 73 Apollo 20, 106, 108, 109 AVANCE, 33, 34, 90, 91, 92
B Bilingual, 33, 109
C Charter Schools, 90, 95, 106, 108, 109, 110 Child Abuse and Neglect Cases Reported, 11, 41, 56, 75 Child Maltreatment, 66, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 118 Child Protective Services, 67, 72, 75, 76, 77 Corporal Punishment, 73, 76 Department of Family and Protective Services, 10, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 91, 92 Family Violence, 77 Hospitalizations, 72, 73, 76 Investigations Average Caseload, 76 Projected Abuse and Neglect, 75 Sexual Abuse, 72, 74 Temporary Custody, 76 Unintentional Deaths of Children Child Care, 90, 91, 92 Child Protective Services, 67, 72, 75, 76, 77 Children and Adolescent Services, 60 Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), 8, 22, 23, 36, 37, 38, 39, 60 Class C Misdemeanor, 84, 85, 86 College Readiness, 32, 33, 101, 102, 108 (See also Education) Communities in Schools, 62, 95, 96, 107, 109 Community Health Worker, 38 Community Youth Services (CYS), 74, 77 Corporal Punishment, 73, 76
D Demographics Latino Children, 8, 11, 16, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 50 Texas, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 U.S. Census, 11, 13, 32, 63
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
139
INDEX D Dental Care, 38 Department of Family and Protective Services, 10, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 91, 92 Detention, 85, 86, 87 (See also Juvenile Justice) Developmental Delay, 116 Domestic Violence (See also Family Violence) Dropout At-Risk Students, 94, 95, 96, 107 Graduation Rate, 9, 94, 95, 96, 107, 111 Literacy, 13, 33, 91, 96 Numeracy, 96, 102 Economically Disadvantaged, 7, 38, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 111 Drugs, 26, 37, 61 (See also Health Care and Mental Health)
E Early Childhood Intervention, 38, 39 Early Education, 9, 34, 89, 90, 91, 92, 109 (See also Education) Economically Disadvantaged, 7, 38, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 111 Education Adequate Yearly Progress, 9, 106, 107, 108, 110 Alternative Education, 33 At-Risk Students, 94, 95, 96, 107 Bilingual, 33, 109 Charter Schools, 90, 95, 106, 108, 109, 110 Class Size, 90, 91, 109, 111 College Readiness ACT, 22, 28, 33, 36, 39, 45, 46, 60, 61, 68, 72, 91, 96, 100, 101, 102, 111 Advanced Placement, 100 College Enrollment, 101, 102 International Baccalaureate, 100 Numeracy, 96, 102 SAT, 100, 101, 103, 111 Corporal Punishment, 73, 76 Dropout At-Risk Students, 94, 95, 96, 107 Early Education Child Care, 90, 91, 92 Head Start, 33, 90, 91, 92 Licensed Facilities, 92 National Standards, 92 Pre-Kindergarten, 90, 91, 92 Subsidized Care, 92 Economically Disadvantaged, 7, 38, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 111 English as a Second Language (ESL), 33, 109 Expenditure Per Student, 109
140
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
E
GED, 33, 34 Gifted and Talented, 103, 106 Graduation Rate, 9, 94, 95, 96, 107, 111 HISD, 52, 63, 94, 95, 102, 107, 108, 109 Latino Children, 8, 11, 16, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 50 Limited English Proficient, 109 Literacy, 13, 33, 91, 96 Math and Science, 103 No Child Left Behind, 107 Numeracy, 96, 102 Principal Pay, 110 Private Schools, 106, 109 Region 4, 97, 101, 102, 103, 109, 110 School Discipline Class C Misdemeanor ticketing, 84 Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP), 33, 97 School Rankings, 7, 10, 103, 106, 111, 112, 114, 118 Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), 82 Special Education Enrollment, 61, 109 Superintendent Pay, 110 Teach for America, 110 Teacher Experience, 110 Teacher Turnover, 110 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), 12, 13, 14, 95, 96, 100, 107, 111 Texas Education Agency, 9, 13, 34, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 109, 110, 111, 116 Youth Workforce Career Development, 95 Job Readiness, 102 Summer Employment, 102 Emergency Shelters, 23, 24 English as a Second Language (ESL), 33, 109 Environment Air Pollution, 46 Air Quality, 44, 45, 46 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 Hazardous Waste, 45, 46, 47, 48 Lead Poisoning, 44, 45, 46, 47 Ozone, 45, 46 Parks, 29, 44, 45, 46, 51, 52
F Family Violence, 77 Federal Poverty Level (FPL), 29, 60 FitnessGram, 51, 52 Food Insecurity, 7, 26, 27, 28, 30, 118 Food Programs, 95 Food Stamps, 20, 23, 26, 27 Foster Care, 74, 76, 80, 94 Gang, 85, 88
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
141
INDEX G GED, 33, 34 GIRLS Court, 81, 85 Graduation Rate, 9, 94, 95, 96, 107, 111
H Harris County Juvenile Mental Health Court, 87 Harris County Protective Services, 62, 74, 85, 121 Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 37, 39, 44, 46, 50, 55, 72, 74 Dental Care, 38 Developmental Delay, 116 Drugs, 26, 37, 61 (See also Mental Health) Early Childhood Intervention, 38, 39 Health Coverage Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), 8, 22, 23, 36, 37, 38, 39, 60 CHIP Perinatal, 39 Medicaid, 8, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37, 38, 39, 46, 54, 60 Health Insurance, 8, 13, 22, 23, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39 Immunizations, 23, 37, 40 Infant Mortality, 13, 37, 41 Infectious Diseases AIDS, 37, 41, 42, 55, 121 Measles, 37, 40 Pertussis, 37, 41 Tuberculosis, 37, 41 Lead Poisoning, 44, 45, 46, 47 Low Birth Weight, 36, 37, 41 Maternal Health (See also Health Care) Mental Health, 8, 9, 11, 22, 27, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 73, 74, 84, 85, 87, 124 Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority (MHMRA), 60, 63, 69, 85, 121, 122 Obesity, 8, 10, 13, 26, 28, 49, 50, 51, 52, 61 School-Based Clinics, 36, 37, 39 Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 67 Substance Abuse Alcohol, 37, 41, 42, 51, 60, 61, 63, 73 Texas Health Steps Texas Health Steps Dental, 40 Texas Health Steps Medical, 40 Health Insurance, 8, 13, 22, 23, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39 (See also Health) HISD, 52, 63, 94, 95, 102, 107, 108, 109 Homeless, 21, 22, 23, 24, 54, 56, 91, 94, 95 Housing, 20, 22, 23, 24, 46, 74 (See also Poverty) Houston A+ Challenge, 101, 102, 108, 124 Human Trafficking Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking, 80, 81, 82
142
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
H FBI Innocence Lost Task Force, 81, 82 Freedom Place, 7, 80, 81, 82 GIRLS Court, 81, 85 Human Trafficking Rescue Alliance, 81 National Human Trafficking Hotline, 80, 81, 82 Runaway(s), 75 Safe House, 7, 80, 81 Hunger, 8, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 50, 51 Food Insecurity, 7, 26, 27, 28, 30, 118 Food Stamps, 20, 23, 26, 27 HISD, 52, 63, 94, 95, 102, 107, 108, 109 Nutrition, 7, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 50, 51, 52, 91 (See also Obesity and Early Education) School Breakfast, 7, 8, 27, 28, 29, 52 School Lunch, 27, 28, 29, 52 Summer Food Program, 29 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 22, 27, 29 Transitional Beds, 24 Women, Infants and Children (WIC), 22, 27
I Immunizations, 23, 37, 40 Infant Mortality, 13, 37, 41 Infectious Diseases, 37 Intervention and Treatment Services (See also Parenting) Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), 85 Juvenile Justice Adult Certification, 84, 88 Class C Misdemeanor ticketing, 84 Children Referred to Court Supervision, 87 Detention Average Cost, 87 Detention, 87 Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP), 33, 97 Diversion, 74 Field Services, 88 Gang(s), 85, 88 GIRLS Court, 81, 85 Juvenile Drug Court, 85 Juvenile Gang Court, 85 Juvenile Mental Health Court, 85, 87 Homicide, 84, 85, 86 Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), 85 Juvenile Probation, 9, 62, 63, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 Offenses Assault, 84, 85, 86 Felony Assault, 86 Felony Drug, 86 Felony Theft, 86 Homicide, 84, 85, 86 Sexual Assault, 84, 85, 86
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
143
INDEX I Recidivism, 84, 85, 88 Referrals, 63, 64, 82, 84, 86, 87 Runaways, 80, 81, 82, 87 Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) TJJD Average Cost, 87 TJJD Commitments, 87 Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, 9, 84, 85 Texas Youth Commission, 9, 84, 85, 87 TRIAD, 74, 77, 85 Truancy, 67, 68, 86, 87, 95
J Juvenile Probation, 9, 62, 63, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 Juvenile Specialty Courts, 85 (See also Juvenile Justice)
K Kinder Emergency Shelter, 74, 76 KIPP, 33, 34, 106, 112
L Latino Children
Bilingual Education Enrollment, 109
Demographics, 34 Education Disciplinary Alternative Education, 33 Dropout Rate, 9, 93, 94 Graduation Rate, 9, 94, 95, 96, 107, 111 English as a Second Language, 33, 109 GED, 33, 34 Limited English Proficient, 109 Limited English Proficient, 109 Low Birth Weight, 36, 37, 41 Low-Income, 9, 22, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 51, 52, 62, 91, 101
M Maternal Health (See also Health Care) Math and Science, 103
144
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
M Medicaid, 8, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37, 38, 39, 46, 54, 60 Mental Health Children and Adolescent Services (CAS), 60 Court Ordered Evaluations, 63 Harris County Juvenile Mental Health Court, 87 Mental Health America, 61, 62 Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority, 60, 63, 69, 85, 121, 122 Prevalence, 47, 48, 60, 63, 67 Special Education Enrollment Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 61 Substance Abuse Alcohol, 37, 41, 42, 51, 60, 61, 63, 73 Cocaine, 42, 61, 63 Drugs, 26, 37, 61 Marijuana, 42, 61, 63 Substance Abuse Treatment, 63 Tobacco, 51, 61, 63 Systems of Hope, 61, 62, 64 Teen Suicide, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 Mental Health America, 61, 62 Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority, 60, 63, 69, 85 Mental Health Court, 85, 87 MHMRA, 60, 62, 63, 69, 121, 122
O Obesity, 8, 10, 13, 26, 28, 49, 50, 51, 52, 61 Overweight, 8, 12, 13, 14, 22, 50, 51, 52 Offenses, 9, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87
P Parenting 2-1-1, 68, 69 Child Support, 69 Conservatorship, 76, 77 Court Ordered Child Support, 69 Foster Care, 74, 76, 80, 94 Intervention and Treatment Services Community Youth Services, 74, 77 Kinder Emergency Shelter, 74, 76 Services to At-Risk Youth (STAR), 77, 124 TRIAD, 74, 77, 85 Parenting Education, 67, 68, 91 Triple â&#x20AC;&#x201C; P, 67, 68, 75 Poverty Economically Disadvantaged, 7, 38, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 111 Education, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 22, 27, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 52, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 82, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 116, 118, 122 Emergency Shelters, 23, 24
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
145
INDEX P Federal Guidelines, 20 Federal Poverty Level, 29, 60 Homeless HISD, 52, 63, 94, 95, 102, 107, 108, 109 Housing Housing and Urban Development, 22 Hunger, 20 Low-Income, 9, 22, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 51, 52, 62, 91, 101 Poverty Rate, 20, 22 SSI, 22, 23, 24 Supplemental Security Income Benefits, 22, 24 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 22, 23, 24 Poverty Rate, 20, 22 Pregnancy, 8, 37, 41, 53, 54, 55 (See also Health and Teen Births) Pre-Kindergarten, 90, 91, 92 (See also Early Education) Project Grad, 33, 34, 95, 102, 108, 121, 124
R Runaways, 80, 81, 82, 87
S School Breakfast Program, 27, 28, 29, 52 School Discipline, 84, 86, 97 School Health Advisory Committees, 55 School Lunch Program, 27, 28, 52 School Rankings, 7, 10, 103, 106, 111, 112, 114, 118 Services to At-Risk Youth (STAR), 77, 124 Sex Trafficking, 80, 81, 82 (See also Human Trafficking) Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 67 (See also Teen Births) Special Education, 27, 60, 61, 62, 106, 109, 116 Substance Abuse, 37, 41, 42, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 73 (See also Mental Health) Suicide, 27, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 Summer Food Program, 29 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 Supplemental Security Income Benefits (SSI), 22, 24 Systems of Hope, 61, 62, 64
T TAKS, 12, 13, 14, 95, 96, 100, 107, 111 TANF, 22, 23, 24
146
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
T TEA, 94, 96, 101, 111 Teen Births Births, 8, 12, 13, 14, 32, 41, 54, 55, 56, 57 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Chlamydia, 54, 56 Gonorrhea, 54, 56 Syphilis, 54, 56 Teen Pregnancy, 8, 53, 54, 55 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 22, 23, 24 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), 94, 96, 107 Texas Education Agency, 9, 13, 34, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 109, 110, 111, 116 Texas Health Steps, 38, 40 Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 9, 32, 33, 38, 40, 84, 85, 87 (See also Juvenile Justice) Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, 9, 84, 85 Texas Youth Commission, 9, 84, 85, 87 Trafficking, 7, 9, 10, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 118 TRIAD, 74, 77, 85
U Uninsured, 8, 12, 13, 14, 36, 38, 60 (See also Health Care) Universal School Breakfast, 8
W Women, Infants and Children (WIC), 22, 23, 27, 29, 54
Y YES Prep, 33, 34,103, 106, 112
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
147
NOTES
148
CHILDREN AT RISK 2012-2014
CHILDREN AT RISK would like to thank its most generous supporters:
dedicated to improving the quality of life of Texas’ children through strategic research, public policy analysis, innovation, legal action, community education, and collaboration. Our focus is
Assessing the Quality of Life of Our Children
on childhood health, public schools, safety,
GROWING UP IN HOUSTON 2012-2014
as an action focused think-tank/research group
CHILDREN AT RISK
CHILDREN AT RISK was established in 1989
American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc. American General Anonymous Brown Foundation, Inc. Community Health Choice Dallas Women’s Foundation Dean Foods Foundation El Paso Corporation Kathryn and Beau Ross Charitable Fund KDK Harman Foundation Holthouse Foundation for Kids Houston Endowment Inc. Houston Rockets Memorial Hermann Hospital System Shell Oil Company
children’s poverty issues, and parenting. We are the leading source of accurate information through our biennial Growing Up in Houston publication and an advocate and a catalyst for change concerning the needs of all children in Texas.
2900 Weslayan, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77027 Office 713.869.7740 Fax 713.869.3409 www.childrenatrisk.org