Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Worcester County Needs Assessment - 2005/2006
Prepared by
Center for Family and Community Life
Salisbury University
Salisbury, MD
Prepared for
Worcester County’s Initiative to Preserve Families
Table of Contents
List of Tables....................................................................................................................5
Executive Summary........................................................................................................10
Summary of Findings and Recommendations................................................................11
Comparison with 2002 Data............................................................................................18
Study Area Profile and Demographics............................................................................23
Methodology...................................................................................................................42
Study Findings................................................................................................................56
Part I - Result Area Findings........................................................................................56
Result Area 1: Babies Born Healthy.........................................................................56
Indicator 1: Infant Mortality..................................................................................56
Indicator 2: Low Birth Weight...............................................................................57
Indicator 3: Births to Adolescents........................................................................60
Result Area 2: Healthy Children...............................................................................64
Indicator 1: Immunizations..................................................................................64
Indicator 2: Injuries..............................................................................................65
Indicator 3: Child Fatalities..................................................................................68
Indicator 4: Youth Substance Abuse...................................................................70
Result Area 3: Children Enter School Ready to Learn.............................................79
Indicator 1: Kindergarten Assessment................................................................79
Result Area 4: Children Successful in School..........................................................86
Indicator 1: Absence from School.......................................................................88
Indicator 2: Academic Performance....................................................................91
Indicator 3: Demonstrated Basic Skills.................................................................96
2
Result Area 5: Children Completing School..........................................................102
Indicator 1: Drop Out Rate................................................................................102
Indicator 2: High School Program Completion..................................................105
Indicator 3: High School Diploma......................................................................106
Indicator 4: Graduation/School Completion......................................................108
Result Area 6: Children Safe in their Families and Communities..........................111
Indicator 1: Abuse or Neglect............................................................................112
Indicator 2: Deaths Due to Injury.......................................................................114
Indicator 3: Juvenile Violent Offense Arrests....................................................116
Indicator 4: Juvenile Non-Violent Offense Arrests............................................116
Indicator 5: Domestic Violence.........................................................................125
Local Indicator - Domestic Violence Report...................................................126
Result Area 7: Stable and Economically Independent Families............................132
Indicator 1: Child Poverty..................................................................................132
Indicator 2: Single Parent Households..............................................................137
Indicator 3: Out of Home Placements.................................................................38
Indicator 4: Permanent Placements..................................................................140
Indicator 5: Homeless Adults and Children.......................................................142
Local Indicator – Point in Time Survey of Homeless Individuals.....................146
Result Area 8: Communities Which Support Family Life........................................154
Part II – Additional Questions....................................................................................155
Part III - Community Forum Data...............................................................................161
Pocomoke City........................................................................................................161
Ocean Pines...........................................................................................................162
3
Snow Hill..............................................................................................................163
Part IV - Key Informant Interview Data......................................................................166
Part V - School Focus Group Data............................................................................175
Part VI – Awareness and Adequacy of Existing Service Data...................................183
Appendix A – Telephone Questionnaire and Respondent Data...................................186
Appendix B – Telephone Respondent Problem Comparison Data...............................203
Appendix C – Telephone Survey Responses Open Ended Questions.........................205
Appendix D - Community Forum Data..........................................................................212
4
List of Tables
Table 1 – Table 2 – Table 3 – Table 4 – Table 5 – Table 6 – Table 7 – Table 8 – Table 9 – Table 10 – Table 11 – Table 12 – Table 13 – Table 14 – Table 15 – Table 16 – Table 17 – Table 18 – Table 19 – Table 20 – Table 21 –
Worcester County Farms and Acres of Land in Farms ...................... Worcester County Incorporated Place Population Estimates 2000 Census and 2004 Population Estimates ............................................ Rates of Growth for County and State ................................................ Worcester County Population by Age (2000 Census) ........................ Anticipated Growth by Age Group (2010) ........................................... Worcester County Educational Attainment ......................................... Median Household Income ................................................................. Median Family Income of Families with “Own” Children Under Age 18 ..................................................................................... Worcester County GINI Coefficient 1979 – 1999 ............................... Mean Household Income .................................................................... Per Capita Income .............................................................................. Households w/Own Children by Ownership Status and Household Type .................................................................................................... Housing Price Changes with Number of Units Sold ........................... Children with Disabilities in Worcester County ................................... Comparison of Telephone Sample to 2000 Census Data by Zip Code ........................................................................................ Comparison of Telephone Sample to 2000 Census Data by Race ... Weighting Sample by Race ............................................................... Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 .................................................. Number and Percent of Low Weight Births ........................................ Number and Percent of Very Low Weight Births ................................ Telephone Survey Regarding Low Birth-Weight Babies.....................
24
25
25
26
27
31
32 32
33
33
33
39
39
41
45
46
47
56
58
59
60
5
Table 22 – Table 23 – Table 24 – Table 25 – Table 26 – Table 27 – Table 28 – Table 29 – Table 30 – Table 31 – Table 32 – Table 33 – Table 34 – Table 35 – Table 36 – Table 37 – Table 38 –
Number of Births and Birth Rates among Adolescents Ages 15-19 ......................................................................................... Telephone Survey Regarding Adolescent Motherhood ...................... Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 ................................................. Completion Rate of Immunizations for Worcester County Two-Year-Old Children ........................................................................................ Child Injuries and Injury Rates Due to Unintentional Injuries Requiring Hospitalization per 1,000 Children Age 19 and Under by Race ................................................................................................... Child Deaths and Rate per 100,000 Children Age 1-19** All Causes .............................................. .............................................................. Comparison of Worcester MAS Results 1998-2004 Percent of Students Reporting Substance Use by Grade Level in the Last 30 Days ................................................................................................... Telephone Survey Regarding Underage Drinking .............................. Telephone Survey Regarding Illegal Drug Use by Teenagers ........... Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 .................................................. Kindergarten Assessment - Percent of Kindergarten Students Demonstrating School Readiness/ Composite Scores ....................... Percent of Worcester County Kindergarten Students Demonstrating School Readiness - Disaggregated Data by Domains ....................... Telephone Survey Regarding Preschoolers’ Readiness for School ... Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 .................................................. Worcester County Public and Nonpublic School Enrollment (as of September 30 of each school year) ......................................... Worcester Public School Enrollment by Grade Level - SY2004-2005 Worcester County Public School System Disaggregated Data by Race - SY 2000-01 through 2004-05 .................................................
61
62
64
65
66
68
73
75
75
79
81
83
84
86
86
87
87
6
Table 42 - Percent of Students in Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, English 2, and Geometry Scoring at Advanced, Proficient, and Basic Levels on the Maryland School
Assessments (MSA) - School Years 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 93
Worcester County Nonpublic School Enrollment by Grade Level SY 2004/2005 ............................................................................................ Percent of Students in all Grades Missing More than 20 Days School Years 2000-01 through 2004-05 .......................................................... Telephone Survey Regarding Chronic Absenteeism ...........................
Percent of Students in Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, English 2, and
Geometry Scoring at Advanced, Proficient, and Basic Levels on the Maryland School Assessments (MSA) - School Years 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 ......................................................... Telephone Survey Regarding MSA Test Performance ........................ Percent of Public School Students Scoring at the Passing Level for Each of the Four Assessments ............................................................ Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 ................................................... Drop-Out Rate: Grades 9-12, 2001 – 2005 .......................................... Percent of Students Completing High School University Preparatory and Career Programs .......................................................................... Percent of Individuals Age 25+ Years with High School Diploma or Above .............................................................................................. Telephone Survey Regarding High School Completion ...................... Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 .................................................. Child Abuse and Neglect Indicated and Unsubstantiated Cases and Rate per 1,000 Youth under 18 ...........................................................
Telephone Survey Regarding Child Abuse and Neglect ...................... Telephone Survey Regarding Death Rate of Children ........................ Intakes by Alleged Offenses Jurisdictional Intakes v. Intake of Resident Youth 1997-1999 AND 2003 (unpublished data) ................. Number of Worcester County Youth (residents) at Intake 2003-2004 .......................................................................................... Total Referral Rates for Alleged Offenses per 1,000 Worcester Youth Population Ages 11 – 17 Years ..........................................................
Table 39 – Table 40 – Table 41 – Table 42 – Table 43 – Table 44 – Table 45 – Table 46 – Table 47 – Table 48 – Table 49 – Table 50 – Table 51 – Table 52 – Table 53 – Table 54 – Table 55 – Table 56 –
88
89
91
93
96
97
102
103
105
107
107
111
112
114
115
117
117
118
7
Table 57 – Table 58 – Table 59 – Table 60 – Table 61 – Table 62 – Table 63 – Table 64 – Table 65 – Table 66 – Table 67 – Table 68 – Table 69 – Table 70 – Table 71 – Table 72 – Table 73 – Table 74 – Table 75 –
Juvenile Serious Violent Offense Arrest Rates per 100,000 Population 1999-2004 .................................................................. Juvenile Serious Non-Violent Offense Arrest Rates per 100,000 Population 1999-2004 ................................................................... Telephone Survey Regarding Nonviolent Crime by Teenagers ... Telephone Survey Regarding Violent Crime by Teenagers ......... Reported Incidents of Domestic Violence .................................... Worcester County and National Percentages of Victims of Domestic Violence ....................................................................... Telephone Survey Regarding Domestic Violence ........................ Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 ............................................ State and County Percentage Estimates for Under Age 18 in Poverty 1998-2002 ....................................................................... Telephone Survey Regarding Poverty ......................................... Out-of-Home Placement Entry Rate per 1,000 Children FY 2000-2004 ............................................................................................. Percent of Children who Return Home from Out-of-Home Care within 12 Months of Entry into Out-of-Home Care ....................... Percent of Children Adopted or Placed for Adoption within 24 Months of Entry into Out-of-Home Care ....................................... Number and Rates of Adults and Children Receiving Homeless Services per 100,000 Residents in Worcester County ................. Number of Homeless People Sheltered in Worcester County Fiscal Year 2000–2004 ................................................................ Bed-nights Provided in Worcester County FY2000 – FY2004 ..... Age of Homeless Persons Served in Worcester County .............. Household Composition of Homeless Persons Served in Worcester County ........................................................................ Survey County by County ............................................................
122 123 125 125 126 128 128 132 135 136 139 141 141 143 144 145 146 146 147
8
Table 76 – Table 77 – Table 78 – Table 79 – Table 80 – Table 81 - Table 82 – Table 83 – Table 84 – Table 85 – Table 86 – Table 87 – Table 88 – Table 89 – Table 90 –
Total Count of Homeless by County, January 2005 ..................... Sex of Respondents by County .................................................... Age of Respondents by County ................................................... Race/Ethnicity of Respondents by County ................................... Telephone Survey Regarding Homelessness .............................. Telephone Survey Regarding Quality Child Care ........................ Telephone Survey Regarding After-School Programs ................. Telephone Survey Regarding Availability of Affordable Housing .. Telephone Survey Regarding Availability of Transportation ........ Telephone Respondent Opinions Regarding Awareness of County Services ........................................................................... Telephone Respondent Opinions Regarding Adequacy of County Services ....................................................................................... Telephone Respondent Opinions Regarding Adequacy of County Services using responses noted as “Adequate” or “Somewhat Adequate” ..................................................................................... Telephone Respondent Results Table ......................................... Problem Comparison – 2002 vs. 2005/06 ..................................... Community Forum Results Table .................................................
148 148 149 150 151 155 156 157 158 183 184 185 202 204 213
9
Executive Summary
In July, 2005, Worcester County’s Initiative to Preserve Families contracted with
the Center for Family and Community Life (Center) at Salisbury University (SU) to
complete a comprehensive assessment of the needs of families and children in the
county. To provide a comprehensive assessment of the needs of families and children
in Worcester County, a multi-method plan was developed which included five different
sources of data: a telephone scientific survey conducted with Worcester County
households, individual interviews with key informants, focus groups with selected middle
and high school students, a secondary data analysis, and community forums for adult
stakeholders. Data were collected between September 2005 and February 2006.
10
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Telephone Survey
The first part of the telephone survey listed twenty questions concerning
problems facing Worcester County families. When listed issue by issue, the following
three areas emerged as most problematic:
• Adolescent drug use 84.1%
• Underage drinking of alcohol 81.0%
• Housing 79.7%
This is consistent with the responses elicited from Question #20 which asked
respondents to list their top areas of concern. The three areas which ranked most
highly as “problems” or “serious problems” were:
• Affordable housing 32.8% (122)
• Underage drinking of alcohol 14.6% (54)
• Abuse of illegal drugs by teenagers 9.3% (35)
The second part of the telephone survey asked respondents to identify any issue
not mentioned earlier that they believed was a problem in Worcester County. The five
most frequently mentioned areas were*:
• Parental involvement (9 comments)
• The school system (7 comments)
• Job opportunities (3 comments)
• Recreational activities (3 comments)
• Violence (3 comments)
*A complete list of telephone survey responses may be found in Appendix C.
11
The third part of the telephone survey asked respondents to suggest a solution.
The seven most frequent solutions suggested were*:
• Increased parental involvement (29 comments)
• Improved educational programs (27 comments)
• Affordable housing (17 comments)
• Job opportunities (16 comments)
• Drug and alcohol enforcement (14 comments)
• Improved recreational programs (9 comments)
• Improved child care (3 comments)
*A complete list of telephone survey responses may be found in Appendix C.
The fourth part of the telephone survey asked respondents to rank existing
county services areas according to their perceived awareness of the service. The
rankings from greatest awareness to least awareness were:
• Alcohol Abuse
• Drug Abuse
• Preschoolers’ Preparation
• Healthy Mothers
• Mental Health – Adults and Families
• Mental Health - Children
• Parent Education
• Domestic Violence
• Teen Pregnancy Prevention
• Juvenile Delinquency
12
The fifth part of the telephone survey asked respondents to rank existing county
service areas according to their perceived adequacy. The rankings from most adequate
to least adequate were*:
• Preschoolers’ Preparation
• Parent Education
• Healthy Mothers
• Teen Pregnancy Prevention
• Mental Health – Adults and Families
• Mental Health - Children
• Domestic Violence
• Drug Abuse
• Alcohol Abuse
• Juvenile Delinquency
*Adequate and somewhat adequate responses were combined to obtain ranking.
Community Forums
Three Community Forums were held, one each in Pocomoke, Snow Hill, and
Ocean Pines. Because two of the three groups (Snow Hill and Pocomoke) shared
similar concerns, and Ocean Pines had very different concerns, it is difficult to identify
the most common themes across the county as a whole. The large range of variability
between the northern and southern ends of the county should be considered when
reviewing these two broad categories of concern:
• Systems change: specifically in terms of accessibility to family and response
to family needs (noted primarily in the southern end of the county)
13
• Support for families: in terms of services specific to mental health and
domestic violence, after school programming, and recreational opportunities
(primarily in the northern end of the county)
Key Informant Interviews
Eighteen Key Informants were interviewed. The following five issues were
frequently mentioned in those interviews:
• Parenting/ Family Support (11)
• Affordable Housing (9)
• Jobs (7)
• Transportation (4)
• Substance Abuse (3)
School Focus Groups
Six groups of high school students were conducted. The following issues
emerged as dominant topics:
• Drug and alcohol use
• The need and desire for more adult support including additional mentoring
programs
• The lack of motivation among student peers to succeed academically
• The need for the school system to better explore the sources of student
academic underachievement
• The general lack of recreational resources
Secondary Data
A number of secondary data sources were reviewed and the data were recorded
14
by Result Areas. Though it is impossible for the Center to prioritize the issues reported,
a few of the most prominent are:
• In four of the past five years for which data are available, Worcester had equal to
or greater than six child fatalities (all races combined). In each of those four
years, Worcester’s annual rate significantly exceeded the statewide rate.
• A comparison of the rate of use of all substances used within the last 30 days as
reported in 2004 between Worcester’s youth and youth across the state indicates
that Worcester’s tenth graders exceeded state percentages of use in all 24
substance categories while 12th graders exceeded state percentages of use in
22 of 24 categories. In grade six, that number was 12 of 24; however, in grade
eight, Worcester students exceeded state percentages in only three categories.
On the other hand, it appears that while local youth in grades six and ten report
using many substances at higher percentages than is found among youth across
the state, these percentages are lower—some significantly lower—than the
percentages of use reported by county youth of the same age in 1998; this is
true of eighth graders as well.
• While the percentage of students missing more than 20 days of school has
remained relatively constant in the elementary grades, the percentage among
middle school students in the county is showing an upward trend. CLIKS data for
high school students ranked the county ninth out of 23 in high school attendance
(1=Best) in 2004.
• Between 1999 and 2003 (most recent data available), the rate per 1,000 youth
under the age of 18 showed Worcester County at a higher rate of total, indicated,
and unsubstantiated child abuse and neglect investigation findings than is found
15
across the state as a whole. After evidencing a noteworthy jump in all categories
of findings between 1999 and 2000, county numbers appear to have remained
somewhat lower, on average, than the 2000 highs. Further inquiry may clarify
underlying causes (such as changes in the child welfare system, how cases are
dispositioned, etc.).
• Obtaining data that accurately describe juvenile offenses committed by
Worcester County youth continues to be a problem. Available state data report
alleged offenses by county of jurisdiction rather than by the offender’s county of
residence making Worcester’s rates seem unusually high. Certainly, a
contributing factor to this unusually high rate is the inclusion of alleged offenses
by juvenile visitors to the Ocean City resort area. This appears to be a
continuing “data development” need.
• According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty
Estimates (SAIPE), a consistently larger percentage of Worcester youth live in
poverty than youth across the state. On the other hand, it is estimated that
Worcester County evidenced an overall decrease in the number and percentage
of children under age 18 living in poverty between 1998 and 2002.
• In three of the past five years, Worcester County youth have entered out of home
placements at a higher rate than state youth as a group. The county, itself,
evidenced an overall decline in this rate until FY04. In FY04, Worcester’s 11.1%
rate of out of home placements was the ninth highest in the state. The average
annual percent change for Worcester between FY94 and FY04 was 4.6%
compared to the statewide rate of -1.1% over the same period of time.
16
• During the one-day Point in Time census of homeless individuals completed in
January of 2005, a total of 93 homeless adults and children were living in
Worcester County (24.3% of regional total). A slightly higher percentage of the
region’s homeless children (18 or 26.9% of the regional total of homeless
children) live in Worcester.
17
Comparison with 2002 Data
Telephone Survey
Listed below is a comparison of the top four issues which emerged from the
telephone survey in 2002 as compared to 2005/06. The first list shows the top four
issues which emerged as a “problem” or “serious problem” in 2002 and how those
issues were rated in 2005/06.
2002 2005/06 1. Underage Drinking (82.3%) Ranked as #2 (81.0%)
2. Adolescent Drug Use (78.3%) Ranked as #1 (84.1%)
3. Teen parenting (74.9%) Ranked as #4 (49.9%)
4. Child care (60.4%) Ranked as # 8 (44.7%)
From the above it is clear that with the exception of adolescent drug use each of
the four most pressing issues noted in the 2002 survey showed a decrease of concern
in the most recent telephone survey. However, the top three concerns noted in 2002
(underage drinking, adolescent drug use, and teen parenting) are still among the top
four concerns in 2005/06. The biggest change is that child care was not seen as a
major issue in 2005/06, and housing, which was ranked third in 2005/06, was reported
as sixth in 2002.
Note: A full comparison of each question in the telephone interview can be found in
Appendix B.
Community Forums
2002 2005/06 1. Racism 1. Parenting/family support
2. Undeveloped care continuum 2. Skills for daily living
18
3. Mentoring services 3. Poor value system
4. Inadequate public awareness of services 4. Domestic violence
5. Prevention/early intervention 5. Latch Key kids
6. Poverty 6. Systems accountability
7. Inadequate public awareness
of services
It appears that at least two of the issues, systems response and public
awareness of services, remain the same from the 2002 to the current Needs
Assessment. In addition, it seems that community respondents have some new
concerns specific to the lack of basic values among children, the lack of after school
programs, and the continuing problem of domestic violence.
Key Informants
2002 2005/06
1. Service distribution across the county 1. Parenting/family support
2. Focus on prevention/early intervention 2. Affordable housing
3. Coordination of services 3. Jobs
4. Inadequate public awareness of services 4. Transportation
5. Lack of recreational/after school programs 5. Substance use
It is interesting to see how the focus of key informants has changed over the last
three years. It appears from the information above that in the 2002 Needs Assessment
Key Informants were primarily focused on systems-level issues such as service
distribution, coordination, and public awareness. In the 2005/06 Needs Assessment,
concerns seem to have shifted toward more community-based issues such as
affordable housing, economic security, and support for families.
19
School Focus Groups
2002 2005/06
1. Lack of recreational services 1. Need for mentoring/parental support
2. Drug and alcohol use 2. Drug and alcohol use
3. Adolescent sexual activity 3. Lack of recreational services
Participants in the high school focus groups are saying much the same in
2005/06 that they said in 2002. There is, however, one notable exception. In 2002
there was no mention of participants feeling a need for more adult support for
adolescents. This is a noteworthy addition. A second variation in the data deals with
the degree and type of substance use reported in 2005/06. In this most recent
assessment, teens talked about their peers using a much wider variety of substances
and using them more often. Participants also noted that substance use is extremely
prevalent. This observation did not vary by school.
Secondary Data
2002
1. Higher than state average of births to adolescents
2. High rates of substance abuse among children and adolescents
3. High percentage of students failing to complete high school
4. Increased referrals to Department of Juvenile Justice
5. High state ranking in area of domestic violence
6. High percentage of children living in poverty
2005/2006
1. Higher than state average in child fatalities
2. High rates of substance abuse among children and adolescents
20
3. Rising percentage of absences among middle school students
4. Higher than state average of indicated and unsubstantiated child abuse and
neglect findings
5. Higher than state average of juvenile offense rate
6. High percentage of children living in poverty
7. Higher than state average of out of home placements
It appears that high rates of adolescent substance use, of adolescent referrals to
juvenile justice, and of children living in poverty continue to be as significant in
Worcester County in 2005/06 as they were in 2002. Increased areas of concern in this
most recent needs assessment include the higher than state average in child fatalities,
in child abuse, in out of home placements, and in school absences. On the other hand,
positive changes appear in the areas of births to adolescents, of high school completion
rates, and of incidents of domestic violence.
Summary
The needs assessment process is inherently subjective since the concept of
need itself is dependent upon human values and desires. A comprehensive needs
assessment, with as many sources of data as this one provides, presents decision
makers with a wealth of information. In the end, it is up to local officials to weigh the
data in the light of community values and goals to determine the direction that best
meets the county’s interest.
To aid in this process, we have aggregated the responses from all of the sources
of data weighting the responses as objectively as possible given the disparity of the
data sources. It is impossible to claim that this ranking is the result of a totally objective
process since it involves the combining of qualitative and quantitative data; however,
21
after extensive review of the primary sources, the following is a fair representation of the
county needs as determined by this assessment.
The highest ranking county concerns related to families and children are:
Substance use (both drug and alcohol - This concern emerges as an issue
from each data source. In fact, it is the only issue that emerges across data
sources.
Support for parents and families - This concern includes support for teen
parents and the development of more mentoring services. This issue
emerges in three of the five data sources (community forums, key informants,
and school focus groups).
Affordable Housing - This item ranked as the third major concern in the
telephone survey and as the second among key informants.
The needs listed may go beyond the mission of the Worcester County’s Initiative
to Preserve Families; however, many of the identified needs are clearly within that
purview. This array of needs provides Worcester County’s Initiative to Preserve
Families and its partner organizations with a guide to address the needs of children and
families in Worcester County.
22
Study Area Profile and Demographics
Worcester County Profile
Geographic Characteristics
Located in the southeastern corner of Maryland’s Eastern Shore, Worcester
County forms the state’s easternmost boundary. It is bordered by the Maryland
counties of Wicomico and Somerset to the west, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and
Sussex County, Delaware, and Accomac County, Virginia respectively to the north and
south.
The land is predominantly flat with numerous farm fields, forests, and beaches.
Founded in 1642, the county seat of Snow Hill, located between Pocomoke City to the
southwest and Ocean City to the northeast, presents a “small town” quality although it is
home to most of the state and county agencies.
Worcester County has an estimated total population of 48, 974 (2004 population
estimate) that swells to well over 300,000 during the summer months with the influx of
seasonal residents and tourists into Ocean City (Worcester County Department of
Comprehensive Planning, Worcester 2000 Final Report – Overview, 11/00). These
numbers indicate that Worcester County undergoes significant seasonal population
shifts, making the county unique in the state.
Essentially a rural jurisdiction, Worcester County encompasses 473 square miles
of land and 106 square miles of water stretching 32 miles from north to south and 33
miles from east to west. The county’s population density is 103.5 persons per square
mile; this compares to a statewide density of 568.7. The state population density grew
4.6% between 2000 and 2004 while Worcester grew a comparable 4.7% during the
same time period (MDP, Planning Data Services, 2005).
23
According to the most recent data available, The 2002 Census of Agriculture, the
county saw a 10.4% decrease in number of farms from 450 in 1997 to 403 in 2002.
This compares to an 8% decrease seen statewide during those same five years. On
the other hand, the number of acres of land in farms increased during that same time
period by 14.5%, evidencing by far both the largest percentage and absolute acreage
increase in the state.
Table 1 - Worcester County Farms and Acres of Land in Farms
Number of Farms Acres of Land in Farms 1997
2002 % Change
1997-2002 1997
in 1000s2002
In 1000s % Change 1997-2002
WORCESTER 450 403 -10.4% 114 131 14.5% Maryland 13,254 12,198 -8.0% 2,193 2,077 -5.3%
Source: Md. Dept of Planning, July, 2004, Extracted from 2002 Census of Agriculture According to the Census Bureau, a little over one-third (36.5%) of the county
population live in areas described as “rural.” No population is reported to live in “urban”
areas while a little less than two-thirds (63.4%) live in “urban clusters.” An urban cluster
is defined as a population center of between 2,500 and 50,000 that is not near an
urbanized area (MDP, 2000 Census [SF 2]).
While, according to the 2000 Census, about two-thirds of the county population
live in “urban clusters,” only about half of those live in incorporated areas. One such
area is Ocean Pines (a Census Designated Place). In the county’s Comprehensive
Plan 2005, it is noted that according to the 1990 Census, Ocean Pines had 4,251
residents, but the 2000 Census figure jumped to 10,496, a 146.9% increase (3). The
following table illustrates the 2000 Census population and 2004 population estimates for
Worcester County’s incorporated areas.
24
Table 2 - Worcester County Incorporated Place Population Estimates 2000 Census and 2004 Population Estimates
Place July 1, 2004 Population
Census 2000 Population
Percent Change
Total Municipal Population
17,135 17,240 -0.6%
Percent of County 35% 37% -- BERLIN 3,687 3,540 4.2% OCEAN CITY 7,137 7,173 -0.5% POCOMOKE CITY 3,990 4,109 -2.9% SNOW HILL 2,321 2,418 -4.0% Balance of Worcester County
31,839 29,303 8.7%
Percent of County 65% 63% -- Source: Maryland Department of Planning from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Branch (June 30, 2005) Population Characteristics
Between 1990 and 2000, with population growth much higher than Maryland’s as
a whole at 10.8%, Worcester County’s population grew by 32.9% (calculated from MDP,
2004). This significant population increase gave the county an average annual growth
rate of 2.88% as compared to the state average annual growth rate of 1.03% during this
ten-year period (MDP, 2004).
Recent data based on 2004 population estimates show that Worcester County
continued to grow between 2000 and 2004 at a rate slightly greater than the state,
ranking it 12th among Maryland’s 24 jurisdictions in rate of growth since 2000.
Maryland’s Office of Planning indicates that most of this growth is attributable to
“internal migration” (April 2005). The table below illustrates these figures.
Table 3 - Rates of Growth for County and State
2000 census 2004 estimates 7/04) Percent change from 2000 census WORCESTER 46,543 48,974 +5.2% Maryland 5,296,506 5,558,058 +4.9%
Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services, from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Branch (April, 2005)
25
Calculations based on MDP figures project that by 2010, the county’s population
will grow to 52,450, a 12.7% increase over Census 2000 figures (May 2004). This is
above the projected statewide growth rate of 11.5%.
Population by Age.
The median age in Worcester County is 43.0 years, the second highest median
age among Maryland jurisdictions. The statewide median age is 36.0 (MDP from
Census 2000 [DP1 – Profile of General Demographic Characteristics], May 2001).
Table 4 - Worcester County Population by Age (2000 Census)
0-4 5-19 20-44 45-64 65+ Total
2,273 8,121 14,301 12,497 9,351 46,543
Source: MDP, “Demographic and Socioeconomic Outlook,” October 2005
According to the 2000 U. S. Census, in Worcester County, 9,541 individuals, or
20.5% of the county’s population, are under 18 years of age compared to 25.6%
statewide while a nearly equal number—9,355 residents, or 20.1%, are age 65 or over
compared to Maryland’s statewide figure of 11.3%. Overall, then, Worcester County
residents are currently somewhat older than residents across the state.
Furthermore, Worcester County’s population is projected to continue to age
demographically by 2010 as is obvious in state data, as well. As can be seen from the
table below, a jump of 30.0% is expected in Worcester’s 45-64 year old population by
2010 accompanied by a significant increase of 33.9% in the over 65 age group. While
the former figure is comparable to the state percentage, the latter is significantly higher
than is expected statewide. An increase of 9.5% is expected in the birth-to-four age
group while declines in the five to 19 (-4.2%) and 20 to 44 (-6.2%) age groups are also
anticipated.
26
Table 5 - Anticipated Growth by Age Group (2010) WORCESTER COUNTY Maryland
Projected Number
2010
Number Change
From 2000
Percentage Change
From 2000
Comparative Percentage
Change 0-4 2490 217 9.5% 7.7% 5-19 7780 -341 -4.2% 7.0% 20-44 13410 -891 -6.2% -1.0% 45-64 16250 3753 30.0% 32.3% 65+ 12520 3169 33.9% 21.7% Total 52450 5907 12.7% 11.5% Source: MDP, “Demographic and Socioeconomic Outlook,” October 2005 (calculated) In absolute numbers, these percentages would mean an increase of 217 children
four years of age or under in the county by 2010 (from 2,273 to 2,490). On the other
hand, a -4.2% anticipated change in the number of children between the ages of five
and 19, markedly lower than the anticipated increase statewide, would put that age
group total at 7,780—a drop of 341 school age children from the Census 2000 figure of
8,121 (calculated from MDP, Population Projections—revised October 2005).
Population by Race.
According to the 2000 Census, in Worcester County, 81.2% of the population is
white (alone), 16.7% black (alone), 1.2% of any other race (alone), and 1.0% of two or
more races (Census 2000 [Table DP-1]). The most recent data from the 2004
Population Estimates indicate that these percentages have changed slightly; 83% of
the population is white (alone), 15.4% black (alone), 1.0% of any other race (alone), and
0.6% of two or more races (MDP, Planning Data Services, U.S. Census Bureau, August
2005).
Among youth under age 18, the population appears to be somewhat more
diverse. The 2000 Census indicated that among youth, 73.0% are white (alone), 23.2%
black (alone), 1.5% of any other race (alone), and 2.3% of two or more races. The 2000
27
Census recorded 183 Hispanic youth, a total that is 1.9% of all youth under age 18
(Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000
Census Redistricting Data [Table PL1, PL2, PL3, and PL4]). Because the 2004
population estimates are not as discrete as census data, it is not possible to look at the
racial breakdown of the under age 18 population; however, for young people under age
20, the 2004 figures show similar percentages with 76.5% white (alone), 20.9% black
(alone), 1.0% of any other race (alone), and 1.6% of two or more races (MDP, Census
2004 Population Estimate by Race, August 11, 2005).
Approximately one percent (1.3%) of Worcester’s population is Hispanic or Latino
(of any race) according to the 2000 Census. This compares to a statewide percentage
of 4.3% (Census 2000, [Table DP-1]). Although the number of Hispanic or Latino
residents appears small according to these census figures, the most recent population
estimates (2004) indicate that Worcester has seen the Hispanic population increase to
1.7% (an increase of 235 Hispanic residents or 39.4% over census figures) since April
2000. This is higher than the state’s 30.6% increase during the same time period and
places Worcester eighth highest in percentage increase among Maryland jurisdictions.
This growth in the Hispanic population accounts for almost 10% of the overall
population growth in the county between 2000 and 2004—perhaps indicating that this is
a trend worth watching.
Language Spoken at Home.
According to the 2000 Census, of the county’s 44,260 residents age five years
and over, 858 persons (1.9%) report speaking English less than “very well.” This
percentage (relative to total county population) with language barriers ranks Worcester
28
tenth of Maryland’s 24 jurisdictions (15th in absolute numbers). In Worcester,
approximately 43% of those reporting language barriers are Spanish-speaking; nearly
34% speak other Indo-European languages (Census 2000, MDP, Planning Data
Services [Table DP-2]).
Looking more closely at the issue of language barriers, the number of people in
Worcester County who report speaking English less than “very well” has increased by
360 or 72% since the 1990 census; this compares to a statewide increase of 66% in this
same category.
Among children ages five to 17, the percentage with language barriers is slightly
higher than that found in the general population. According to Kids Count (Census Data
Online, www.aecf.org), 2.4% of county youth in this age range speak a language other
than English at home and speak English less than very well. This ranks Worcester at
sixth (1= highest percentage) among Maryland’s counties.
Worcester County Households
According to the 2000 Census, there are 19,694 total households in Worcester
County with an average household size of 2.33, slightly lower than the state’s 2.61. Of
these 19,694 households, family households (13,278) make up 67.4%. Of the non-
family households (6,416), persons living alone (5,180) make up 80.7% with 44.2%% of
those living alone being age 65 or over (Table DP-1). According to the most recent
MDP projections (May 2004), Worcester’s total number of households was expected to
increase to 23,650 by 2010. On the other hand, the average household size was
expected to decrease to 2.24.
29
Families with Children.
According to the 2000 Census, 40.3% of Worcester’s 13,278 total families, or
5,357 families, report having “related” children under age 18 in their households. Of the
county’s 9,559 youth under age 18, 8,391 live in households where they are classified
as the principal householder’s “own” child. Census definitions, according to the
Population Reference Bureau’s “A Glossary of Census Terms,” indicate that “own”
refers to a child under 18 years old who is a son or daughter by birth, or adoption, or a
stepchild by marriage (July 2001). An additional 964 children are reported to live in
households with “other relatives.” Census 2000 showed 193 children who are under 18
years of age living with non-relatives; six living in group quarters, and five as principal
householders or spouses (Summary File 1, Tables P35, P28).
Of the 4,820 county families that report having their “own” children under age 18
living with them, 3,272 (67.9%) are married couple families; 343 (7.1%) are single males
with no wife present, and 1,205 (25%) are single females with no husband present
(Summary File 1 [Table P34]). Within these families, the percentage of individual
children living in the three types of households (married couple, single male, single
female) approximates the percentage of families in the three categories themselves. Of
the county’s 8,391 children (listed in Census as “own children” under age 18), 5,872
(70%) live in married couple households; 494 (5.9%) live with single fathers; and 2,025
(24.1%) live with single mothers (Summary File1 [Table P36]).
Selected Social Characteristics
Educational Attainment.
Worcester County shows lower educational attainment than statewide figures—a
30
fact which, in turn, impacts employment and economic status. As can be seen in the
table below, data indicate that 18.3% of all county residents age 25 and over have less
than a high school diploma; this compares with a statewide figure of 16.2% and ranks
Worcester with the 11th highest percentage of non-high school graduates in the state.
On the other end of the educational spectrum, compared to a statewide figure of 31.4%,
21.6% of county residents have attained a bachelor’s degree or above giving Worcester
a rank of 15th (1= highest percentage of college graduates) among the state’s 24
jurisdictions.
Table 6 - Worcester County Educational Attainment
Population age 25 years and over
Percent less than HS diploma (rank)
HS diploma or above
Bachelor’s degree or above (rank)
WORCESTER COUNTY
18.3% (11) 81.7% 21.6% (15)
Maryland 16.2% 83.8% 31.4% Source: MD Dept of Planning from 2000 Census SF1, Profiles DP2, DP3 and DP4
Grandparents as Caregivers.
A total of 551 Worcester County grandparents report being responsible for
grandchildren less than 18 years of age in their care. This number accounts for 52.1%
of all grandparents in the county who live in a household with one or more of their own
grandchildren under 18 years of age. Statewide, that percentage is 40.6% (Census
2000 [Table DP-1]). According to Kids Count (Census Data Online, www.aecf.org),
this ranks Worcester fifth (1=highest percentage) among Maryland’s counties with
grandparents as caregivers. There is no comparable data from the 1990 Census.
Selected Economic Characteristics
Worcester County is ranked 15th of 24 jurisdictions in terms of median household
income—below the statewide figure.
31
Table 7 - Median Household Income
1999 (Census) 2004 Est WORCESTER COUNTY $40,650 $47,750 Maryland $52,850 $61,350
Source: MDP, Planning Data Services, 2005.
For families with their “own” children under age 18 (according to the 2000 U.S.
Census definition), the following chart illustrates the median incomes by family type.
Table 8 - Median Family Income of Families with “Own” Children under Age 18
Family Type Number of Families
Median Family Income
Families with own children under age 18 4,980 $45,267 Married-couple families with own children under age 18 3,425 $56,505 Single-mother families with own children under age 18 1,151 $17,762 Single-father families with own children under age 18 404 $26,653 Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Summary File 3 (Tables P15, PCT39 & PCT40) According to the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), in 2003 the average
annual wage per job (in current dollars) in Worcester County was $23,547. That
compares to the state’s average wage per job of $40,061 (MDP, Tables CA5 and
CA5N, April 2005).
Household Income Distributions.
The MDP describes household income distributions through use of the GINI
Coefficient. GINI coefficients range from 0 to 1. The closer the GINI coefficient is to 0
the more equal the income distribution among jurisdictional households; the closer to
1.0, the more unequal the income distribution. The GINI coefficient was named after its
creator, Italian statistician Corredo Gini.
The GINI Coefficient has been calculated in each of the past three decennial
census years (1980, 1990, and 2000) with household income distributions of the
32
previous years’ incomes (1979, 1989, 1999). The following chart shows Worcester’s
GINI Coefficient and state rank (Rank 1 = most unequal income distribution) since 1979.
Table 9 - Worcester County GINI Coefficient 1979 – 1999
1979 GINI Rank 1989 GINI Rank 1999 GINI Rank 0.4092 4 0.4357 5 0.4359 8
MDP, Planning Data Services (August 2002) Worcester County’s GINI Coefficient based on 1999 income value was .4359.
This ranked Worcester eighth in the state. Despite Worcester’s relatively high ranking
in this area, the county has shown steady movement toward greater equality in income
distribution since 1979 (MDP, “GINI Coefficients for Household Income Distributions for
Maryland’s Jurisdictions, 1979-1999,” August 2002).
Mean and Per Capita Income.
Worcester County evidenced a mean income in 1999 Census data that was
77.8% of the statewide mean. According to 2004 estimates, Worcester continues to lag
behind the state mean but has begun to close the gap slightly in the ensuing five years.
Likewise, Worcester fell below the state per capita income figure in 1999 and was
ranked 16th among Maryland’s jurisdictions; in 2003, that ranking moved to 15th. Both
Mean Household Income and Per Capita Income comparisons between the county and
state are detailed below.
Table 10 - Mean Household Income
1999 2004 (est.) WORCESTER COUNTY $52,500 $64,200 Maryland $67,450 $82,100 Source: MDP, Planning Data Services (May 2005) Table 11 - Per Capita Income
1999 2003 WORCESTER COUNTY $26,591 $30,653 Maryland $31,796 $37,446 Source: MDP from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (April, 2005)
33
Unemployment.
Starting in January 2005, a new method of calculating employment/
unemployment was used in the development of statewide, metropolitan area, and
county level data under the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program. Data
from past years were reviewed and/or recomputed in the fall of 2005.
As reported by Maryland’s Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, over
the past five years (2001 through current 2005), Worcester County has had an annual
average unemployment rate consistently above the state annual average. For example,
in 2004, Worcester’s unemployment rate was 6.4 while the rate across Maryland was
4.2. In looking back over the past five years, the 2004 statistics are representative of
these data. As might be expected with its large tourist/ service industry, Worcester’s
unemployment rates fluctuate seasonally, often dropping below state rates in the
summer and exceeding state rates during the winter months (“Civilian Labor Force,
Employment and Unemployment—2001–2005,” updated October 2005).
Individuals, Families, and Children Living Below Poverty.
According to the 2000 Census, 4,381 individuals or 9.6% of county residents live
below poverty. This compares with a statewide individual poverty rate of 8.5%. When
ranked across the state, these individual poverty percentages place Worcester County
ninth among the 24 jurisdictions where a rank of 1 indicates the highest rate of poverty
(MDP, December 2002). Nationally, the individual poverty rate in 2000 was 11.3% and
by 2004 had increased to 12.7% (Current Population Survey, 2005 Annual Social and
Economic Supplement).
Among county families, 962 or 7.2% live in poverty according to 1999 figures.
This compares to a statewide figure of 6.1% (Census 2000 [Table DP3]). Nationally,
34
8.6% of families in 2000 lived in poverty, a figure which increased to 10.2% in 2004
(Current Population Survey, 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement).
The presence of related children under age 18 in a family increases the likelihood
that a family is living in poverty. According to the 2000 Census, across the state 8.7%
of all families with related children under the age of 18 live in poverty while in Worcester
County that figure is significantly higher at 13.6% (Table DP3).
For families with children under age 18, the family type significantly influences
poverty status. Of the county’s 5,543 families with related children under age 18, a total
of 753 such families (13.6%) live in poverty. Of these families in poverty, married
couple families account for 27.2%; single father families account for 7.0%, and
importantly, single mother families account for 65.7%. From a different perspective, of
all county married couple families with related children under age 18, approximately 205
families (5.6%), live in poverty. Among single father families, 53 families (11.5%) live in
poverty, and for the single mother families, 495 families (34.8%) live in poverty
(Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from 2000 Census [Summary File 3]
[Table P90]).
Race is also a factor in family poverty (1999 data). Of all 962 county families
living in poverty, the racial distribution is 56.4% white (only), 40.6% black (only), and
2.9% other races (all other categories combined). Of the 753 families with related
children under age 18 living in poverty, 51.8% are white (only), 45.8% are black (only)
and 2.4% are other races combined (Census 2000 [Summary File 3, Table P90/P160A-
I] Prepared by MDP, August 2002).
MDP ranked the state’s jurisdictions from highest to lowest in terms of child
poverty rates following the 2000 Census. According to MDP, this poverty rate for
35
children is based on census data reported from households with “related children” under
age 18 (May 2002). In Worcester County, 17% of “related children” under age 18 live in
poverty; this compares to a statewide rate of 10.3% and a national figure of 15.6%.
Worcester County ranks fifth highest in child poverty when compared to other
jurisdictions in the state (MDP, “Poverty Rate for Children (Own Children Under Age
18)—2000,” May 2002).
The census also reports this child poverty figure in absolute numbers based on
the number of children “for whom poverty is determined” (SF3, Table P87, “Poverty
Status in 1999 by Age”). According to this information, 1,638 (17.3%) children under
age 18—“for whom poverty status is determined”—live in the county.
Between 1990 and 2000, census data for Worcester County reported an increase
in child poverty. Families with related children under age 18 saw an increase of 230
families (44%) living in poverty between 1989 and 1999. In terms of the number of
children, themselves, there was an increase of 497 children or 45% of related children
living in poverty. This dropped the county’s state ranking in child poverty from seventh
to fifth (1= highest percentage of children in poverty) during that ten year period (MDP,
1990 Census and Census 2000, [Table DP-3], May 2002).
Recent Poverty Estimates.
In the most recent data available, the Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program released 2002 poverty estimates for Maryland’s
jurisdictions (December 2004). The reader should exercise caution in considering these
SAIPE figures if attempting to compare those data with the 2000 Census figures as the
two employ different methods of calculation. SAIPE data are based on estimates which
are quantified in the data tables through confidence intervals. The following table, then,
36
is offered only to illustrate estimated poverty trends over the past five years in the
region’s counties. The mid-point of the confidence interval is used in plotting the
following graphical depictions.
Individual Poverty EstimatesAll Ages and Children under Age 18
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Percentage in Poverty
All Ages in Poverty 10.9 9.5 9.3 8.9 9.4 Age 0-17 in Poverty 16.8 14.6 16.2 14.1 13.9
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
According to the SAIPE estimates, Worcester County evidenced poverty
estimates for individuals of all ages as well as youth under age 18 that decreased
between 1998 and 2002. During this five year period, the percentage of all individuals
in poverty ranged from a high of 10.9% to a low of 8.9% while child poverty ranged from
a high of 16.8% to a low of 13.9%.
Housing Costs.
The county’s “DRAFT Worcester County Comprehensive Plan 2005” offers the
following observation on local housing:
“Housing within Worcester County reflects the national trend of rapidly inflating
land and home costs. This trend provides benefits, but it has made the
affordable housing problem even more severe than in the past. Housing in
37
Worcester County is actually two housing markets: permanent year-round
housing and second homes. This is common to resort areas. Housing
production and availability in absolute terms has been sufficient, yet affordability
and location are issues.”
As reported in Census 2000, there is a higher percentage of owner occupied
housing units (75%) in Worcester County than is found across Maryland (67.7%) as a
whole (MDP from Census 2000, DP1 – Profile of General Demographic
Characteristics). However, as is pointed out in the county’s draft Comprehensive Plan,
“[w]hen seasonal and year round residences are taken together, the rate of
home ownership is substantial, 75 percent. However, year-round owner
occupied homes are 66 percent of the total occupied housing. This means a
third of the year-round population is renters, which is the norm for the state and
represents a substantial sector of the housing market.” (53)
In 2000, Worcester County homeowners were ranked tenth (1= highest
percentage) among Maryland’s 24 jurisdictions for the percentage of owners (16%) who
report housing costs equal to or exceeding 35% of household income. The county
percentage just falls below the state average of 16.1% (MDP from 2000 Census, Table
DP-1 and “Monthly Owners Costs” chart, May 2002). However, it is not clear how the
seasonal housing market may affect these data.
As is the case found across the state, a higher percentage of renters report
spending more than 35% of household income in monthly renter costs. In Worcester
County that percentage is 25.1%, ranking the county 13th (1=highest percentage) and
falling below the state average percentage of 27%. Like housing costs for homeowners,
however, it is not clear how the seasonal housing market may affect these data.
38
The following table illustrates households with “own” children by ownership status
and household type as reported in the 2000 Census.
Table 12 - Households with Own Children by Ownership Status and Household Type
Number Percent of Occupied
Housing Units TOTAL occupied housing units 19,694 100.0 Owner Occupied households with own children 3,235 16.4 Married-couple households 2,602 13.2 Single-mother households 460 2.3 Single-father households 173 0.9 Renter occupied households with own children 1,633 8.3 Married-couple households 766 3.9 Single-mother households 689 3.5 Single-father households 178 0.9Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census [Summary File 3] (Table HCT1)
More recently, the median sale price of owner-occupied properties from Fiscal
Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2004, the most recent data available, shows a steady
increase. The table below shows the number of units sold and illustrates the rise in
prices during this time period.
Table 13 - Housing Price Changes with Number of Units Sold
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Properties
Sold Median Price
Properties Sold
Median Price
Properties Sold
Median Price
Properties Sold
Median Price
656 128,000 703 145,000 511 172,000 453 210,000(Source: Maryland State Department of Assessment and Taxation Annual Report, 2004 and 2005)
Again, citing the county’s Draft Comprehensive Plan*:
“In August 2004, Worcester County was rated as the least affordable jurisdiction
in Maryland; 68 percent of the repeat buyers could afford a median priced home
($305,000) and 46 percent of first time buyers could afford a starter home priced
at 75 percent of the median sales price ($259,250).” (54)
39
*The reader is referred to the county’s Department of Comprehensive Planning website (www.co.Worcester.md.us/compplan.htm) for the full text and citations found in the Comprehensive Plan for 2005. Uninsured.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Abstract: 2004-2005, 13.4% of
Maryland’s population of all ages does not have health insurance (2002 data). For
Maryland residents under 65, that percentage is 15.0%, and for children the percentage
is 9.9%.
The Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE) program was created to
develop model-based estimates of health insurance coverage by age for counties and
states. County-level data on health insurance coverage are not available elsewhere
because neither the decennial census nor the American Community Survey contains
questions on this topic. This is a new program at the U.S. Census Bureau, and these
initial estimates are considered experimental. For the year 2000, SAHIE estimates
indicate that 6,022 or 12.8% of Worcester County residents of all ages are uninsured
while 1,056 or 10.7% of county youth under age 18 are estimated to be uninsured
(SAHIE, July 2005).
Medicaid Eligible and Enrollees.
The DHR Fact Pack 2004 (most recent data available) reports that in Worcester
County 6,624 residents are eligible for the Medical Assistance Program: 3,098 children
under 15 years of age, 776 residents in the 15 to 20 age range, and 2,750 residents age
21 and older. In fact, 6,785 county residents were enrolled in the Medical Assistance
program in 2004. This number is actually larger than the eligible population as it
includes Maryland Pharmacy Assistance Program participants. Over the past five
years, Worcester has seen a consistent increase in its Medicaid enrollment numbers,
40
increasing just over 17% from 5,799 in State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2000 to 6,785 in SFY
2004 (http://www.dhmh.state.md.us).
Children with Disabilities.
The Census Bureau defines disability as a long-lasting, physical, mental, or
emotional condition. Disability is determined for non-institutionalized persons age five
and over. The number of children ages five to 15 living in Worcester County with a
disability or disabilities is presented in the table below. According to these census
figures, nearly 85% of all children with a disability have a mental disability.
Table 14 - Children with Disabilities in Worcester County
Number Percent of Children Ages 5 to 15
Noninstitutionalized children ages 5 to 15 6,157 100.0 Children with no disability 5,831 94.7 Children with one disability 284 4.6 Sensory disability 30 0.5 Physical disability 13 0.2 Mental disability 241 3.9 Self-care disability 0 0.0 Children with two or more disabilities 42 0.7 Includes a self-care disability 26 0.4 Does not include a self-care disability 16 0.3Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Summary File 3 (Table PCT26)
41
Methodology
To provide the Worcester County’s Initiative to Preserve Families (WCIPF) a
comprehensive needs assessment, a multi-methodology plan was adopted. Each
individual methodology alone has its own strengths and weaknesses, but together the
several methodologies provide a multi-layer assessment of the county’s needs. To
ensure scientific and community credibility, it was essential that the assessment
process be both well designed and public. Therefore, a four prong strategy was used.
First, a telephone survey was conducted of county households with children.
This random sample of households guaranteed input from a comprehensive sample of
county families. Second, to provide an additional vehicle for input from those who were
not surveyed, three open community forums were conducted in different towns
throughout the county. Third, two sets of interviews were conducted—one with key
community leaders and one with school-based youth focus groups. This four prong
approach permitted wide participation in identification of needs by the citizens and
stakeholders of Worcester County which, when combined with existing secondary data
about the area, provided a full picture of the county and its needs.
Telephone Survey The telephone survey was comprehensive and carefully executed. A telephone
survey was chosen because it ensured the best representation of the population of
County families, thus increasing the validity of the survey. The survey questionnaire
was adapted and modified from others that had been used in the state. The
questionnaire was multipart. The first part was a series of nineteen questions asking
respondents to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 their beliefs about how problematic certain
issues are. In a needs assessment of this type, there is no expectation that
42
respondents have information regarding the actual incidence associated with an issue,
rather the goal is to determine community opinion regarding a specific issue. Therefore,
the questions were generally phrased as “on a scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem is….”
This information is then compared with actual incidence and uses data collected that
were part of the secondary data analysis.
After questions about specific issues, respondents were asked, in an open-ended
format, to identify the “single most important problem facing children, youth, and families
in Worcester County today.” Respondents could choose one of the 19 issues already
mentioned by the telephone interviewers, or they could identify a problem of their own
choosing. A follow-up question, also open-ended, asked if respondents could suggest a
solution to the problem they identified as most important.
The second part of the questionnaire focused on services in the county.
Respondents were asked if they were aware of ten services available in Worcester
County. If respondents answered “yes,” they were then asked to rate the “service on a
scale from 1 to 10 with 1 meaning services are not adequate to meet the community’s
needs and 10 meaning they are adequate to meet the community’s needs.” In addition
a response option of “Don’t know enough to rate” was available for those who were
aware of the service but did not know enough about it to make an informed decision. A
copy of the survey instrument and findings can be found in Appendix A of this
document.
It should be noted that this telephone survey replicates the one used in the 2002
Worcester County Needs Assessment. This allows exact comparisons to be made
across time. However, in the 2002 survey the scaling was reversed from that used in
the 2005/6 survey. In 2002, the number 1 was used to indicate” adequate” and 10 was
43
used to indicate ”not adequate.” Since the 2002 survey, we have come to believe that
respondents are more comfortable with a scale which uses 1 to represent the absence
of something, for example, adequacy, and higher numbers, all the way up to 10, to
represent its greater presence. Therefore, this reversed format has been followed in this
questionnaire. As in the earlier report, the ten-point scale has been recoded to a four-
point scale. For ease of comparison between the 2002 and 2005/6 Needs
Assessments, the current recode flips the 1 to 10 scale so that 1 = Adequate, 2 =
Somewhat adequate, 3 = Barely adequate, and 4 = Not adequate.
The telephone survey was conducted by the Institute of Public Affairs and Civic
Engagement (PACE) at Salisbury University. PACE purchased a sampling frame of
1,258 telephone numbers that had a strong likelihood of belonging to Worcester County
families with children under 21 years of age. The numbers were purchased from Survey
Sampling, Inc., Fairfield, Connecticut. The sample did not include unlisted phone
numbers. Interviewing was conducted from June 9, 2005 through June 29, 2005. One
interviewer called during the day, Monday through Friday, from 10:00 a.m. to noon, 1:00
p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and two interviewers called from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and three to
five interviewers called during the evenings, Monday through Thursday, from 6:00 p.m.
to 9:00 p.m. Both day and evening calls were made to all phone numbers to ensure
that all residences in the sample had a chance to be interviewed. Interviewing also was
conducted on three Saturdays, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Interviewers made as
many as seven attempts to contact each residence.
Of the 1,258 phone numbers in the sampling frame, 190 were excluded because
they had been disconnected, were business, government, or Fax numbers, or because
a child under age 21 did not live there. Of the remaining 1,068 numbers, there were
44
377 completed interviews for a response rate of 35.3%. Interviews were not possible
with the remaining 64.7% of the phone numbers because the lines were always busy,
no one answered, a person answered but refused to be interviewed, or an answering
machine answered. The largest portion of non-interviews was caused by answering
machines. For statistical purposes, the maximum rate of error associated with a sample
size of 377 respondents is plus or minus 5.0% at the 95 percent level of confidence.
It also is important to check the representative value of the sample’s respondents
by looking at where they reside in the county and at their race. This can be done by
comparing the respondents’ zip code and race to similar data for the county from the
2000 Census.
Table 15 - Comparison of Telephone Sample to 2000 Census Data, By Zip Code
Zip Code 2000 Census* Telephone Sample
21811 – Berlin 41.1% 43.2%
21813 – Bishopville 6.3% 8.0%
21822 – Eden 5.2% 1.6%
21829 – Girdletree 1.1% .8%
21841 – Newark 2.2% 1.6%
21842 – Ocean City 16.0% 17.0%
21851 – Pocomoke City 12.0% 12.2%
21862 – Showell .2% 0
21863 – Snow Hill 12.4% 12.7%
21864 – Stockton 1.9% 1.9%
21872 – Whaleyville 1.6% 1.1% Total 100% 100%
Source: US Census, (June 2001)
45
Table 16 - Comparison of Telephone Sample to 2000 Census Data, By Race Race Census Telephone Sample White 76.0% 92.7% Black/African American 21.8% 6.2% Other 2.2% 1.1% Total 100% 100%
Source: US Census, (June 2001) Note: One respondent refused to answer this question and five respondents terminated the interview before this question was asked.
It should be noted that these comparisons are not exact because the most
readily available census data is for households with children under 18, while the
telephone sample is of respondents for households that had children under 21.
Nevertheless, these comparisons will give us a general idea of how representative the
sample was. A quick comparison of the column percentages in the table with zip codes
shows minimal differences. The largest difference, found in 21811 (Berlin), is still very
small with the sample at 1.9 percentage points larger than the census percentage
(43.2% to 41.1%). In terms of geographic location of residence, the table presents
convincing evidence that the telephone sample is representative; in other words, it
closely mirrors the distribution of households with children as reported by the U.S.
Census.
However, the sample does not mirror the population for race. 2000 Census Data
report that black or African American households with children under 18 years of age
make up 21.8% of the population compared to 6.2% in this sample. Therefore, for
purposes of analysis, the sample of black or African American respondents was
weighted 3.52, thus creating a weighted percentage in the sample of 21.8%. Thus, the
sample population of African American or black respondents was increased to reflect
the racial composition of the county as reported by the census. A comparable
adjustment was made for the white respondents, weighting the percentage of the
46
sample to 76.0%, and for the category of “Other” making that category weighted as
2.2%. (See table below.) These three adjustments make the sample reflective of
census data. By weighting the race variable, the views of under-represented
respondents, blacks or African Americans (and respondents that selected the “other”
category) will carry additional weight in the statistical analysis. Whites, because they
are over represented in the sample, will carry less weight in these calculations. The
weighting will allow all three racial categories to have their presence in the target
population reflected accurately in the calculations that arrive at the frequency
distribution for each question in the survey. The process of weighting a respondent’s
race is very similar to what school teachers do when they tell their students that, in
arriving at their final grades, the midterm exam counts 40 percent, and the final exam
counts 60 percent. The final exam carries more weight than the midterm in calculating
final grades. These weighted statistics were used in all analyses completed in the study
findings section.
Table 17 - Weighting Sample by Race Worcester County* Telephone Survey
Prior To Weighting Telephone Survey
After Weighting White 76.0% 92.7% 76.0% Black or African American
21.8%
6.2%
21.8%
Other 2.2% 1.1% 2.2% * Source: US Census, (June 2001)
All administration of the survey, data collection, and data analysis was conducted
by or under the direction of the Center for Family and Community Life at Salisbury
University.
47
Community Forums
Three (3) community focus groups were conducted from January 10, 2006 to
January 23, 2006. The decision regarding where to hold the groups was guided by the
desire to ensure broad community representation. The groups were held in the
communities of Pocomoke, Snow Hill, and Ocean Pines. Collectively the groups were
attended by 41 individuals: 20 (48.8%) female and 21 (51.2%) male; 23 (56.1%) white
and 18 (43.9%) African American. Each group was led by two Center staff members
and was approximately two hours in length.
The format in each group was the same. Following a brief introduction during
which the needs assessment process was introduced and described, the first half of the
forum was used to encourage discussion about areas that participants saw as problem
areas in their community. From the flipchart notes taken during this discussion, problem
areas were identified. Participants were given four “votes” (sticky dots) each, to indicate
which problem areas they felt were the most important to be addressed in the next five
years. Participants affixed their votes to one or more of the problem areas they
considered important. The rules were that participants could use their four votes in any
way they thought best expressed their concerns—all four on one issue, three on one
and one on another, two and two, or one vote on each of four separate issues.
Following the voting, the participants were asked to generate solution ideas for the top
three to five problem areas.
Key Informants
Between September 27, 2005 and November 16, 2005, interviews were
conducted with 18 key informants. Specifically these participants were:
Sheila Warner, Case Management Specialist Program Supervisor, DJS
48
Paula Erdie, Director, Department of Social Services
Debbie Goeller, Health Officer, Health Department
Joyce Baum, LCSW-C, Program Director, Developmental Disabilities Administration
Robin Travers, Executive Director, Core Service Agency
Chuck Martin, Sheriff, Sheriff’s Department
Anne Turner, Coordinator Family Support Services, Circuit Court
Sharon DeMar Reilly, Director, Parks and Recreation
Edward Lee, President, NAACP
Teresa Fields, Executive Director, Worcester Youth and Family Counseling Services
Dan Blair, Director, Samaritan Ministries
Marty Pusey, Director, Prevention Office
Chris Welch, Director, The Judy Center
Jon Andes, Superintendent of Schools, Board of Education
Ty Mills, Principal, Pocomoke High School, Board of Education
Fred Grant, Supervisor of Student Services, Board of Education
Joel Todd, State’s Attorney, State’s Attorney Office
Gary White, Director, YMCA
Each key informant interview was conducted by trained Center staff and lasted
approximately thirty minutes. Each interviewee was asked the same four questions:
1. What do you see as the greatest strengths/assets supporting children and
families in Worcester County?
2. What would you do or suggest be done to develop these strengths/assets?
3. What do you see as the most pressing concerns facing children and families in
Worcester County?
49
4. What do you see as (a) possible solution(s) to the above issue(s)?
Focus Groups with Selected Public School Students
Between January 23 and January 30, 2006, four focus groups were conducted in
three county high schools. Specifically these sites were Pocomoke, Snow Hill, and
Stephen Decatur High Schools. At each site, two groups of students were invited to
meet with members of the research team; one group was selected by school officials,
and members were not known to have had any experience with either the Juvenile
Justice or Social Services system. The second group was identified because of their
personal experience with the Department of Juvenile Justice and/or the Department of
Social Services. Pocomoke and Snow Hill High School each had only one participant
for the second group, so that student was invited to join the first group; thus, only one
focus group was conducted in each of these schools. Stephen Decatur was the only site
with participants in both groups. Twenty males (48.8%) and 21 (51.2%) females
participated in the four groups with ages ranging from 14 to 18. The distribution by
grade was: two ninth-graders (4.9%), nine tenth-graders (21.9%), seven eleventh-
graders (17.1%), and 23 twelfth-graders (56.1%). Included in these groups were 12
African American students (29.3%), 25 white students (60.9%), and four “Other” race
students (9.8%). Each group met for approximately sixty minutes and was led by two
facilitators specifically trained for this project by senior Center staff.
Each group was asked the following questions:
1. The first two questions are about out-of-school activities.
a. What do you and your friends do after school?
b. What kinds of things would you like to do but cannot because of the lack
of community resources or available facilities?
50
2. The next few questions are related to school.
a. Why do you think that some students skip school?
b. What do you think are the main reasons that students are late for school?
c. What do you think schools could do to reduce absenteeism or tardiness?
d. Sometimes a student decides to drop out of school before he or she
graduates.
e. Why do you think someone would decide to drop out?
f. Do you have any suggestions to reduce the number of drop outs?
3. No matter how good the school is that you go to, things could always be
improved.
a. Can you think of anything that would help you be more successful in
school?
4. The next few questions are about crime committed by teenagers in your
community.
a. What kinds of non-violent (e.g. property destruction) things do you hear
about people your age doing in your community?
b. Why do you think they do it?
c. Are you aware of violent crime (e.g. assault) in the community committed
by young people your age? If yes,
d. Why do you think they do it?
e. What do you think that could be done to prevent juvenile crime?
5. The next questions are about drug and alcohol use by high school students.
a. Are you aware of any students about your age who take drugs? If yes,
what are some of the drugs and how often do they take the drugs?
51
b. How easy is it for young people your age to get drugs?
c. Are you aware of any students about your age who drink beer or other
alcohol? If yes, what type of alcohol and how much?
d. Why do you think high school students drink or take drugs?
e. What would you suggest to do to reduce teen drug or alcohol use?
Secondary Data Analysis
A secondary data analysis provided an overview of local social indicators through
the review of existing data from sources such as the local and state offices of Juvenile
Justice, the Health Department, police agencies, and the Maryland Adolescent Survey
(MAS) for substance use.
In offering any statistical data on Worcester County, a word of caution is
warranted as to the impact that Worcester County’s often small sample sizes may have
on data. Small sample sizes may account for large annual swings in trend data.
Isolated incidences in small populations, such as infant mortality, may give the
appearance of much larger “rates” per 100,000 of the county population than would be
borne out over a longer, more statistically significant period of time. With that in mind, in
the Study Findings section below, relevant data are recorded and offered as indicators
of issues that may merit further exploration.
A Note about Trendlines
As part of the presentation of secondary data for each Indicator, a trendline
based on the most recent five years of available data is projected for the next five year
period. While helpful, these trendlines should be considered with the following cautions.
First, the more historical data available on which to base a trendline, the more
reliable the trendline will be. Because the historical data in this study was limited to five
52
years, the trendlines have limited reliability. This is especially true in smaller
jurisdictions where small sample sizes often show significant variation during short
periods of time.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, forecasting is not just about the best
mathematical formula. Forecasting is about knowledgeable people around a table
considering all the factors influencing changes in data—both positive and negative—
and offering their best judgments about the most likely future scenarios. Often more
than one forecast is given (e.g. optimistic, pessimistic, most likely). This process can be
informed by mathematical modeling but should not be driven by it.
Therefore, trendlines for each Indicator are best used as points of discussion by
stakeholders as they consider the implications of statistical data for local planning.
Study Findings
The data in this section are divided according to the eight Maryland’s Results for
Child Well-Being identified by the Governor’s Task Force on Children, Youth, and
Family Systems Reform. These results areas are:
1. Babies Born Healthy
2. Healthy Children
3. Children Enter School Ready to Learn
4. Children Successful in School
5. Children Completing School
6. Children Safe in their Families and Communities
7. Stable and Economically Self-Sufficient Families
8. Communities Which Support Family Life
53
Introductory descriptions of each Result Area’s indicators (types of data used to
measure progress in each Result Area) and short rationales for their inclusion as
indicators are taken from the State of Maryland Children’s Cabinet, Governor’s Office
for Children (GOC) publication, Maryland’s Results for Child Well Being 2005. Data
from Kids Count CLIKS (Community-Level Information on Kids) Online Data 2005
(http://www.aecf.org/cgi-bin/cliks.cgi) “Worcester County Profile” are presented first in
each section exactly as they appear in CLIKS. Data are reported in percentages or
rates only; where annual rates would need to be based on small absolute numbers,
rates are calculated on multi-year averaging. Kids Count CLIKS posts data for the
most recent five years available. Worcester County’s ranking among the state’s 23
county jurisdictions for the most recent data-year available is also presented.
Comparative rates or percentages are presented for the state, as well.
The CLIKS data are followed by additional information, presented section-by-
section according to indicator, from other State and local sources. It is important to note
that it is the policy of the Governor’s Office for Children to delete annual data with less
than six (6) cases in order to preserve confidentiality. Additionally, the Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene no longer offers rates when counties have fewer than five
(5) incidents as such rates are likely to be unstable. To maintain consistency in
presenting data in this Needs Assessment, Salisbury University will adhere to these
guidelines, as well, in reporting available data—with one exception. Because CLIKS
rates are yielded through a multi-year analysis which combines five years of data to
produce a more stable and reliable rate where warranted, CLIKS rates and rankings will
be reported where offered. Rates and rankings produced through multi-year averaging
will be noted.
54
Throughout the secondary data analysis, rankings used to report data will reflect
the terminology used by the respective data source. Generally speaking the CLIKS data
uses the 23 Maryland counties to rank data whereas the state agencies usually include
Baltimore City as a 24th jurisdiction. To make that distinction each time would be too
confusing and cumbersome, so the word counties was used when the ranking was
counties only and jurisdictions when Baltimore City was included in the rankings.
In the telephone survey, respondents were asked to rank 19 problems, most of
them directly related to the GOC Result Areas, on a ten point scale anchored on one
end by a “1” indicating “no problem” and “10” on the other indicating a “serious
problem.” To simplify the presentation of the findings, scores of 1 and 2 were combined
and identified as “no problem;” scores of 3 through 5 were combined and identified as
“somewhat of a problem.” Scores of 6 though 8 were identified as a “problem,” and
scores of 9 and 10 were identified as a “serious problem.”
Specific questions on the GOC Result Areas were also part of the information
gathered through community forums, key informant interviews, and the focus groups.
Essentially, the Result Areas provide the primary structure of Part I of the Study
Findings section.
Issues arising from additional questions are discussed in Parts II and III of Study
Findings while Community Forum Data are covered in Part IV, Key informant Interview
Data in Part V, and School Focus Group Data in Part VI. Non-Result Area Questions,
Open Ended Questions, and questions not directly addressed through the eight Result
Areas are discussed in Part II of Study Findings.
55
STUDY FINDINGS
Part I - Result Area Findings
Result Area 1: Babies Born Healthy
The Babies Born Healthy Result Area is composed of three state indicators:
Infant Mortality
Low Birth Weight
Births to Adolescents
Table 18 - Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005
Child Well-Being Indicator 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
State Rank ** †
Infant Mortality‡ WORCESTER COUNTY 9.0 9.5 7.0 5.5 6.5 10 Maryland 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.5 6.5 Low Birth Weight (under 5.5 lbs) WORCESTER COUNTY 8.5% 6.0% 8.0% 7.5% 10.0% 20 Maryland 9.0% 8.5% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% Births to Teens +++ WORCESTER COUNTY 65.5 52.5 50.5 34.0 37.0 15 Maryland 44.5 41.0 38.0 35.5 33.5
** Rank: 1=Best; 23=Worst †most recent year ranking ‡per 1,000 live births. Due to the small number of events at the county level, especially for the smaller counties, these rates are yielded through a multi-year analysis which combines 5 years of data to produce a more stable and more reliable rate. Please be aware when evaluating these data the data label may say 2003 but is actually an analysis of data from 1999-2003. +++ per 1,000 women ages 15-19. Indicator 1: Infant Mortality
This indicator is associated with family access to health care and of prenatal,
family, and environmental risks to a child’s healthy start. Infant mortality data measure
the rate of deaths (per 1,000 live births) occurring to infants under one year of age.
Secondary Data Analysis.
As was previously mentioned, it is the policy of the Governor’s Office for Children
to delete annual data with less than six cases to preserve confidentiality. Additionally,
56
the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene no longer offers rates when counties
have fewer than five incidents as such rates are likely to be unstable. In all instances,
from 1999 through 2003, no annual figures for Worcester County exceeded these
thresholds.
The only available data comes from CLIKS, presenting rates based on multi-year
averaging, and the resultant county rankings of those averaged rates. According to this
data, Worcester began to evidence a drop in its five-year average rate of infant mortality
in 2001 from 2000 averages. Beginning in 2001, Worcester either fell below or just at
the state rate. Worcester is ranked tenth in the state for 2003 (1= Best), the most
recent year for which data were available.
Telephone Survey Data.
No question specific to infant mortality was asked in the telephone survey
Indicator 2: Low Birth Weight
Infant birth weight is associated with infant survival, health, and overall
development. Infants weighing less than 2,500 grams are more likely to have physical
and developmental problems including mental retardation, developmental delays, vision
and hearing deficits, chronic respiratory problems, and learning difficulties.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the percent of all births and of births in various racial and
ethnic groups (by race of mother) with low birth weights of less than 2,500 grams (about
5.5 pounds) and very low birth weights of less than 1,500 grams (about 3.3 pounds).
The following table illustrates these data for low birth weight babies. Data
disaggregated for children of “Other Races Combined” were not included in this table; in
no year, did those births total more than six.
57
Table 19 - Number and Percent of Low Weight Births *
All Races**
White
Black
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent WORCESTER/99 46 8.7 29 7.8 17 12.8 Maryland/99 6,515 9.1 2,938 6.7 3,254 13.7 WORCESTER /00 29 5.8 13 3.4 11 10.1 Maryland/00 6,429 8.7 2,906 6.4 3,182 12.9 WORCESTER/01 41 7.9 23 5.9 17 15.0 Maryland/01 6,605 9.0 3,108 7.0 3,111 13.0 WORCESTER /02 33 7.3 21 6.0 12 6.4 Maryland/02 6,623 9.0 3,072 7.0 3,163 13.3 WORCESTER /03 46 9.8 30 8.4 15 15.2 Maryland/03 6,825 9.1 3,121 7.1 3,180 13.1
Source: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Annual Vital Statistics Reports (1999-2003) *Weighing 2,499 grams or less **By race of mother With the exception of 2003, over the past five years Worcester has maintained a
percentage of low birth-weight babies for all races combined that is below the state
percentage. In 2003, however, this percentage jumped to 9.8 from the previous year’s
7.3 giving Worcester the rank of 20th among Maryland counties for that year (1= Best).
As is found across the state, within Worcester County the data indicate that African
American babies are more likely to be born at a low birth weight than white babies.
The same may also be said of the incidence of very low birth weight babies of all
races combined. With the exception of 2001, over the past five years Worcester has
maintained a percentage of very low birth-weight babies for all races combined that is
below the state percentage. Data disaggregated by race of mother exceeded the
minimum reporting threshold in only one year, 2001, when eight black births (7.1%) of
very low weight babies were recorded.
58
Table 20 - Number and Percent of Very Low Weight Births * Percentages based on fewer than five events in the numerator are not presented since such rates are likely to be unstable.
All Races** Number Percent WORCESTER/99 8 1.5 Maryland/99 1,446 2.0 WORCESTER /00 7 1.4 Maryland/00 1,388 1.9 WORCESTER/01 13 2.5 Maryland/01 1,446 2.0 WORCESTER /02 6 1.3 Maryland/02 1,422 1.9 WORCESTER /03 7 1.5 Maryland/03 1,440 1.9 Source: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Annual Vital Statistics Reports (1999-2003) *Weighing 1,499 grams or less **By race of mother
The five year trendline, depicted in the following chart, projects a slightly
increasing trend for low birth weight babies (dotted line) and a slightly decreasing trend
for very low birth weight babies (solid line) for all races combined through 2008.
INDICATOR TRENDLINELow Birth Weight and
VERY Low Birth Weight Babies
46
41
33
46
13
29
767
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Num
ber o
f Bab
ies
Low Birth Weight VERY Low Birth Weight
59
Telephone Survey Data.
Question: The next issue is low birth-weight babies, that is, babies weighing less
than about five pounds. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem are low birth-weight
babies in Worcester County?
Table 21- Telephone Survey Regarding Low Birth-Weight Babies
Frequency Percentage No Problem 68 32.0 Somewhat of a Problem 90 42.0 Problem 48 22.5 Serious Problem 7 3.5 Total 213 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 158 The data above indicate that 49.9% of the sample viewed low birth-weight babies
as a “problem” or “serious problem.” This is up from the 2002 survey where less than
15% (14.9%) felt that the issue of low birth weight babies is a problem in Worcester
County.
Indicator 3: Births to Adolescents
Adolescent mothers are more likely to drop out of high school, experience
unemployment, or if employed, earn lower wages than women who begin childbearing
after age 20. Children born to teen mothers face increased risks of low birth weight,
developmental problems, and poverty.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the rate of births per 1,000 women in the 15 to19 year
old age group. Data are also offered for births to women in two age subgroups: 15 to
17 and 18 to 19.
60
Table 22 - Number of Births and Birth Rates* among Adolescents Ages 15-19
15-19 Ages Combined
15-17
18-19
Number Rate Number Number WORCESTER/99 76 64.4 27 49 Maryland/99 7,227 42.5 WORCESTER /00 61 52.5 25 36 Maryland/00 7,182 41.2 WORCESTER/01 63 50.3 21 42 Maryland/01 6,741 37.8 WORCESTER /02 44 33.9 14 30 Maryland/02 6,529 35.4 WORCESTER /03 49 36.9 11 38 Maryland/03 6,276 33.3 Source: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Annual Vital Statistics Reports, 1999-2003 Live births per 1,000 women in 15-19 year old age group Worcester County saw a significant decline in births to teens between the
ages of 15 and 19, from a five year high of 76 in 1999 to 49 in 2003. From 1999 to
2001, the rate of live births per 1,000 women in the 15 to19 year old age group in
Worcester was higher than the state rate; however, in 2002 the county rate fell below
the state rate for the first time in at least the last ten years. Preliminary data from 2004
indicate that this drop is continuing with 42 births to teens for that year. In 2003,
Worcester ranked 15th among Maryland counties (1=Best). On the other hand, this
drop in both number and rate of births to teens seems encouraging, especially among
younger women in the 15 to17 age group. The graph below illustrates the projected
trendline for births to teens through 2008.
61
INDICATOR TRENDLINE Births to Teens
76
6163
49
44
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Num
ber o
f Birt
hs to
Tee
ns
Telephone Survey Data.
Question: The next issue is teen parenting. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a
problem is adolescent motherhood in Worcester County?
The data below indicate that approximately half (49.9%) of the sample viewed
adolescent pregnancy as a “problem” or “serious problem.” This is significantly down
from the 2002 opinion when 69.0% felt that adolescent pregnancy was a problem in
Worcester County.
Table 23 - Telephone Survey Regarding Adolescent Motherhood
Frequency Percentage No Problem 48 16.2 Somewhat of a Problem 100 33.9 Problem 112 37.7 Serious Problem 36 12.2 Total 296 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 75
62
Additional Result Area 1 Data
Community Forums.
One participant commented that teen pregnancy was a concern in Result Area 1,
Babies Born Healthy during the three community forums.
Key Informant Interviews.
No comments were made in Result Area 1, Babies Born Healthy by the key
informants that were interviewed.
Focus Groups.
Although some of the high school participants in the focus groups said that teen
pregnancy may be a reason that a student would drop out of high school, this was not
an issue of significance among the respondents.
Discussion of Result Area 1 Findings
In the 2002 Needs Assessment, the issue of “Babies Born Healthy” did not
appear to be an issue of significant concern to Worcester County. This continues to
hold true for the 2005/06 data. The secondary data indicate that all three of the
indicators have improved over the three-year period, with the most significant
improvement being in the area of teen pregnancy. The opinion of the telephone
respondents seems to reflect less concern about teen pregnancy, but, interestingly,
more concern about low birth weight babies. It may well be that this concern comes
from African American respondents who, according to the secondary data, are
continuing to be impacted by this issue. Community Forum respondents, Key Informant
interviews, and high school focus group members did not indicate this Result Area as
one of concern.
63
Result Area 2: Healthy Children
The Healthy Children Result Area is composed of four state indicators:
• Immunizations
• Injuries
• Child Fatalities
• Youth Substance Abuse
Table 24 - Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 (Only the following data in this Result Area are analyzed and posted by Kids Count)
Child Well-Being Indicator 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
State Rank ** †
Child Death Rate‡ WORCESTER COUNTY 38.0 32.0 37.0 32.0 37.0 23 Maryland 23.0 21.5 21.0 20.5 24.0
** Rank: 1=Best; 23=Worst †most recent year ranking ‡Child death rate is a population- based rate of the number of deaths resulting from all causes per 100,000 children 1-14. Note: Due to the small number of events at the county level, especially for the smaller counties, these rates are yielded through a multi-year analysis which combines 5 years of data to produce a more stable and more reliable rate. Please be aware when evaluating these data the data label may say 2002 but is actually and analysis of data from 1998-2002. Indicator 1: Immunizations
The immunization status of young children is an almost perfect predictor of
avoidance of death, disability, or developmental delays associated with immunization-
preventable diseases.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the percent of children fully immunized by age two.
The rates are calculated for completion of a series of 4Dtap, 3Polio, 3Hib, 3HepB,
1MMR, and 1Varivax by the second birthday. Information on the immunization status of
children in Worcester County comes from the Vaccine for Children Program of
64
Maryland’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. It is based on a survey of
physician records. The reporting years are on a July to June cycle. Below is a chart
with the last four years of available data. The percentage is the two-year-old completion
rate for the county.
Table 25 - Completion Rate of Immunizations for Worcester County 2 year-old Children
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 County Completion Rate 100% 94% 93% 96% Source: Vaccine for Children Program, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (December, 2005) Telephone Survey Data.
No question specific to immunizations was asked in the telephone survey
Indicator 2: Injuries
Childhood injuries requiring inpatient hospitalization present risks of long-term
illness and disability. Nationally, each year unintentional injuries disable over 92,000
children and hurt one in four children seriously enough to require medical attention.
These injuries cost the U.S. healthcare system $347 billion per year.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the rate of injuries per 1,000 children that require
inpatient hospitalization in three broad injury categories: unintentional injuries (motor
vehicle or other), assaults, or self-inflicted injuries. Reported in the chart below are the
number and rate of unintentional injury that require inpatient hospitalization. Before
considering the following data, it bears repeating that comparing rates with such small
population samples on the local level to rates based on larger state samples may be
misleading. As such, consideration of another indicator or a comparison of absolute
numbers over time may better describe Worcester County’s status on this indicator.
65
Table 26 - Child Injuries and Injury Rates Due to Unintentional Injuries Requiring Hospitalization Per 1,000 Children Age 19 and Under by Race*
All Races Combined White African American
Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate WORCESTER/98 22 2.1 14 2.1 8 2.1 Maryland/98 4,808 3.4 2,837 3.2 1,751 3.8 WORCESTER/99 51 4.8 37 5.6 13 3.4 Maryland/99 5,707 4.0 3,524 3.9 1,921 4.1 WORCESTER/00 49 4.7 37 4.9 10 4.1 Maryland/00 5,582 3.8 3,390 3.9 1,887 3.9 WORCESTER/01 47 3.0 37 4.6 7 2.7 Maryland/01 5,886 3.9 3,616 3.9 1,938 3.8 WORCESTER/02 50 4.6 37 4.4 10 4.2 Maryland/02 5,868 3.8 3,532 3.7 1,959 3.9 Source: Governor’s Office for Children from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene from Center for Preventive Health Services of Department of Health and Mental Hygiene * Cells with fewer than six (6) cases are deleted to preserve confidentiality. In no reporting year did “other races combined” exceed this reporting threshold. According to the available data, in three of the last five years for which data are
available, Worcester’s rate of unintentional injury for all races combined exceeded the
state rate. When these data are disaggregated by race, white children in the county
exceeded the state rate in four years while African American children exceeded the
state rate in only two years. Looking at the county’s absolute numbers, it appears as if
the number of unintentional injuries resulting in hospitalization has leveled off near 50
since 1999 after increasing from 22 in 1998. Among white children, after a low of 14 in
1998, the number has been exactly 37 in each of the past four years. Injuries to African
American children have ranged from a high of 13 (1999) to a low of seven (2001) during
this five year period with no apparent trend. The five year projected trendline for all
races combined can be found below.
66
INDICATOR TRENDLINEChildhood Injuries (Unintentional) Requiring Hospitalization
50
47
4951
22
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Num
ber o
f Inj
urie
s
In 1999, GOC began reporting data on injuries due to assaults. For the years in
which this category of data are reported by GOC (1999 through 2002), Worcester
County had either no incidents or fewer than six, requiring withholding of data to
preserve confidentiality.
Likewise, GOC began reporting self-inflicted injuries in 1999. Again, during the
years in which this category of data are reported by GOC (1999 through 2002),
Worcester had either no incidents or fewer than six, requiring withholding of data to
preserve confidentiality.
Telephone Survey Data.
No question specific to child injuries was asked in the telephone survey.
67
Indicator 3: Child Fatalities
This indicator measures the ultimate poor health outcome for children. The rates
and causes of death indicate specific risks for children of different ages, genders, and
racial/ethnic backgrounds.
Secondary Data Analysis.
The table below presents the number and rate per 100,000 of deaths among
children one year of age and older.
Table 27 Child Deaths and Rate per 100,000 Children Age 1-19** All Causes
All Races Combined Number Rate WORCESTER /99 6 59.0 Maryland/99 495 36.0 WORCESTER /00 6 60.5 Maryland/00 465 32.7 WORCESTER /01 10 97.8 Maryland/01 497 34.6 WORCESTER /02 * * Maryland/02 483 33.3 WORCESTER/03 6 57.5 Maryland/03 502 34.5 Source: Governor’s Office for Children from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ** Does not include child deaths less than one year of age; see infant mortality In four of the past five years for which data are available, Worcester had equal to
or greater than six child fatalities (all races combined). In each of those four years, the
annual rate significantly exceeded the state rate. In both 2001and 2003, this annual
rate ranked Worcester 23rd among Maryland’s counties (1=Best). The CLIKS rate for
child deaths were yielded through a multi-year analysis which combines five years of
data to produce a more stable and reliable rate. Worcester’s five-year average rates
exceeded the averaged state rates for the most recent five years as well, giving
Worcester a rank of 23 in 2003.
68
In terms of absolute numbers, the total number of child fatalities increased from a
low of six (in three of the four years) to a high of ten in 2001. Data for 2002, however,
could not be presented as there were fewer than six incidents. Data disaggregated by
race exceeded the minimum reporting threshold in only one year, 2001, when six black
child fatalities were recorded.
The graph below illustrates the projected trendline for child deaths in Worcester
County through 2008.
INDICATOR TRENDLINE Deaths Among Children
6
10
66
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Num
ber o
f Chi
ldre
n
Telephone Survey Data.
Although there is no question specific to this indicator, there is a similar question
in the telephone survey. Data on responses to this question can be found in Result
Area 6: Indicator 2 - Deaths Due to Injury.
69
Indicator 4: Youth Substance Abuse
Use of various substances poses major health risks to youth. Early use of some
substances (e.g., tobacco) is associated with later use of other substances.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the percentage of public school students who report
using alcohol, tobacco, or other illegal drugs within the last 30 days by type of
substance and by age/grade (sixth, eighth, tenth, and twelfth) as presented in the
Maryland Adolescent Survey (MAS).
The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) administers the Maryland
Adolescent Survey to assess information and attitudes on the nature, extent, and trends
in alcohol, tobacco, and drug use in middle and high school populations. The survey is
conducted biennially and has been designed to parallel the National Institute on Drug
Abuse’s annual national survey “Monitoring the Future.”
As seen in Table 28 , the MAS indicates that Worcester’s youth show an overall
increase in the use of tobacco, alcohol, and other illegal drugs as they progress
through their adolescent years. It is clear from the data across years and grade levels
that alcohol is the “drug of choice” for Worcester youth.
Comparing the rate of use of all substances (used within the last 30 days), as
reported in 2004 between Worcester’s youth and youth across the state, raises cause
for concern, especially among older students. Worcester’s tenth graders exceeded
state percentages of use in all 24 substance categories while 12th graders exceeded
state percentages of use in 22 of 24 categories. In grade six, that number was 12 of 24;
however, in grade eight, Worcester students exceeded state percentages in only three
70
categories. This number stands in stark contrast to 2002 data in which Worcester’s
eighth graders exceeded state percentages in 23 categories.
Perhaps a more helpful way to consider the data is to look at the trend of
substance use within the county at each grade level over time. Between 1998 and
2004, the percentage of Worcester children in Grade six who reported using a given
substance within the past 30 days increased in eight of 24 categories but decreased or
remained the same in the other 16. Although the percentages of use are relatively
small, it may be of some concern that the categories of substances in which increased
use was reported by sixth graders between 1998 and 2004 included the illegal drugs of
marijuana (1.8%)∗, inhalants (2.6%), heroin (0.9%), and the broader category of “any
drug other than alcohol or tobacco” (5.3%).
Encouragingly, the percentage of children in grade eight who reported using a
given substance decreased in 20 of 24 categories. Similar to but to a lesser extent than
county sixth graders, the categories increasing in percentage of reported use since
1998 were: designer drugs (0.5%); needle to inject (0.5%); barbiturates or tranquilizers
(0.5%); and narcotics (1.5%). Eighth graders had a significant decrease in percentages
of reported use in both “any form of alcohol” as well as “any drug other than alcohol or
tobacco” during this six year span.
In grade ten, a decreased percentage of students reported using substances in
22 of 24 categories, increasing reported use in Amyl nitrates (3.9%) and narcotics
(5.1%). On the other hand, the percentage of students in grade 12 who reported using
substances increased in 17 categories, decreasing or remaining the same for only
seven.
∗ Numbers in parentheses are 2004 percentages of reported use
71
* “Decreased Use” figures include those categories that stayed the same.
Therefore, it appears that while local youth in grades six and ten report using
many substances at higher percentages than is found among youth across the state,
these percentages are lower—some significantly lower—than the percentages of use
reported by county youth of the same age in 1998; this is true of eighth graders as well.
On the other hand, students in grade 12, not only exceeded state percentages of use in
23 of 24 substance categories in 2004, youth of that age report an increasing
percentage of use between 1998 and 2004 in 17 of 24 categories. It should be noted,
however, that in three major substance categories—cigarettes, marijuana, and any form
of alcohol—fewer 12th graders reported use of these substances in 2004 than youth of
the same age did in 1998. The graph on the following page illustrates both the six-year
and two-year trends among county students by grade and in the number of substance
categories in which students reported either an increased percentage of use or
decreased percentage of use by youth of the same age over time.
INDICATOR TRENDLINETrends in Substance Use by Category in Last 30 D
0
5
10
15
20
25
Num
ber o
f Cat
egor
ies
of U
s
ays
e
12th Grade10th Grade8th Grade6th Grade
72
12th Grade 7 17 6 1810th Grade 22 2 3 218th Grade 20 4 24 06th Grade 16 8 12
Decreased Use Increased Use Decreased Use Incr
12
eased Use
6 Year Trend (1998-2004) 2 Year Trend (2002-2004)
73
Table 28 - COMPARISON OF WORCESTER MAS RESULTS 1998 – 2004 PERCENT OF STUDENTS REPORTING SUBSTANCE USE BY GRADE LEVEL IN THE LAST 30 DAYS Areas of use in which Worcester percentages of use exceed state percentages of use in the most recent MAS (2004) are highlighted
Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Substance 1998 2001 2002 2004 1998 2001 2002 2004 1998 2001 2002 2004 1998 2001 2002 2004
Cigarettes 3.8 2.5 1.6 1.8 19.5 13.1 11.1 7.5 37.9 17.6 13.0 17.7 31.1 21.4 23.9 23.8 Smokeless Tobacco .8 1.4 0.4 0.9 3.8 2.3 1.3 0.0 5.4 2.4 1.8 3.5 2.0 5.0 2.0 4.9 Beer, wine or wine coolers 6.5 3.0 3.6 4.8 22.6 22.8 21.1 12.4 45.1 38.2 36.9 33.9 56.5 46.5 46.8 46.6 Liquor (i.e. rum, vodka, whiskey)
3.6 1.9 2.7 1.8 19.4 15.4 16.3 7.0 37.9 29.2 32.8 29.1 45.4 37.8 40.3 38.8
Five or more servings of alcohol on the same occasion
3.4 2.2 2.8 1.3 14.7 11.1 11.7 5.0 32.8 24.1 21.0 24.4 44.0 29.2 31.9 32.6
Marijuana 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.8 10.9 12.6 12.8 5.5 31.7 27.4 16.0 27.2 29.1 24.2 27.5 28.7 Inhalants 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.6 4.0 3.2 2.8 2.5 6.2 2.0 3.7 4.7 0.6 2.2 1.4 3.6 Amyl nitrates (rush, locker room)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.9 1.3 0.0 3.1 0.8 0.4 3.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.6
Crack 0.0 0.40.4 0.4 1.4 2.7 2.6 0.5 3.8 1.9 2.0 3.2 1.1 1.3 2.0 2.6 Other forms of cocaine 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 1.2 2.6 1.0 6.0 2.8 2.1 5.9 2.1 4.0 4.7 5.5 LSD 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.2 2.3 0.5 8.7 6.6 3.3 3.9 3.7 6.0 1.0 3.9 PCP 0.0 0.00.8 0.4 4.0 2.7 2.3 1.5 5.8 1.6 0.8 4.3 2.2 2.1 0.7 2.0Other Hallucinogens 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.7 1.5 1.0 7.4 5.5 3.1 7.1 2.6 4.0 4.0 5.9 Steroids for Body Building 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 4.1 3.2 2.1 0.5 3.8 1.1 1.2 2.8 0.6 2.6 1.6 1.3 Methamphetamines 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 2.7 2.0 2.7 0.5 6.2 2.8 2.0 4.7 1.7 2.1 1.0 3.3 Designer Drugs (MDMA,Ecstasy)
0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 4.0 0.5 5.4 3.2 1.5 4.3 1.7 5.2 2.8 2.6
Heroin (smack,stuff) 0.0 1.5 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.0 2.0 0.5 3.8 1.6 0.9 2.4 0.6 1.6 1.1 1.6 Needle to inject cocaine, heroin, or other illegal drugs
0.0 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.5 4.4 1.1 1.4 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.9 1.6
Amphetamines (uppers, bennies, speed, dexies)
0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 1.3 3.1 4.9 1.0 9.5 8.6 4.7 5.9 2.6 6.3 5.5 7.5
Barbiturates and/or tranquilizers (downers, reds)
0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 4.2 0.5 6.7 4.8 1.2 4.3 3.1 3.1 1.9 5.9
Narcotics (codeine, morphine, methadone)
0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 1.5 4.4 2.8 2.5 5.1 3.6 4.9 2.6 7.2
Ritalin 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.8 2.0 0.5 9.2 1.3 2.7 3.2 1.6 1.8 0.4 3.6 Any form of alcohol 8.3 3.7 4.8 5.3 26.7 25.0 24.8 12.9 46.3 41.9 41.5 38.2 58.6 52.9 51.7 49.5 Any drug other than alcohol or tobacco
1.8 3.7 3.2 5.3 16.4 19.0 17.1 7.5 37.2 31.1 23.2 30.7 31.7 33.5 32.6 34.5
Percentages reflect ILLEGAL use of this prescription drug, not as prescribed by physicians. Source: Maryland Adolescent Survey, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004
“Any form of alcohol” is the substance most often reported by Worcester County
students as being used within the past 30 days. The following trendline projects, by
grade level, use of “any form of alcohol” through 2008.
INDICATOR TRENDLINEStudents Reporting Use of "Any Form of Alcohol" in Last 30 Days
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1998 2001 2002 2004
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dent
s R
epor
ting
Use
Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12
Telephone Survey Data.
There were two questions related to this indicator:
(1) The next issue is underage drinking of alcohol. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a
problem is underage drinking in Worcester County?
(2) The next issue is abuse of illegal drugs by teenagers. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big
a problem is adolescent drug abuse in Worcester County?
The data in the two tables below indicate that underage drinking and use of
illegal drugs are both of significant concern to over three-quarters of telephone
respondents (underage drinking = 80.9%; illegal drug use = 84.1%). In fact, although
74
substance use was considered a major concern in the 2002, (underage drinking =
76.7%; illegal drug use = 71.7%), it as seen as more so among respondents in 2005/06.
Table 29 – Telephone Survey Regarding Underage Drinking
Frequency Percentage No Problem 6 1.6 Somewhat of a Problem 61 17.4 Problem 137 38.9 Serious Problem 148 42.0 Total 351 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 20
Table 30 - Telephone Survey Regarding Illegal Drug Use by Teenagers
Frequency Percentage No Problem 10 2.9 Somewhat of a Problem 44 13.0 Problem 170 50.2 Serious Problem 115 33.9 Total 338 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 33 Additional Result Area 2 Data
Community Forums.
Result Area 2, Healthy Children, was an area that received some, but not
significant, attention in the Community Forums. Although a few participants in the
Community Forums identified youth substance abuse as a problem, it did not emerge as
one of the top three issues in any of the three groups. However, participants in the
Ocean Pines group cited this as more of a concern than did either of the other two
groups, though some community participants in those groups did express concern
about this issue. One concern was that many children were not receiving
comprehensive health care and proper nutrition. Another area of concern related to the
dental care that children and families were receiving. Participants said there are not
75
enough dental providers who accept Medicaid payments for dental services and this
factor impacts the number of children and families receiving dental services.
Key Informant Interviews.
Key informants were asked a series of questions. One of those was, “What do
you see as the most pressing concerns facing children and families in Worcester
County?” Substance abuse in youth was identified as the fifth most pressing concern
and both alcohol and illegal drugs were identified as problem areas by participants. One
comment was that some parents view alcohol use as a rite of passage and not as a
problem. Participants said that substance abuse in many families is generational and
appears to be related to poverty. There was concern that law enforcement is under-
funded in all parts of the county, and drug enforcement should be a priority.
Another area of concern was both the physical and the mental health of children,
youth, and families. Key informants said that many community residents do not have the
tools and information to participate in their own physical and mental health care. Public
awareness information pertaining to physical and mental wellbeing should be promoted.
Many county residents seem unaware of existing services and how to access them.
Also mentioned was a need for co-occurring services combining Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities.
Focus Groups.
A number of issues relevant to youth substance abuse were discussed during the
focus groups. Participants described drug and alcohol use as being prevalent among
high school students. The most popular drug among teens was said to be “weed,” and
group members reported that teens tend to “drink anything alcoholic they can get.”
76
Among those students known to use drugs or alcohol, frequency of use varied by the
individual student. Some students were known to have daily habits while some used
drugs or alcohol only on weekends. Group participants said drugs and alcohol are easy
to obtain, and the main reason teenagers were using alcohol was for fun; it was for
recreation. Group members said television glamorizes the use of alcohol, and public
perception is that drinking alcohol is accepted if it is done responsibly. The other
reasons given for using drugs and alcohol were boredom, curiosity, stress relief, peer
pressure, family addictions, environment, and depression.
Discussion of Result 2 Area Findings
In terms of the secondary data, all four of the indicators in this Result Area
suggest that Worcester County should be concerned about the health of its children.
The 2005/06 data show that immunizations are down and that injuries, and child related
fatalities exceed state rates; the latter shows Worcester ranking 23rd in the state.
Substance use is going up for sixth, tenth, and twelfth graders with the county, again,
generally exceeding state rates. However, whereas a growing concern about
substance use among the youth was reflected by telephone responses, this was not the
case among community group members and key informants where concern about
substance abuse ranked only fifth. In contrast, high school student respondents see
drug and alcohol use as relatively high among their peers, citing reasons for that use
ranging from boredom to family addictions and depression.
In 2002, substance use among youth was identified as the number one problem.
The 2005/06 secondary data, telephone survey, and student focus groups all see this
77
as a continuing, if not growing, problem of significance. However, the concern of key
informants and community leaders does not reflect this same sentiment.
78
Result Area 3: Children Enter School Ready to Learn
The Children Enter School Ready to Learn Result Area is composed of one state
indicator:
• Kindergarten Readiness
Table 31 - Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005
Child Well-Being Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
State Rank ** †
Kindergarten Readiness WORCESTER COUNTY -- -- 42% 59% 61% 14 Maryland -- -- 52% 55% 58%
** Rank: 1=Best; 23=Worst †most recent year ranking
Traditionally, the early childhood education profession has measured the
success of early childhood experiences by documenting inputs, such as early education
enrollment figures. Recently, however, the national trend of measuring school
readiness has incorporated quantitative measures of the skills and knowledge that
children should be able to demonstrate across all developmental domains by the time
they enter school, typically as kindergarten students.
Indicator 1: Kindergarten Assessment
Recent neuroscientific research strongly supports the belief that early learning
experience prior to formal education is an essential foundation for later school success.
Research into how young children learn encourages the assumption that improvement
in school readiness will positively impact school performance to be measured by the
results of future assessments administered statewide to Maryland students.
79
Secondary Data Analysis.
Kindergarten Assessment ratings are based on the percent of students who have
reached one of three levels of readiness on the Work Sampling System™ Kindergarten
Assessment: “full readiness,” “approaching readiness,” or “developing readiness.” The
three levels of readiness are based upon teacher ratings in the following seven
domains: social and personal, language and literacy, mathematical thinking, scientific
thinking, social studies, the arts, and physical development. Full readiness is defined as
consistently demonstrating skills, behaviors, and abilities that are needed to meet
kindergarten expectations successfully. Approaching readiness indicates that a student
is inconsistently meeting those goals and requires targeted instructional support.
Students who are developing readiness do not successfully meet kindergarten
readiness goals and require considerable support.
According to the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Children
Entering School Ready to Learn: School Readiness Information 2004- 05 by State and
County (April, 2005), the 2004-05 school year represents the fourth year that all
kindergarteners in the state of Maryland were rated on their readiness for school, i.e.
kindergarten.
The school readiness baseline information for school year 2001-02 represented
the first year that all kindergartners were rated on their readiness for school. The
following charts show a comparison of the data at the state and county levels for the
past four school years.
80
Table 32 - Kindergarten Assessment - Percent of Kindergarten Students Demonstrating School Readiness/ Composite Scores (Assessments in the fall of each School Year)
Full Readiness Approaching Developing Readiness
WORCESTER 01/02 45 50 5 Maryland/01/02 49 44 7 WORCESTER 02/03 42 50 9 Maryland/02/03 52 41 7 WORCESTER 03/04 59 34 6 Maryland/03/04 55 38 6 WORCESTER 04/05 61 32 7 Maryland/04/05 58 35 6 Source: Maryland State Department of Education: School Readiness Information Reports, 2001-02 through 2004-05
As they entered kindergarten, children in Worcester County have shown an
increasing percentage of students at Full Readiness over the past four years, ranging
from a low of 42% in 2002/2003 to a high of 61% in the most recent year for which data
is available (2004/2005). This improved Worcester’s county rank (1=Best) in
percentage of students at Full Readiness from 21st in 2002/2003 to 14th in 2004/2005.
Compared to the state as a whole, while Worcester fell below the state percentages in
the first two years, the last two years have seen Worcester exceed the percentage of
students statewide who demonstrate this highest level of readiness. Concurrently, as
one might expect, there has been a decrease in the percentage of children who fall into
the Approaching Readiness category over this same time period; again, these
percentages are better than state percentages during the most recent two years of data.
The percentage of students who demonstrate the most problematic level, Developing
Readiness, has ranged between 5% and 9% with no clear trend evident.
Table 33 on page 85 illustrates the percentage of Worcester County students
entering kindergarten demonstrating school readiness by seven domains: social and
personal, language and literacy, mathematical thinking, scientific thinking, social
81
Below is the projected Trendline for the composite percentage of kindergarten
students demonstrating Full Readiness through 2010.
studies, the arts, and physical development. These data are presented across all four
years.
82
INDICATOR TRENDLINE Percentage of Kindergarten Students Demonstrating Full Readiness
Composite
45
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2002
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dent
s
6159
42
2003 2004 2005
83
Table 33 - Percent of Worcester County Kindergarten Students Demonstrating School Readiness - Disaggregated Data by Domains
Social and Personal
Language and Literacy
Mathematical Thinking
Scientific Thinking
Social Studies The Arts Physical
Development Composite
Full
App
roac
hing
Dev
elop
ing
Full
App
roac
hing
Dev
elop
ing
Full
App
roac
hing
Dev
elop
ing
Full
App
roac
hing
Dev
elop
ing
Full
App
roac
hing
Dev
elop
ing
Full
App
roac
hing
Dev
elop
ing
Full
App
roac
hing
Dev
elop
ing
Full
App
roac
hing
Dev
elop
ing
2001-02 50 44 6 28 63 9 32 57 11 15 74 12 30 63 7 48 49 4 65 34 1 45 50 5 2002-03 49 41 11 33 55 11 43 44 13 21 55 24 25 57 18 53 41 6 60 37 3 42 50 9 2003-04 55 35 9 51 38 11 53 37 9 38 52 10 49 41 10 63 32 5 75 22 3 59 34 6 2004-05 61 30 9 49 42 10 63 28 10 27 62 11 48 43 9 67 28 4 75 23 2 61 32 7
Source: Maryland State Department of Education: School Readiness Information Reports, 2001-02 through 2004-05
As is evident from the data, the percentage of Worcester students entering
kindergarten who demonstrate Full Readiness has increased across all seven domains
between 2001 and 2004. The largest gains were in Mathematical Thinking (+31%) and
Language and Literacy (+21%). On the other hand, while the percentage of students
demonstrating Full Readiness in four domains ranged from 61% to 75%, Language and
Literacy was at 49%, and Social Studies was at 48%, both with a slight drop from the
previous year’s percentages. Full Readiness in Scientific Thinking was found in the
lowest percentage of students. Percentages in this domain have consistently lagged
well behind the others.
Telephone Survey.
There was one question related to this Result Area: The next issue is
preschoolers entering kindergarten who are not considered ready to start school. On a
scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem is preschoolers’ readiness for school in Worcester
County?
Table 34 - Telephone Survey Regarding Preschoolers’ Readiness for School
Frequency Percentage No Problem 79 25.3 Somewhat of a Problem 129 41.2 Problem 77 24.7 Serious Problem 28 8.9 Total 314 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 57
The table above shows that 33.6% of telephone respondents view school
readiness as “problem” or “Serious problem.” This is approximately the same
percentage (32.1%) as in the 2002 survey.
84
Community Forums.
Result Area 3, Children Enter School Ready to Learn, was an area that received
some attention in the Community Forums. One participant said that early education for
families was important because some families may need help in preparing their children
for school.
Key Informant Interviews.
Early education was also important to the key informants. There were some
specific concerns about the lack of quality early programs for families that can’t afford
child care but don’t meet the financial criteria for Head Start. Also lacking is a focus on
early childhood education to identify children and families with needs. It was noted that
Pocomoke does not have the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters
(HIPPY) program.
Focus Groups.
This Result Area did not emerge as an area of concern in these groups.
Discussion of Result Area 3 Findings
Although the most recent secondary data suggest that Worcester County is
showing increases in students’ readiness for school, this is a data referent that has
fluctuated over the past several years. This is, perhaps, the impetus behind the
continuing concern shown by approximately a third (33.6%) of the telephone
respondents, some Key Informants, and even a few focus group members. Even so,
this Result Area does not emerge as one of significant concern at this time.
85
Result Area 4: Children Successful in School
The Children Successful in School Result Area is composed of three state indicators:
• Absence from School (all Grades)
• Academic Performance
• Demonstrated Basic Skills
Table 35 - Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 Only the following data in this Result Area are analyzed and posted by Kids Count
Child Well-Being Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
State Rank * (most recent year)
School Absence** WORCESTER COUNTY 15.0% 15.5% 14.0% 12.5% 12.5% 9 Maryland 20.5% 30.5% 39.0% 20.5% 20.5%
* Rank: 1=Best; 23=Worst ** The percentage of high school students who miss more than 20 days of school during the school year. This differs from the state indicator which tracks school absence of students in ALL grades.
Table 36 - Worcester County Public and Nonpublic School Enrollment (as of September 30 of each school year)
Total Enrollment Pre-K through Grade 12
00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05
Public School System 6,892 6,884 6,871 6,783 6,676 Nonpublic Schools 909 811 876 1,053 1,138
Source: Maryland State Department of Education: MSDE-DDA 04100®001 1/05 and 04100 (R) 005 1/05
Public school enrollment in Worcester County dropped by 3.1% between school
years 00/01 and 04/05. MDP (October 2005) projects a further drop to 6,010 K-12
students by 2010. This corresponds to the MDP projected decrease in the school-age
population (5-19) from 8,121 in 2000 to 7,780 in 2010.
86
Table 37 - Worcester County Public School Enrollment by Grade Level - SY 2004-2005
Pre-Kindergarten 234 Kindergarten 410 Elementary 2,641 Secondary 3,391 Total Enrollment 6,676
Source: Maryland State Department of Education: MSDE-PRIM 04100( R)001 (01/03) Elementary = Grades 1-6 Secondary= Grades 7-12 Table 38 - Worcester County Public School System Disaggregated Data by Race - SY 2000-01 through 2004-05
Year Am.
Indian Alaskan Native
Asian Pacific Islander
African American
White
Hispanic
Total
2000/ 01 10 52 1,847 4,890 93 6,8922001/ 02 12 50 1,774 4,928 120 6,8842002/ 03 13 47 1,751 4,919 141 6,8712003/ 04 19 59 1,699 4,861 145 6,7832004/ 05 28 62 1,661 4,753 172 6,676Source: Maryland’s Report Card: 2005 Performance Report (MSDE)
In the fall of 2000, Hispanic students accounted for 1.3% of Worcester County’s
public school system student population. By the fall of 2004, that percentage had
increased to 2.6%. While the absolute numbers of Hispanic students remain small, this
may be an enrollment trend worth watching.
There are a total of seven (7) non-public schools in the county. Three of these
schools serve pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students only (MSDE-PRIM 04100 [R]
005 1/05). Since September 2000, there has been a 25.2% increase in non-public
school enrollment.
87
Table 39 - Worcester County Nonpublic School Enrollment by Grade Level - SY 2004/2005
Pre-Kindergarten 283 Kindergarten 79 Elementary 437 Secondary 339 Total Enrollment 1,138
Source: Maryland State Department of Education MSDE-DDA 04100 (R) 005 1/05 Elementary = Grades 1-6 Secondary= Grades 7-12
Indicator 1: Absence from School
Absenteeism and truancy indicate a loss of opportunity to learn and have
negative long-term consequences. High levels of school absence are associated with a
higher risk of school failure, dropping out of school, delinquent behavior, substance
abuse, and other high-risk behaviors.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the percentage of students in all grades who are absent
more than 20 days of the school year annually. It is important to note that these data do
not differentiate between students with “excused” versus “unexcused” absences. Local
school systems have detailed data on reasons for absences. Also, the measure does
not include students enrolled for fewer than 91 days during the school year. Attendance
data for Worcester County public schools are found below.
88
Table 40 - Percent of Students in all Grades Missing More than 20 Days School Years 2000-01 through 2004-05
Elementary* Middle High
WORCESTER /01 7.1 8.3 15.7 Maryland/01 7.3 12.3 19.3 WORCESTER /02 6.6 8.5 14.0 Maryland/02 6.8 11.9 16.9 WORCESTER /03 7.0 10.3 12.5 Maryland/03 7.0 13.4 20.5 WORCESTER /04 6.7 11.7 12.7 Maryland/04 6.8 14.0 20.3 WORCESTER/05 6.6 12.2 17.6 Maryland/05 7.0 14.1 20.7
Source: Maryland’s Report Card: 2002 through 2005 Performance Report (MSDE) * Grades 1-5 In every year and across all grade categories for the past four years, a lower
percentage of county students miss 20 or more days of school each year than students
across the state. This is especially true in the higher grades. On the other hand, while
the percentage of students missing more than 20 days has remained relatively constant
in the elementary grades, the percentage among middle school students in the county is
showing an upward trend. CLIKS data for high school students ranked the county 9th in
high school attendance (1=Best) in 2004. However, while high school students were
showing a gradual decrease in the annual percentage of students absent more than 20
days between 2001 and 2004, their 2005 data showed an uncharacteristic upward spike
during the past school year.
The Governor’s Office for Children has averaged these attendance figures
across all grades through 2003. From 1999 through 2003, Worcester students (all
89
grades combined) averaged 10.1% while the state average for this same time period
was 12.5%.
The following graph illustrates the projected trendline for school absences
through 2010 disaggregated by elementary, middle, and high school students in
Worcester County.
INDICATOR TRENDLINEPercent of Students by Grade Levels Missing More Than 20 Days
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s M
issi
ng >
20
Day
s
Elementary Middle High
Telephone Survey Data.
There was one question related to this indicator: The next issue is chronic
absenteeism from school that is, missing 20 or more days of school a year. On a scale
of 1 to 10, how big a problem is chronic absenteeism from school in Worcester County?
Approximately one-third (28.6%) of the respondents saw chronic absenteeism as
a “problem” or “Serious problem.” This is as compared to 29.0% in 2002 which would
suggest that community opinion has stayed relatively consistent over the past three
years.
90
Table 41 - Telephone Survey Regarding Chronic Absenteeism
Frequency Percentage No Problem 92 28.8 Somewhat of a Problem 136 42.7 Problem 67 21.1 Serious Problem 24 7.5 Total 319 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 52 Indicator 2: Academic Performance
The Maryland School Assessment requires students in 3rd through 8th grade to
demonstrate what they know about reading and math, the older students demonstrating
their knowledge in English and geometry. The test produces a score that describes
how well a student masters the reading and math content specified in the Maryland
Content Standards. Each child receives a score in each content area that will
categorize his or her performance as basic, proficient, or advanced. These data will
provide parents with objective information on where their child stands academically.
Secondary Date Analysis.
Until 2002, the State of Maryland used the Maryland School Performance
Assessment Program (MSPAP) as the primary measure of accountability. In March
2003, Maryland introduced the Maryland School Assessment (MSA) that replaced the
Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) as the primary measure
of accountability. The MSA school performance data is displayed with three new
achievement levels of basic, proficient, and advanced aligned to statewide standards.
• Advanced is a highly challenging and exemplary level of achievement indicating
outstanding accomplishment in meeting the needs of students.
91
• Proficient is a realistic and rigorous level of achievement indicating proficiency in
meeting the needs of students.
• Basic is a level of achievement indicating that more work is needed to attain
proficiency in meeting the needs of students.
Student performance is reported in terms of these achievement levels:
Reading
Basic: Students at this level are unable to adequately read and comprehend
grade appropriate literature and informational passages.
Proficient: Students at this level can read grade appropriate text and demonstrate
the ability to comprehend literature and informational passages.
Advanced: Students at this level can regularly read above-grade level text and
demonstrate the ability to comprehend complex literature and informational passages.
Mathematics
Basic: Students at this level demonstrate only partial mastery of the skills and
concepts defined in the Maryland Mathematics Content Standards.
Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate an understanding of fundamental
grade level skills and concepts and can generally solve entry-level problems in
mathematics.
Advanced: Students at this level can regularly solve complex problems in
mathematics and demonstrate superior ability to reason mathematically.
Geometry
Basic: Students at this level demonstrate only partial mastery of the skills and
concepts defined in the Maryland Geometry Core Learning Goals.
92
Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate an understanding of fundamental
geometry skills and concepts and can generally solve entry-level problems in geometry.
Advanced: Students at this level can regularly solve complex geometry problems
and demonstrate superior ability to reason mathematically.
Grades four, six, and seven, as well as those students taking English 2, were
added to students in grades three, five, and eight, as were those taking geometry during
the 2004 school year. Science will be added into the assessment requirement at a later
date.
Table 42 - Percent Students in Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, English 2 and Geometry Scoring Advanced, Proficient, and Basic Levels (MSA) School Years 2003/2004 & 2004/2005 Grade 3 Advanced Proficient Basic Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math WORCESTER/04 20.3 34.2 61.0 50.2 18.7 15.6 Maryland/04 29.0 27.8 58.5 52.3 12.5 19.9 WORCESTER/05 32.9 37.5 48.1 46.6 18.9 15.9 Maryland/05 17.6 25.6 58.2 51.2 24.1 23.2 Grade 4 Advanced Proficient Basic Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math WORCESTER/04 22.0 30.6 59.5 50.7 18.5 18.7 Maryland/04 27.9 30.4 59.3 49.9 15.8 20.0 WORCESTER/05 26.2 36.8 57.0 48.0 16.8 15.2 Maryland/05 17.7 27.0 63.3 49.5 19.0 23.5 Grade 5 Advanced Proficient Basic Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math WORCESTER/04 32.7 15.6 38.9 59.7 28.4 24.7 Maryland/04 31.6 36.9 39.8 50.4 28.6 12.7 WORCESTER/05 34.1 19.6 45.7 59.5 20.2 20.9 Maryland/05 29.9 17.3 44.4 51.9 25.7 30.8 Grade 6 Advanced Proficient Basic Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math WORCESTER/04 30.1 15.4 39.5 51.3 30.3 33.3 Maryland/04 31.7 49.7 37.9 39.1 30.4 11.2 WORCESTER/05 39.0 25.8 36.3 49.2 24.7 25.0 Maryland/05 31.2 15.0 39.1 45.2 29.7 39.9
93
Grade 7 Advanced Proficient Basic Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math WORCESTER/04 25.5 12.3 44.2 52.1 30.4 35.7 Maryland/04 33.0 50.2 41.1 39.7 25.9 10.1 WORCESTER/05 34.8 18.1 42.2 55.0 23.0 26.9 Maryland/05 28.2 13.8 39.0 41.6 32.8 44.6 Grade 8 Advanced Proficient Basic Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math WORCESTER/04 25.7 25.0 44.5 32.6 29.8 42.4 Maryland/04 36.1 54.3 43.0 28.9 20.8 16.9 WORCESTER/05 36.0 42.1 42.5 36.3 21.5 21.5 Maryland/05 23.9 18.8 42.5 32.9 33.6 48.3 English 2* Advanced Proficient Basic WORCESTER/05 23.2 37.1 39.7 Maryland/05 22.7 34.7 42.7 Geometry Advanced Proficient Basic WORCESTER/04 11.7 35.1 53.2 Maryland/04 52.0 36.2 11.8 WORCESTER/05 15.1 48.2 36.7 Maryland/05 17.2 33.8 49.0 Source: Maryland’s Report Card: 2005 Performance Report (MSDE)
* Administered beginning in 2005 By adding the percentage of those students who scored Advanced with those
who scored Proficient, county students exceeded state averages in both reading and
math at all grade levels in 2005. Additionally, according to Worcester County Public
Schools, the county school system ranked 2nd in the state for mathematics and 7th in
the state for reading in Grades three through eight based on the 2005 MSA.
Maryland School Assessment data can be disaggregated by race/ethnicity,
gender, and students receiving special services for both reading and math scores.
Because MSA data is so detailed, it is recommended that specific areas of interest or
concern be further studied and considered if needed in future planning efforts.
The graphs below illustrate the percentage of students at the Advanced/
Proficient levels combined for both reading and math (Table 42) by grade for 2005.
94
INDICATOR TRENDLINEMSA Scores: Advanced/ Proficient Combined Percentages in
Reading by Grade, 2004 and 2005
60
65
70
75
80
85
Com
bine
d A
dv/ P
rofic
ient
Per
cent
2004 81.3 81.5 71.6 69.6 69.7 70.22005 81 83.2 79.8 75.3 77 78.5 74.4
3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade Eng 2
County MSA scores in reading improved at nearly every grade level in 2005 over
2004 scores. In both years, however, reading scores appear to have decreased from
the early grades to the middle school years.
INDICATOR TRENDLINEMSA Scores: Advanced/ Proficient Combined Percentages in
Math by Grade, 2004 and 2005
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Com
bine
d A
dvan
ced/
Pro
ficie
nt P
erce
nt
2004 84.4 81.3 75.3 66.7 64.4 57.6 46.82005 84.1 84.8 79.1 75 73.1 78.5 63.3
3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade Geometry
95
As was found in Reading scores, county MSA scores in Math improved at nearly
every grade level in 2005 over 2004 scores. In both years overall, however, math
scores show a gradual decline as grade levels progress.
Telephone Survey Data.
There was one question related to this indicator: The next issue is about the
Maryland School Assessment test, the state’s standardized educational test. On a
scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem is Worcester County school children’s performance
on the test?
Table 43 - Telephone Survey Regarding MSA Test Performance
Frequency Percentage No Problem 92 29.0 Somewhat of a Problem 132 41.8 Problem 57 18.0 Serious Problem 36 11.3 Total 317 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 54 The table above shows that less than one-third (29.3%) of respondents feel that
Worcester County school children’s performance in state level assessment testing is a
“problem” or “Serious problem.” This is consistent with the 2002 telephone data which
show that 29.1% of respondents felt this way.
Indicator 3: Demonstrated Basic Skills
The achievement of minimum academic standards affects graduation, adult
achievement, and life skills.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the percent of public school students in Grades nine
through 12 performing at the passing level in four core subjects: English 2, Government,
96
Algebra, and Biology. The High School Assessments are end-of-course tests that
students take as they complete the appropriate high school level course. All students
including middle school students taking high-school-level courses, must take the High
School Assessment after they complete the appropriate course. For example, some
students may take Algebra in the 7th grade while others may not take it until 10th grade.
Beginning with the graduating class of 2009 (students entering Grade nine in fall 2005),
students are required to earn a satisfactory score on the HSA in order to earn a
Maryland high school diploma. This indictor replaces the Maryland Functional Tests as
of 2004. In August 2003, the Maryland State Board of Education decided to discontinue
the use of the Maryland Functional tests which had been in use since the 1980’s.
Results from the first four years of testing with the HAS (2002 - 2005) on both the state
and local level are reported below.
Table 44 - Percent of Public School Students Scoring at the Passing Level for each of the Four Assessments (reported by academic year)
Percent of Students
Passing HSA tests in each academic year By Assessment Area
E
nglis
h 1/
E
nglis
h 2*
B
iolo
gy
G
over
nmen
t
A
lgeb
ra
WORCESTER /02 51.2 66.2 62.1 47.9 Maryland/02 43.6 54.5 57.3 52.1 WORCESTER/03 41.1 57.9 67.4 58.0 Maryland/03 39.8 54.3 60.2 53.2 WORCESTER /04 51.8 63.5 71.0 62.6 Maryland/04 53.0 60.9 65.9 58.8 WORCESTER/05* 60.3 58.0 64.4 62.9 Maryland/05 57.3 57.6 66.4 53.8
* 2005 is the first year of English 2. In 2002-2004, English 1 was administered. Source: Maryland’s Report Card: 2005 Performance Report (MSDE)
97
With very few exceptions, the percentage of Worcester County students passing
High School Assessments exceeded the percentage of students passing statewide in
nearly every year and testing area. Across the four years of testing, the percentage of
local students passing Algebra has grown steadily as has the percentage of students
passing English (although the test changed from English 1 to English 2 in 2005). The
trends are not as clear in the areas of Biology and Government.
In 2005, Worcester ranked 11th (1=Best) in the number of students passing
Algebra; 15th in Biology; 11th in English 2; and 12th in Government
(www.mdk12.org/data).
The graph below illustrates the percentage of students passing HSA
assessments by area across the first four years of testing. Approximate trends for each
subject area can be seen from the bar graph configuration.
INDICATOR TRENDLINEHigh School Assessments (HSA)
Passing Percents for Public School Students, 2002-2005
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
English Biology Government Algebra
High School Assessment Areas
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
2002 2003 2004 2005
98
Telephone Survey Data.
No question specific to functional testing was asked in the telephone survey
Additional Result Area 4 Data
Community Forums.
Result Area 4: Children Successful in School was an area that received general
attention in the Community Forums and most especially for those respondents in
Pocomoke. In at least two forums, Pocomoke and Snow Hill, community participants
stressed how important education was in breaking the cycle of poverty. A comment was
made observing that there is a widening gap in education based on race and
socioeconomic status when comparing students receiving Free and Reduced Meals to
the general school population. Many participants said that it is important to support the
families with children who are struggling in school and to get the parents involved in
their children’s education. Some parents were said to be at a loss when it comes to
helping their children with school work. Although perhaps not specifically tied to this
indicator, it should be noted that in both the Pocomoke and Snow Hill community
forums, there was much discussion about the perceived decreasing value system
among the county’s children and families. Several participants felt that this was directly
tied to school success.
Key Informant Interviews.
Support for the school system and its programs were seen as a significant
strength in the community by the key informants. Education was said to be a way out of
poverty and important in helping students succeed. Also recognized was the
importance of mental health services to the success of some children. A few Key
99
Informants said that teachers could be better informed about mental health and that the
relationships between the school and mental health providers could be improved. At
least one key informant emphasized the benefit that an in-county anger management
specialist could provide for working with students.
Focus Groups.
This Result Area did emerge as a significant area of concern in these groups.
For instance, participants stated that once students get behind in school or are failing
due to poor grades or high absences, they lose the motivation to come to school; thus a
“do not care” attitude is easily formed around these circumstances. One student
suggested investigating the reason a student is missing school before failing him or her.
Reasons given for absences included boredom, laziness, and lack of excitement in
school. Participants said that some students do not have supportive parents or
caregivers to motivate them to attend school and, that for some students, missing
school is better than being at school.
Discussion of Result Area 4 Findings
Although the secondary data suggest that Worcester County is above the state
average in academic performance and basic skill assessment, there were concerns in
the area of absenteeism. While the percentage of students missing more than 20 days
of school has remained relatively constant in the elementary grades, the percentage
among middle school students in the county is showing an upward trend. There were
also a few issues in the primary data which should be noted. In the community
forums, concerns were expressed about potential discrepancies in academic
performance based on race. Given the complex nature of the data as reported by
100
MSDE, the data in this report were not disaggregated by race. However, given the
earlier noted concerns, a more discrete review of these data may be warranted. In
addition, in at least two community forums there was extensive discussion about the
increasing need for schools to offer students programs directed at valve system
development. The general sense was that this currently recognized student deficiency
is directly tied to academic performance. Lastly, both Key Informants and focus group
members suggested that issues that impact school performance, such as mental health
needs and emotional support, may warrant addressing.
101
Result Area 5: Children Completing School
The Children Completing School Result Area is composed of four state
indicators:
• Dropout Rate
• High School Program Completion
• High School Diploma
• Graduation/School Completion of Children with Serious Emotional
Disturbance
Table 45 - Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 (Only the following data in this Result Area are analyzed and posted by Kids Count)
Child Well-Being Indicator
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
State Rank ** (most recent year)
High School Program Completion *
WORCESTER COUNTY 57.5% 63.5% 63.0% 57.5% 43.0% 19 Maryland 57.5% 58.0% 52.0% 54.0% 55.5%
*Percent of students meeting minimal requirements of the University of Maryland System ** Rank: 1=Best; 23=Worst
Indicator 1: Drop Out Rate
Failure to complete high school is closely linked with decreased employment
opportunities, low pay, and limited paths to advancement.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator reports the percentage of public school students in 9th through
12th grade who withdrew from school before graduation or before completing a
Maryland approved educational program during the July to June academic year. The
102
following chart presents a comparison of Worcester County and statewide students’
dropout rates for the past five years. The dropout rate is computed by dividing the
number of dropouts by the total number of students in grades nine through 12 served by
the school system.
Table 46 - Drop-Out Rate: Grades 9-12, 2001 - 2005
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
WORCESTER COUNTY 2.73 3.03 2.13 1.17 2.09
Maryland 3.91 3.68 3.40 3.85 3.69 Source: Maryland’s Report Card: 2005 Performance Report (MSDE)
Over the past five years, Worcester students have consistently, and often
significantly, fallen below the state dropout rate. With the exception of 2002 (3.03%),
Worcester has met the state satisfaction standard of 3% or below in each of the past
five years. In fact, in 2004 (most recent ranking available), Worcester County ranked
2nd in the state (1=Best) for lowest dropout rate; in 2003, the ranking was 5 (Governor’s
Office for Children).
In a related measure, Kids Count (Census Data Online, www.aecf.org) reports
that 7.2% of Worcester’s youth between ages 16 and 19 in 2000 were high school
dropouts, ranking Worcester 14th among Maryland’s jurisdictions (1=worst). There are
6.8% of youth in this same age range not enrolled in school and not working.
The following graph depicts the projected trendline for high school dropouts in
Worcester County through 2010.
103
INDICATOR TRENDLINEDropout Rate
2.13
1.17
2.09
3.03
2.73
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s in
Gra
des
9 - 1
2
Telephone Survey Data.
No question specific to the dropout rate was asked in the telephone survey.
Indicator 2: High School Program Completion
The completion of program requirements indicates students’ potential readiness
for post-secondary education and/or employment.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the percent of high school graduates who complete
minimum course requirements needed for approved Career and Technology programs,
or who completed course requirements that would qualify them for admission to the
University System of Maryland, or who complete both. The following chart illustrates
the percentages for both statewide and local students over the past five years who
104
completed either the University of Maryland entry requirements, course requirements for
the career and technology programs, or both.
Table 47 - Percent of Students Completing High School University Preparatory and Career Programs
University of MD Career & Technology
Both
WORCESTER/01 63.6 23.9 3.1 Maryland/01 57.8 14.6 10.7 WORCESTER /02 63.1 22.8 5.0 Maryland/02 52.2 15.9 11.3 WORCESTER /03 56.4 22.8 17.2 Maryland/03 54.1 15.3 10.8 WORCESTER /04 42.9 21.6 0.2 Maryland/04 55.7 14.7 10.3 WORCESTER /05 68.5 16.2 3.2 Maryland/05 57.0 13.5 12.0 Source: MD State Department of Education, Maryland School Performance Reports 2001 through 2005
In four of the past five years, county students surpassed state averages in
completing the requirements for entry into the University of Maryland system. While
some variation appears from year to year, the percentage of county students graduating
with college entry requirements has averaged nearly 60% over these five years.
Although the county’s rank, according to CLIKS, was 19th in 2004 (1=Best) the county’s
rank on this indicator ranged from second to ninth in the previous four years.
Likewise, in all five years, Worcester students completed career and technology
course requirements at higher percentages than students across the state. Again, while
some variation is shown from year-to-year, the five year average for career and
technology program was 21.5%.
105
The following graph shows the projected trendline through 2010 for the
percentage of students completing the University of Maryland Requirements for
Admissions, Career and Technology Programs, and both programs combined.
INDICATOR TRENDLINEHigh School Program Completion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s
U of Md Requirements Career and Technology Both
Telephone Survey Data.
No question specific to high school program completion was asked in the telephone
survey.
Indicator 3: High School Diploma
Completing high school is closely linked with increased employment
opportunities, higher pay, and expanded paths to advancement.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator presents data on the percentage of all persons 25 years of age and
over residing in the county who have a high school diploma or equivalent.
106
Table 48 - Percent of Individuals Age 25+ Years who have a High School Diploma or Above
2000 High School Diploma or Above
WORCESTER COUNTY 81.7% Maryland 83.8%
Source: Maryland Department of Planning from 2000 Census) According to the 2000 Census, while 16.2% of Maryland adults have less than a
high school education, 18.3% of Worcester County adults did not complete high school.
This gives Worcester a state rank of 11(1=Highest percentage of those with less than a
high school education) among its 24 jurisdictions. Over 2% (21.6%) of Worcester
County residents hold college, university, or post-graduate degrees (ranked 15th)
compared to a statewide average of 31.4%. Currently, this data is only updated in each
decennial census for small jurisdictions like Worcester County.
Telephone Survey Data.
There was one question related to this indicator: The next issue is about High
School completion. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem is there in Worcester
County with kids not completing high school?
The table below shows that 28.7% of the respondents identified high school
completion as a “problem” or “Serious problem.” This is slightly less than in 2002 when
35.1% of respondents felt this way.
Table 49 - Telephone Survey Regarding High School Completion
Frequency Percentage No Problem 88 28.2 Somewhat of a Problem 135 43.2 Problem 69 21.9 Serious Problem 21 6.8 Total 313 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 58
107
Indicator 4: Graduation/School Completion of Children with Serious Emotional
Disturbance
High school graduation/completion is an indicator of adequate functioning for
children with mental illness. The National Mental Health Association found that children
with serious emotional disturbances have the highest school dropout rate of any group
of children with disabilities (The National mental Health Associations’ 1993 Report, “All
Systems failure”).
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator reports the percent of children with Emotional Disturbances (ED)
who exit special education by graduating or completing school. It does not include
those students with ED who exited the program to return to general education or to
transfer to another program.
This indicator is one of the four chosen by the Governor’s Office for Children to
measure the Result Area “Children Completing School” and so was included in this
needs assessment. Despite this, however, GOC has limited data available with which
to report progress in this area. Exit data for ED Special Education students is not
available from GOC on a jurisdictional level.
Telephone Survey Data.
No question specific to Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) graduation was
asked in the telephone survey.
108
Additional Result Area 5 Data
Community Forums.
Children Completing School was an area that received some attention in the
Community Forums at Snow Hill and Pocomoke. Community participants were
concerned about students not being prepared for the “real world” when they finish
school because many students do not possess the basic skills of daily living. The
specific skills mentioned were money management and balancing a check book which
are related to “life success” rather than academic success. However, respondents felt
this was a general indication of an overall lack of preparedness for post High School
success. Participants were also concerned with the lack of resilience and lack of self
confidence in many children.
Key Informant Interviews.
No comments specific to Result Area 5 were made.
Focus Groups.
This Result Area did emerge as an area of concern in these groups. Participants
said that too many unexcused absences or poor grades which result in class failure are
reasons that students give up on completing high school. They said that when students
know that there is no chance for passing a class they need for graduation, they feel
hopeless and lose the motivation to attend school. Other reasons stated for students
dropping out of school were low self esteem, isolation and ridicule from others, and lack
of support systems both in school and at home. Teen pregnancy and violence were
mentioned as possible reasons for students dropping out of school, as well. Participants
said that some students are focused on other things and think that school does not
109
apply to the “real world.” They reported that some students would rather work and earn
money or earn a GED instead of sitting in school all day.
Discussion of Result Area 5 Findings
Although the secondary data and Key Informant interviews did not see this
Result Area as particularly problematic, interestingly, community forum and focus group
participants brought forth a number of issues of concern. Specifically these areas of
concern were that school systems, in order to make students more successful, need to
focus on areas such as skills for daily living, enhancing student support systems, and
improving school climate.
110
Result Area 6: Children Safe in their Families and Communities
The Children Safe in Their Families and Communities Result Area is composed
of five state indicators:
• Abuse or Neglect
• Deaths Due to Injury
• Juvenile Violent Offense Arrests
• Juvenile Serious Non-Violent Offense Arrests
• Domestic Violence
o Local Indicator - Domestic Violence Report.
Table 50 - Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005 (Only the following data in this Result Area are analyzed and posted by Kids Count)
Child Well-Being Indicator 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
State Rank ** ‡
Child Abuse and Neglect ▲ WORCESTER COUNTY 8.5 17.0 11.5 12.5 23 Maryland 6.5 6.5 6.0 5.5 Juvenile Violent Crime► WORCESTER COUNTY 52.5 69.5 93.5 70.5 52.0 17 Maryland 54.5 54.0 54.0 48.0 50.0 Juvenile Non-Violent Crime►
WORCESTER COUNTY 506.5 549.5 542.5 372.0 390.5 21 Maryland 214.5 203.0 191.0 175.0 187.0
** Rank: 1=Best; 23=Worst ‡ Most recent year ▲ This data element is the rate of indicated child abuse and neglect investigations per 1,000 children 0-18 in the county. The data must be interpreted with caution. First, the number of indicated investigations is not the true occurrence of child abuse in a given community, it is only a proxy measure or an estimation of the magnitude of the problem. Second, changes in the child welfare system in Maryland may affect how many cases are investigated and how they are dispositioned. ► This rate is the number of arrests of juveniles for a violent offense (i.e. homicide, aggravated assault, forcible rape and robbery) or a non-violent offense (i.e. burglary, larceny theft and motor vehicle theft), per 10,000 youths ages 10-17.
111
Indicator 1: Abuse or Neglect This indicator measures the extent to which important adults threaten children’s
security. Child abuse or neglect can result in physical harm, developmental delays,
behavioral problems, or death. Abused and neglected children are at greater risk for
delinquency and mistreatment of their own children.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator is defined as the rate (per 1,000 children under age 18) of child
abuse or neglect investigations ruled by Child Protective Service as “indicated” (where
credible evidence is not satisfactorily refuted) or “unsubstantiated” (where insufficient
evidence is found to support a finding as either indicated or ruled out). The Department
of Human Resources does not track the number of investigations ruled out because
state law requires that they be expunged. Rates are based on the under-18 population
estimates from the Vital Statistics Administration. The following chart indicates the
number of investigations, those found indicated, those found unsubstantiated, and the
per 1,000 child rate.
Table 51 - Child Abuse/Neglect Indicated/Unsubstantiated Rate/1,000 Youth under 18
Total Indicated Unsubstantiated Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate WORCESTER /99 135 n/a 83 8.7 52 5.4 Maryland/99 16,214 n/a 8,103 6.30 8,111 6.30 WORCESTER /00 253 25.62 152 15.39 101 10.23 Maryland/00 15,781 12.05 8,073 6.17 7,708 5.89 WORCESTER /01 230 24.06 114 11.93 116 12.14 Maryland/01 16,016 11.81 7,874 5.81 8,142 6.00 WORCESTER /02 205 20.93 123 12.56 82 8.37 Maryland/02 16,135 11.78 7,551 5.5 8,584 6.27 WORCESTER /03 232 23.69 128 13.02 104 10.58 Maryland/03 15,729 11.49 7,294 5.29 8,435 6.11 Source: Governor’s Office of Children, from Department of Human Resources (In-Home Policy Services Analyst)
112
Between 1999 and 2003 (most recent data available), the rate per 1,000 youth
under the age of 18 showed Worcester County at a higher rate, often significantly, of
total, indicated, and unsubstantiated child abuse and neglect investigation findings than
is found in across the state. After evidencing a noteworthy jump in all categories of
findings between 1999 and 2000, county numbers appear to have remained somewhat
less on average than the 2000 highs (with the exception of some variance in the
unsubstantiated category). Further inquiry into the cause(s) of this increase may clarify
underlying causes (such as changes in the child welfare system, how cases are
dispositioned, etc.). Preliminary data for FY ‘04 indicate that Worcester’s rate (21.7)
continued to drop in that year, as well.
The following graph depicts the projected number of Total, Indicated, and
Unsubstantiated Child Abuse and Neglect findings through 2008.
INDICATOR TRENDLINEChild Abuse and Neglect Indicated and Unsubstantiated Cases
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Num
ber o
f Fin
ding
s
Total Indicated Unsubstantiated
113
Telephone Survey Data.
There was one question related to this indicator: The next issue is child abuse
and neglect. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem is child abuse and neglect in
Worcester County?
Table 52 - Telephone Survey Regarding Child Abuse and Neglect
Frequency Percentage No Problem 24 7.7 Somewhat of a Problem 138 43.7 Problem 115 36.4 Serious Problem 39 12.3 Total 316 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 55 The above table shows that almost half (48.7%) of respondents feel that child
abuse and neglect is a “problem” or “Serious problem” in Worcester County. This is
slightly up from the 44.6% who reported believing this in 2002.
Indicator 2: Deaths Due to Injury
. This indicator is associated with social, economic, and environmental threats to a
child’s life. For every childhood death caused by injury, there are approximately 34
hospitalizations, 1,000 emergency department visits, many more visits to private
physicians and school nurses, and an even larger number of injuries treated at home
(CDC).
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the rate per 100,000 of injury-related deaths to children
ages 0-19 in three broad categories: accidents (Motor vehicle or other), homicide, or
suicide.
114
Worcester County has few reported child deaths due to injury, homicide, or
suicide. In looking back over the past five years of available data, although only through
2003, less than six (6) incidents of child death were due to one of these three categories
in each year. Only in 2001, did the combined number of child fatalities in these
categories equal six (6). As has been previously discussed, it is the policy of the
Governor’s Office for Children to delete annual data with less than six (6) cases to
preserve confidentiality. Additionally, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene no
longer offers rates when counties have fewer than five (5) incidents as such rates are
likely to be unstable. To maintain consistency in presenting data in this Needs
Assessment, Salisbury University will adhere to these guidelines as well in reporting
available data. There are not enough data to support a projected trendline.
Telephone Survey Data.
There was one question related to this indicator: The next issue is about the
deaths of children due to accidents, murder, or suicide. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a
problem is the death rate of children in Worcester County?
Approximately one-third (30.1%) of the survey respondents saw child deaths due
to accidents, murder, or suicide as a problem or serious problem as compared to 28.2%
in 2002.
Table 53 - Telephone Survey Regarding Death Rate of Children
Frequency Percentage No Problem 90 27.2 Somewhat of a Problem 141 42.7 Problem 69 20.8 Serious Problem 31 9.3 Total 331 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 40
115
Indicator 3: Juvenile Violent Offense Arrests and
Indicator 4: Juvenile Non-Violent Offense Arrests
Involvement in violent offenses increases the risk of injury or death. Risk factors
for juvenile delinquency include a lack of educational and job training opportunities,
poverty, family violence, and inadequate supervision. Poor school performance,
including absence from school and falling behind one or more grade levels, increases
the likelihood of involvement in delinquent activity.
Secondary Data Analysis.
Worcester County presents a unique situation in terms of juvenile offending
behavior, making data analysis for this indicator particularly challenging. Beginning with
the Department of Juvenile Services’ 2000 Annual Report, intake data no longer is
presented in a format whereby offenses by residents and visiting non-residents can be
separated. In other words, after 1999, all offenses—whether committed by Worcester
youth or visitors to the county (particularly Ocean City)—were combined in the data
tabulation and reported as “Worcester” offenses. As might be expected, this method
caused a drastic increase in juvenile crime attributable to Worcester youth beginning in
Fiscal Year 2000.
Previous to FY2000, when DJS intake data could be separated by resident and
non-resident offenses, it appeared over the most recent three year period (1997 – 1999)
that approximately 40% of the total alleged offenses committed by juveniles in
Worcester County were committed by residents of the county and 60% by non-
residents. By request of Worcester County’s DJS office in 2004, Maryland DJS
prepared a non-published table of the number of resident youth referred at Intake by
116
Alleged Offense in Worcester County from preliminary FY2003 data. Of the 1,394
offenses committed in the jurisdiction of Worcester County during FY ‘03, 440 or 31.5%
of total offenses were committed by residents of the county. The table below shows the
differences between the numbers of alleged offenses committed in Worcester (county of
jurisdiction) as compared to the numbers of alleged offenses committed by Worcester
residents (county of residence) between 1997 and 1999 and from preliminary 2003
data.
Table 54 - Intakes by Alleged Offenses - Jurisdictional Intakes v. Intake of Resident Youth 1997-1999 AND 2003 (unpublished data)
1997 1998 1999 2003 TOTAL Alleged
Offenses in
Jurisdiction
Alleged Offenses by Worcester
RESIDENTS
TOTAL Alleged
Offenses in
Jurisdiction
Alleged Offenses by Worcester
RESIDENTS
TOTAL Alleged
Offenses in
Jurisdiction
Alleged Offenses by Worcester
RESIDENTS
TOTAL Alleged
Offenses in
Jurisdiction
Alleged Offenses by Worcester
RESIDENTS
1,423 482 1,624 628 1,405 596 1,394 440 Percent of Intake Cases by Alleged Offenses in Worcester County
by Worcester County Residents 33.8%
38.6%
42.4%
31.5%
(Source: Department of Juvenile Services Annual Statistical Reports (FY1997, FY1999, FY1999) and 2003 preliminary data by request.
The Governor’s Office for Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP) provided data
in March, 2005, that described the number of youth at intake by county of residence.
This data break out, however, only dates back to 2003. The two years of available data
are as follows:
Table 55 - Number of Worcester County Youth (residents) at Intake 2003-2004
2003 2004 Number of Youth 276 youth 355 youth (Source: Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention, March, 2005)
The trends and types of offenses are markedly different between residents and
non-residents, a fact which may lead program development in different directions. For
117
example, in terms of trend, the number of Intakes by Alleged Offenses for county
residents has grown significantly as compared to the number of offenses attributable to
out-of-county youth. Between 1997 and 1999, Alleged Offenses by Worcester youth
increased by 24% while the corresponding number of Alleged Offenses by out-of-county
youth decreased by 14%. Likewise, in terms of type of offense, the top three offense
categories for Worcester youth from 1995 through 1999 were: Theft/Shoplifting; Simple
Assault; Malicious Destruction; and Tobacco Violation. For non-residents, however,
Alcohol Violation; Theft/ Shoplifting, and Narcotics Possession topped the “visitor”
offense list.
Recognizing this disparity during Year I Youth Strategies planning efforts, the
Advisory Committee decided the best indicator of the extent of juvenile crime among
County youth was the Rate of Total Referrals (including civil violations and status
offenses) per 1,000 youth population as compared to the State rate. Through 1999,
DJS used offenses by residents to calculate this rate. Looking at 1997 through 1999
(most recent data available), the total referral rate for Worcester County youth showed
an increase while Maryland statistics showed a steady decline during that period.
Table 56 - Total Referral Rates for Alleged Offenses per 1,000 Worcester Youth Population Ages 11 – 17 Years
1997 1998 1999 County Youth Population (11-17 Years)
3,688
3,876
3,753
Total Referrals (Intakes) 482 628 596 Per 1,000 Youth Population 130.7
*State Rank: 16162
State Rank: 17 158.8
State Rank: 19 Statewide Total Referrals per 1,000 Youth Population
117.8
109.7
103.8
Source: Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice. Annual Reports FY1997, FY1998, FY1999 *1=Best; 24=Worst
118
Graphically depicted, the following two charts illustrate the widening gap between
the decreasing trend in statewide juvenile offense referral rates—both Total and
Delinquent Offenses—and those attributable to Worcester youth.
Total Referral Rates per 1,000 Youth Population
105.5
117.9
130.7
162158.8
116.4
120.3117.8
109.7
103.8
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Rat
e pe
r 1,0
00 Y
outh
County Total Referral Rate State Total Referral Rate Delinquent Referral Rates per 1,000 Youth Population
84.9
96.9
101.4
113.5
118
105.4108
105.5
93.3
88.5
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Rat
e pe
r 1,0
00 Y
outh
County Delinquent Referral Rate State Delinquent Referral Rate
119
The change in DJS data collection methodology caused “Worcester’s Total
Referral Rate” to jump from 158.8 in 1999 to 255.4 in 2000, to 384.7 in 2000, and to 304.2
in 2002. “Worcester’s Delinquent Referral Rate” evidenced a similar significant jump from
118 in 1999 to 167.8 in 2000,to 227.8 in 2001, and to 205 in 2002. Other local data
sources were considered, but these findings only served to underscore the lack of
trustworthy information for Worcester youth.
Therefore, with the most reliable information available on Intakes by Alleged
Offenses from 1997 through 1999 and preliminary 2003 data, the following trendline
projects intakes for county youth through 2008 as a “best possible” depiction.
INDICATOR TRENDLINENumber of Juvenile Intakes by Alleged Offenses
1997-1999 and 2003
440
596
628
482
400
450
500
550
600
650
1997 1998 1999 2003
Num
ber o
f Int
akes
- C
ount
y R
esid
ents
Intakes by Alleged Offenses
The indicator used by both GOC and Kids Count is the arrest rates for violent
and non-violent crimes by juveniles reported in the Maryland State Police’s Uniform
120
Crime Report. These numbers are reported as a rate per 100,000 youth population
(between the ages of 10-17). Like data reported in the most recent DJS Annual
Statistical Reports, this data is NOT disaggregated by resident/ non-resident status and
so presents the same challenges as previously discussed data with an additional
caution about how the rates are influenced by Worcester’s small population sample.
Therefore, the following data are presented only as a broad approximation of the types
of offenses committed by both visiting and resident youth in some combination.
The table below depicts the number of arrests and rate of violent offense arrests
attributed to Worcester County youth in the Maryland Uniform Crime Report. Both the
number of arrests AND the rate per 100,000 are reported for Worcester County’s 10 to
17 year old age group. For example, across from Worcester /99, the first number “22”
is the number of actual arrests while the second number “490” is the rate per 100,000
youth.1 The actual number of arrests in the smaller age subgroups—10 to 14 and 15 to
17—were not disaggregated. The numbers for those smaller age groups are RATES
ONLY. Rates are not yet available for the smaller age groups after 2002 nor for the 10
to 17 age group in 2004.
1 Rates per 100,000 permit comparison of data on a variable or condition that may happen infrequently thus comparisons can be made between jurisdictions of different population sizes. The rate is figured by taking the number of individuals who are identified as having a common characteristic, such as, being delinquent and finding what percentage they are of a group, such as, 12 to 16 year old males in the jurisdiction, that decimal is multiplied by 100,000 to determine the rate per 100,000. The result of this calculation permits a comparison across jurisdiction with different populations.
121
Table 57 - Juvenile Violent Offense Arrest Rates per 100,000 Population 1999-2004
All Violent Offenses
Ages 10 to 17 Ages 10 to 14 Ages 15 to 17 Number of Arrests/
Rate Rate Only Rate Only
Worcester /99 22/ 490 104 1,176 Maryland/99 510 300 879 Worcester /00 32/ 676 276 1,359 Maryland/00 524 307 912 Worcester /01 43/ 937 276 2,067 Maryland/01 530 314 916 Worcester /02 35/ 706 131 1,700 Maryland/02 482 284 834 Worcester /03 25/ 519 n/a n/a Maryland/03 499 n/a n/a Worcester /04 22 n/a n/a Maryland/04 n/a n/a n/a Source: Governor’s Office for Children, and Maryland State Police, Uniform Crime Reporting Division (December, 2005)
Violent offense rates are calculated using data from the following offense
categories in Maryland’s Uniform Crime Report: murder and non-negligent
manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and felonious assault. For the combined age
group of 10 to 17 year olds, Worcester’s rate exceeds the state rate in four (4) of those
five (5) years. However, much caution should be used in considering these rates. For
example, in 2003 (the most recent data available), a total of 25 violent offenses was
reported. Because of Worcester’s small 10 to 17 year old population, however, the rate
comes to 519 per 100,000 population which exceeds the state rate. Another way to
consider this data, then, is to look at the trend in Worcester’s rates alone. However,
there is no clear trend in these rates. The high of 937 occurred in 2001, but the rate
fluctuated before that year and showed encouraging drops in 2002 and 2003. Again,
122
this data appear to be reported by jurisdictional offenses and is not disaggregated by
residents/ non-residents.
The table below depicts the number of arrests and rate of serious non-violent
offense arrests attributed to Worcester County youth in the Maryland Uniform Crime
Report. As in the chart above (violent offenses), both the number of arrests AND the
rate per 100,000 are reported for Worcester’s 10 to 17 year old age group. For
example, across from Worcester /99, the first number “213” is the number of actual
arrests while the second number “4,740” is the rate per 100,000 youth. The actual
number of arrests in the smaller age subgroups—10 to 14 and 15 to 17—were not
disaggregated. The numbers in these columns are RATES ONLY. Rates are not yet
available for the smaller age groups after 2002 nor for the 10 to 17 age group in 2004.
Table 58 - Juvenile Serious Non-Violent Offense Arrest Rates per 100,000 Population 1999-2004
Serious Non-Violent Offenses
Ages 10 to 17 Ages 10 to 14 Ages 15 to 17 Number of Arrests/
Rate Rate Only Rate Only
Worcester /99 213/ 4,740 2,536 8,663 Maryland/99 2,012 1,235 3,373 Worcester /00 252/ 5,493 2,418 10,750 Maryland/00 1,993 1,204 3,404 Worcester /01 249/ 5,384 2,245 10,750 Maryland/01 1,880 1,097 3,281 Worcester /02 179/ 3,719 1,542 7,479 Maryland/02 1,751 1,004 3,079 Worcester /03 189/ 3,905 n/a n/a Maryland/03 1,869 n/a n/a Worcester /04 254 n/a n/a Maryland/04 n/a n/a n/a Source: Governor’s Office for Children, and Maryland State Police, Uniform Crime Reporting Division (December, 2005)
123
Non-violent offense rates are calculated using data from the following offense
categories in Maryland’s Uniform Crime Report: breaking and entering, larceny-theft,
and motor vehicle theft. For the combined age group of 10 to 17 year olds, Worcester’s
rate is significantly higher than the state rate for each of these years. Again, much
caution should be used in considering these rates. For example, in 2003 (the most
recent data available), a total of 189 non-violent offenses were reported (28 Breaking
and entering, 215 larceny-theft, and 11 motor vehicle thefts). Because of Worcester’s
small 10 to17 year old population, however, the rate comes to 3,905 per 100,000
population which exceeds the state rate. As was the suggestion with violent offense
rates, another way to consider this data might be to look at the trend in Worcester’s
rates alone. Although the drop in the rate from 2001 to 2002 is encouraging, there is no
clear trend over this five year period. Again, this data appear to be reported by
jurisdictional offenses and is not disaggregated by residents/ non-residents
Telephone Survey Data.
There were two questions related to this indicator:
Question (1): The next issue is about nonviolent property crime committed by
teenagers, that is, crimes like vehicle theft, purse snatching, and breaking and entering.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem is there in Worcester County?
Question (2): The next issue is about the amount of violent crime committed by
teenagers, that is crime like assault or rape. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem is
violent crime in Worcester County?
The public perception of the seriousness of juvenile crime, as reflected in the
survey findings, is similar to the results of the secondary data analysis in that both have
124
increased since 2002. In the former needs assessment 30.8% felt that non-violent
crime was a “problem” or “Serious problem.” This has increased slightly to 34.2%.
Table 59 - Telephone Survey Regarding Nonviolent Crime by Teenagers
Frequency Percentage No Problem 79 22.8 Somewhat of a Problem 149 43.0 Problem 86 24.7 Serious Problem 33 9.5 Total 346 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 25 Public opinion regarding violent crime has also increased from 19.8% in 2002 to
24.2% in 2005/06.
Table 60 - Telephone Survey Regarding Violent Crime by Teenagers
Frequency Percentage No Problem 139 42.9 Somewhat of a Problem 107 33.0 Problem 55 17.0 Serious Problem 23 7.2 Total 324 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 47 Indicator 5: Domestic Violence
Domestic violence impacts a child’s ability to be safe at home and in the
community. Children who grow up in violent homes exhibit a higher incidence of social,
emotional, and behavioral problems than other children. These children also are at
greater risk than other children for delinquency and mistreatment of their own children.
Secondary Data Analysis.
On the state level, the Governor’s Office for Children employs the rate (per
100,000 estimated Maryland households) of clients receiving domestic violence
services through community-based programs funded by the Department of Human
125
Resources (DHR) as the indicator for domestic violence. However, GOC also cautions
that these data provide incomplete information regarding the actual incidence of
domestic violence and provision of services in Maryland. For example, victims may
report incidents to police but not seek services from community-based service providers
funded by DHR. There may also be victims who seek services from more than one
service provider and are, therefore, counted more than once in the data. Other
programs/entities also serving domestic violence victims, but not funded by DHR, do
exist in the community and do not report their data to DHR. At any rate, whether
reliable or not, county data for this indicator are no longer made available to local
jurisdictions through GOC. Even in years past, available published data (DHR) are
combined service figures for Somerset, Worcester, and Wicomico counties. State data
indicate that services to victims of domestic violence have risen significantly since 1999.
Local Indicator - Domestic Violence Report.
In light of the shortcomings of the state indicator for domestic violence,
Worcester County’s LMB has chosen to consider data on reported incidents of domestic
violence from the State’s Uniform Crime Report. The following five years of data were
reported by Worcester’s local police departments.
Table 61 - Reported Incidents of Domestic Violence
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 5 Year Average
Worcester County
402 318 355 407 396 376
Source: Maryland State Police, Uniform Crime Reporting Division (December, 2004)
There appears to be variability from year to year in the number of domestic
violence offenses reported. Annual totals ranged from a high of 407 (2003) to a low of
318 (2001). The last two years for which data are available were both above the five
126
year average which may indicate an increasing trend. The projected trendline for
reports of domestic violence is found below and appears to bear out this expected
increase.
INDICATOR TRENDLINEDomestic Violence Reports
318
355
402
396
407
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
20000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Num
ber o
f Dom
estic
Vio
lenc
e R
epor
ts
In addition, Worcester’s LMB provided data from the PRC Community Health
Assessment done in 2004. Primary goals of the Assessment included reducing health
disparities among residents, identifying population segments that were most at-risk for
various diseases and injuries, and increasing accessibility to preventive services for all
community residents for both diseases and injuries—including injuries related to
domestic violence.
According to the PRC survey, between 1995 and 2004, the percentage of victims
of domestic violence has shown a net increase over the ten year period except for a
decrease between 2000 and 2004; the county percentage for this entire 10 year period
127
has been significantly below the national benchmark. These data are illustrated in the
following table.
Table 62 - Worcester County and National Percentages of Victims of Domestic Violence Worcester County U.S.
Benchmark 1995 2000 2004
% Victim of Domestic Violence in Past 5 Years
0.9% 2.4% 1.4% 3.3%
Source: PRC Community Health Assessment, 2004
Because these two local sources of data are apparently conflicting, further
discussion and analysis by local stakeholders may be warranted to determine to what
extent domestic violence is a serious community concern.
Telephone Survey Data.
There was one question related to this indicator: The next issue is domestic
violence. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem is domestic violence in Worcester
County?
The table below shows that 44.2% of the respondents view domestic violence as
problem or serious problem. This is slightly up over the 40.5% who felt this way in
2002.
Table 63 - Telephone Survey Regarding Domestic Violence
Frequency Percentage No Problem 30 10.2 Somewhat of a Problem 135 45.6 Problem 92 31.1 Serious Problem 39 13.1 Total 295 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 76
128
Additional Result Area 6 Data
Community Forums.
Result Area 6: Children Safe in Their Families and Communities came up as a
topic of interest to forum participants only in Ocean Pines where there was a lot of
discussion about juvenile delinquency and domestic violence. This Result Area
emerged as Ocean Pines participants’ number one issue of concern. Participants said
that agencies like Life Crisis Center are in place to help, but many victims do not reach
out for help because they are unaware of available services or because of the possible
stigma. Another concern discussed only in Ocean Pines was the number of latchkey
children who are unsupervised after school. Participants cited a lack of after school
activities, a lack which allows youth the opportunity to participate in unsupervised
activities. This same level of concern did not emerge in Snow Hill or Pocomoke where
community safety was virtually unmentioned.
Key Informant Interviews.
Although Key informants said that additional programs are needed to keep DJS
kids in the community, the issues related to Result Area 6 did not emerge as areas of
concern.
Focus Groups.
This Result Area did emerge as an area of concern in these groups. Participants
said that non-violent crime is much more prevalent than violent crime. Egging cars and
homes was said to be popular as was theft of personal property, especially electronics.
The only violent crimes discussed were student fights in school.
129
Discussion of Result Area 6 Findings
Secondary data for this Result Area highlight concerns in the area of child abuse
and perhaps as related to juvenile offenses. Between 1999 and 2003 (most recent data
available), the rate per 1,000 youth under the age of 18 placed Worcester County at a
higher rate of total, indicated, and unsubstantiated child abuse and neglect investigation
findings than across the state as a whole. After evidencing a noteworthy jump in all
categories of findings between 1999 and 2000, county numbers appear to have
remained somewhat less, on average, than the 2000 highs. Further inquiry into the
cause(s) of this increase may clarify underlying causes (such as changes in the child
welfare system, how cases are dispositioned, etc.).
The data relevant to juvenile crime is hard to interpret because obtaining data
that accurately describe juvenile offenses committed by Worcester County youth
continues to be a problem. Available state data report alleged offenses by county of
jurisdiction rather than by the offender’s county of residence thus making Worcester’s
rates seem unusually high. Certainly, a contributing factor to this unusually high rate is
the inclusion of young visitors to the Ocean City resort area. This appears to be a
continuing “data development” need.
In the primary data, telephone respondents rate their concern for all five
indicators as greater in 2005/06 than in 2002. The opinion of the telephone
respondents was echoed by the high school focus group members, who indicated that
rising juvenile crime (especially non-violent) is, for them, a primary worry. However, that
same level of concern was not voiced by the Key Informants or in two of the three
Community Forums. Interestingly, the view of community violence as a problem to be
130
targeted emerged only in Ocean Pines. This discrepancy might suggest that the
northern end of the county has separate needs than the southern end.
131
Result Area 7: Stable and Economically Independent Families
The Stable and Economically Independent Families Result Area is composed of
five state indicators:
• Child Poverty
• Single Parent Households
• Out-of-Home Placements
• Permanent Placements
• Homeless Adults and Children
o Point in Time Survey of Homeless Individuals (Local Indicator) Table 64 - Kids Count CLIKS Online Data 2005
(Only the following data in this Result Area are analyzed and posted by Kids Count)
Child Well-Being Indicator
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
State Rank ** (most recent year)
Child Poverty+ WORCESTER COUNTY 17.0% 13.5% 16.0% 14.0% 14.0% 18 Maryland 12.5% 10.0% 10.5% 9.5% 10.0%
** Rank: 1=Best; 23=Worst +Definitions: This data element is the percentage of all children 0-17 with incomes below the U.S. Poverty Threshold. Data Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (see discussion in Child Poverty on the difficulties presented in comparing Census and SAIPE estimates)
Indicator 1: Child Poverty
Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to have unmet nutritional needs,
live in substandard housing, be victims of crime and violence, lack basic health care,
and have unequal access to educational opportunities.
132
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the percent of children under 18 whose families have
incomes below the poverty level. The measure is defined by GOC as the percentage of
people under 18 (statistics from Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates [SAIPE]) or
related children under 18 (Current Population Survey [CPS]) whose families have
incomes below the U.S. poverty threshold as defined by the U.S. Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) (Statistical Policy Directive 14). “Related children” include the
householder’s children by birth, marriage, or adoption under age 18 as well as other
persons under 18, such as nieces or nephews, who are related to the family head.
The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by
family size and composition to determine who is poor. If a family’s income is less than
that threshold, then that family and every individual in it, is considered poor. The 2000
threshold for a single adult was $8,957; for a family with an adult and two children the
threshold was $13,861. The 2002 poverty threshold for an adult and two children (for
use in comparing to data presented in child poverty table) had increased to $14,494.
The most recent threshold (2004) for that same three-person family is $15,219.
Maryland’s Department of Planning ranked the jurisdictions from highest to
lowest in terms of child poverty rates following the 2000 Census. According to the
Department of Planning (May 2002), this poverty rate for children is based on census
data reported from households with “related children” under age 18. In Worcester
County, 17% of “related” children under age 18 live in poverty; this compares to a
statewide rate of 10.3%. Worcester County ranks fifth highest in child poverty when
133
compared to other jurisdictions in the state (MDP, “Poverty Rate for Children - Related
Children under Age 18 - 2000”).
The census also reports this child poverty figure in absolute numbers based on
the number of children “for whom poverty status is determined” (Census 2000 Summary
File 3 [Table P87] “Poverty Status in 1999 by Age”). According to this information,
1,638 (17.3%) of county youth under age 18—“for whom poverty status is
determined”—live in poverty. An additional 1,970 children live between the poverty
level and 200% of poverty. According to GOC, available research suggests that
children whose families are “near poor” also suffer significant disadvantages compared
to children in families who are better off economically. Thus, some public programs
also include those children in families who earn a certain percentage above the poverty
line, such as 150% or 200%.
Below is a chart illustrating the most recent five years of data from SAIPE
depicting the percentage as well as the estimated number of children under age 18
living in poverty (Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates, 1998 – 2002, [December,
2004]). The reader should exercise caution in considering these SAIPE figures if
attempting to compare with those data with the 2000 Census figures as the two employ
different methods of calculation. SAIPE data are based on estimates which are
quantified in the data tables through confidence intervals. The following table, then, is
offered only to illustrate estimated poverty trends over the past five years in the region’s
counties. The mid-point of the confidence interval is used in plotting the following
graphical depictions.
134
Table 65 - State/County Estimates for under Age 18 in Poverty 1998-2002
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 WORCESTER COUNTY 16.8% 14.6% 16.2% 14.1% 13.9% Maryland 12.6% 10.1% 10.7% 9.4% 10.1% Estimated number of county youth under age 18 in poverty
1625 1392 1550 1373 1339
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates, 1998 – 2002, (December 2004) According to the SAIPE estimates, a consistently larger percentage of Worcester
youth live in poverty than youth across the state. On the other hand, it is estimated that
Worcester County evidenced an overall decrease in the number and percentage of
children under age 18 living in poverty between 1998 and 2002.
The following graph illustrates the projected trendline for children under age 18 living in
poverty based on the five most recent years of data. It is based on the absolute number
of children living in poverty, not the percentage of all county children living in poverty.
Both measures may need to be considered in planning.
INDICATOR TRENDLINEEstimated Number of Children under age 18 in Poverty
1625
1392
13391373
1550
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Chi
ldre
n un
der a
ge 1
8 in
Pov
erty
135
According to 2000 U. S. Census data, of all Worcester County families with
related children under age 18 (5543), 753 (13.6%) live in poverty. This figure includes
some families in which a relative, not parent, is the primary caretaker. This county
percentage compares to the state figure of 8.7%.
Approximately 5.6% of married couple families with related children under age 18
live in poverty (205 families). For single male households with children, 11.5% live in
poverty (53 families), and for single female head of household families, 34.8% live in
poverty (495 families) (Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from U.S. Census
Bureau, 2000 Census Summary File 3 [Table P90]). Looking at this data from another
perspective, of the 753 (13.6%) Worcester County families with related children under
age 18 who live in poverty, married couple families account for 27.2%% of that total;
single-father families account for 7.0%, and importantly, single-mother families account
for 65.7%.
Telephone Survey Data.
There was one question related to this indicator: The next issue concerns
poverty. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem is poverty in Worcester County?
Poverty was seen as a “problem” or “Serious problem” by less than one-half
(48.2%) of the respondents, a figure less than the 56.1% who felt that way in 2002.
Table 66 - Telephone Survey Regarding Poverty
Frequency Percentage No Problem 47 13.2 Somewhat of a Problem 137 38.6 Problem 117 32.9 Serious Problem 55 15.3 Total 356 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 15
136
Indicator 2: Single Parent Households
The number of parents living with a child is linked to the amount and quality of
human and economic resources available to that child. Generally, single parenting
implies that there is no immediate adult back up to reinforce disciplinary lessons or
family teachings, to provide an additional role model, or simply to share the load of care.
Children who live in a household with one parent are substantially more likely to have
family incomes below the poverty level than are children who grow up in a household
with two parents.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the percent of all households that are headed by a
single parent. It is defined as the percentage of all families with “own children” under
age 18 living in the household, who are headed by a person, male or female, without a
spouse present in the home. “Own children” are never-married children under age 18
who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.
Of the 5,357 county families who report having “related” children in their
households, 4,820 (90%) report having their “own” children under age 18 living with
them. Of these 4,820 county families, 3,272 (67.9%) are married couple families; 343
(7.1%) are single males with no wife present; and 1,205 (25%) are single females with
no husband present (, Census 2000 [Summary File 1] [Table P34/ 35]) . Within these
families, the percentage of individual children living in these three types of households
(married couple, single male, single female) approximates the percentage of families in
the three categories themselves. Of the county’s 8,391 children (listed in Census as
“own children” under age 18), 5,872 (70%) live in married couple households; 494
137
(5.9%) live with single fathers, and 2,025 (24.1%) live with single mothers (2000 Census
[Summary File1] [Table P28/ 36]).
An additional 964 children are reported to live in households with “other relatives”
(790 listed as “grandchild”); 193 live with non-relatives; six (6) live in group quarters,
and five (5) are principal householders or spouses (Census 2000 Summary File 1,
Table P28/29).
Telephone Survey Data.
No question specific to this indicator was asked in the telephone survey.
Indicator 3: Out of Home Placements
Children need safe and stable homes in order to thrive. Family instability,
abuse/neglect, extreme poverty, crime, violence, homelessness, substance abuse, and
serious illness/disability may pose substantial risks to children and may contribute to the
need for children to be placed in alternative care on a temporary basis.
Secondary Data Analysis.
The indicator measures the rate of children placed in out-of-home care. It is
defined as the rate per 1,000 children placed in foster care, juvenile justice, mental
health, substance abuse treatment, and education out-of-home placements.
The following chart depicts the number and rate of entrants into alternative care
by both Worcester County youth and youth from across the state during the most recent
five years for which data is available.
138
Table 67 - Out-of-Home Placement Entry Rate per 1,000 Children, FY 2000-2004
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 WORCESTER 14.3 14.7 10.5 8.9 11.1 Maryland 11.4 10.4 10.7 10.3 9.5 Number of new youth placed in OOH placements during each year New entrants 142 141 103 87 109
Source: Governor’s Office for Children, Report on Out-of-Home Placements (December 2004) The information in the table above includes out-of-home placement data from
Department of Juvenile Services, Department of Human Resources (Social Services),
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and Maryland State Department of
Education. Maryland’s Mental Hygiene Administration purchase of care placements
and Department of Education public out-of-home placements are not reflected in the
jurisdictional breakdowns. The Department of Human Resources (Social Services) data
includes Kinship care.
In three of the past five years, Worcester County youth have entered out of home
placements at a higher rate than state youth as a group. The county, itself, evidenced
an overall rate of decline in its rate until FY04. In FY04, Worcester’s 11.1% rate was
the ninth highest in the state. The average annual percent change for Worcester
between FY94 and FY04 was 4.6% compared to the state rate of -1.1% over the same
period of time.
The following graph illustrates the county’s projected trend line for the rate of out
of home placements through 2009.
139
INDICATOR TRENDLINEOut of Home Placement Entry Rate per 1,000 Children
10.511.1
8.9
14.314.7
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Rat
e pe
r 1,0
00 C
hild
ren
Telephone Survey Data.
No question about out-of-home placement was asked in the telephone survey.
Indicator 4: Permanent Placements
Children need stable care-giving. Research has shown that temporary foster care
placements, often involving a number of different caregivers and settings, can be
detrimental to children’s healthy development.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the percent of children who leave out-of-home care for a
more permanent status (return home, known as reunification, or adoption) within a
specified period of time in foster care. Reunification is defined as the percent of
children who return home within 12 months of foster care placement (including kinship
care). Adoption is defined as the percent of children who are adopted within 24 months
of foster care placement (including kinship care).
140
The tables below illustrate the percent of children who leave out-of-home care for
a more permanent status.
Table 68 - Percent of Children who Return Home from Out-of-Home Care within 12 months of Entry into Out-of-Home Care
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 REUNIFICATION
WORCESTER n/a N/A 75% 0.0%* 100.0% Maryland n/a n/a 58.2% 50.0% 55.0% Source: Governor’s Office for Children from Social Services Administration, Foster Care and Adoption Child Tracking System (FACTS) * of one
Rather than look at annual data, the use of multi-year averaging is recommended
for smaller jurisdictions like Worcester County, where limited numbers of children are
placed in out-of-home care. During the three years for which data are available, seven
(7) of the nine (9) children who returned from out-of-home care were reunited with their
families within 12 months of entry into care. This is 77.8% of the total number of
children returning home which compares to a statewide percentage of 54.5% over that
same period of time. The federal target is 76.2% or greater. Worcester met that target
for this three-year period.
Table 69 - Percent of Children Adopted or Placed for Adoption within 24 Months of Entry into Out-of-Home Care
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
ADOPTION WORCESTER n/a 83.3% 33.3% 50.0% 25.0% Maryland 28.5% 33.1% 26.8% 25.8% 20.1% Source: Governor’s Office for Children from Social Services Administration, Foster Care and Adoption Child Tracking System (FACTS)
The data needed for multi-year averaging were only available for the most recent
fiscal year; therefore, offering any comparative observations about this indicator in
141
Worcester County is not possible at this time. The federal target percentage for this
indicator is 32% or greater.
Insufficient data exists to use in projecting a trendline.
Telephone Survey Data.
No question specific to permanent placements asked in the telephone survey.
Indicator 5: Homeless Adults and Children
Families cannot achieve economic self-sufficiency without stable housing
conditions. Children who are homeless tend to have poorer health and experience
more developmental delays than children who are adequately housed.
Secondary Data Analysis.
This indicator measures the rate of homeless adults and children per 100,000
residents served by programs funded by the Department of Human Resources and
other shelter providers.
Because of the difficulties of counting the entire homeless population, Maryland’s
Office of Transitional Services (OTS) gathers information only on those people who
have stayed in an emergency shelter, transitional housing program, or who have been
given a motel placement. The number of people served is an unduplicated count of
people served within, but not necessarily across, shelters. Also, those homeless
individuals or families who do not go to shelters are not counted. Therefore, the
homeless statistics reported by OTS are not meant to be an absolute count; rather they
render an approximation of the number of homeless people in Maryland.
142
Table 70 - Number and Rates of Adults and Children Receiving Homeless Services per 100,000 Residents in Worcester County
Number Rate per 100,000
WORCESTER /00 412 885 Maryland/00 51,917 980 WORCESTER /01 355 763 Maryland/01 45,353 856 WORCESTER /02 445 931 Maryland/02 52,973 984 WORCESTER /03 429 Not available Maryland/03 45,560 809 WORCESTER /04 379 764 Maryland/04 38,390 697
Source: Maryland DHR: Annual Reports on Homelessness Services in Maryland, 2000 – 2004. All rates provided by Governor’s Office for Children. Although there has been a net decrease in both the number and rate of services
to the homeless over the past five years, there has been some variability in the year-to-
year data. No clear trend is observable. Perhaps the only consistent factor in these
data is the fact that Worcester’s rate has remained consistently and significantly below
the statewide rate. However, because this indicator is more a measure of services to
the homeless than of the number of homeless themselves, it is difficult to draw any
inferences from these data. According to the GOC, “The effort to track the number of
homeless people during any period of time is at best imprecise.” Local efforts to gather
data from a point in time census survey of homeless individuals in Worcester County
may add more information to a serious discussion of this issue.
The following graph depicts the projected trendline for adults and children
receiving homelessness services through 2009.
143
INDICATOR TRENDLINEAdults and Children Receiving Homeless Services
379
355
412
429
445
350
370
390
410
430
450
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Num
ber o
f Adu
lts a
nd C
hild
ren
Given the limitations of the homeless services data, it may be helpful to look at
various facets of this data as descriptive, i.e. those who are using homeless services,
what type, and how often. To provide that description, additional data from the Annual
Report on Homelessness Services for the most recent five years are presented in the
tables below.
Table 71 - Number of Homeless People Sheltered in Worcester County Fiscal Year 2000 - 2004
Emergency Shelter Transitional Shelter Motel Placements Total 2000 407 0 5 412 2001 30 0 0 30 2002 32 22 0 54 2003 30 2 0 32 2004 28 4 0 32
Source: Maryland DHR: Annual Report on Homelessness Services in Maryland, FY 2000 - 2004 It may bear further inquiry as to why the data for 2000 appear so high in
comparison to subsequent years.
144
The count of bed-nights (the number of nights each shelter bed was occupied) is
considered to be the most accurate and unduplicated unit of measure to study the use
of homeless shelters. Between 2001 and 2004, the number of bed-nights provided in
various types of shelters has steadily increased as is illustrated in the table below.
Table 72 - Bed-nights Provided in Worcester County, Fiscal Years 2000 – 2004
Emergency Shelter Transitional Shelter Motel Placements Total 2000 Not available 2001 5,529 0 40 5,569 2002 5,333 790 68 6,191 2003 5,952 480 38 6,470 2004 5,822 745 39 6,606
Source: Maryland DHR: Annual Report on Homelessness Services in Maryland, FY 2000, 2004
According to these same reports, however, during those same five years on an
average of 243 occasions annually, people were refused shelter or motel placements
because of lack of funds or space. This figure is considered the best indicator of the
unmet need for homeless shelter beds available.
Demographic characteristics, e.g., age, household composition, gender, and
ethnicity are collected from shelters. Again, these demographic numbers may not total
the actual number served because some providers do not keep demographic data on all
of their residents or some residents use more than one shelter facility (duplicated
count). The following tables report a “best guess” as to age and household composition
as recorded on those homeless people who have been sheltered in Worcester County
during the four most recent years for which data is available.
145
Table 73 - Age of Homeless Persons Served in Worcester County
Age 0-17 18-30 31-60 61+
2001 81 114 152 8 2001 73 94 265 13 2003 80 90 239 20 2004 71 80 216 12
Source: Maryland DHR: Annual Report on Homelessness Services in Maryland, FY 2001 through 2004 Of the total number of homeless persons sheltered between 2000 and 2004,
19.5% were under age 18; 23.4% were 18-30; 53.9% were 31-60; and 3.3% were age
61 or older.
Table 74 - Household Composition of Homeless Persons Served in Worcester County
Household Composition Individuals Family Members Percent Families
2001 249 103 29% 2002 338 107 24% 2003 328 101 24% 2004 267 112 30%
Source: Maryland DHR: Annual Report on Homelessness Services in Maryland, FY 2000 In Worcester, an average of 27% of those served in shelters was family groups.
On the statewide level, that percentage was 33%. The difference in percentages is
either attributable to the fact that there are fewer homeless families seeking services in
Worcester County than is generally seen across the state or that fewer shelters for
families exist in the county, thus providing less capacity to provide family shelter
services. This issue may deserve further inquiry.
Local Indicator – Point in Time Survey of Homeless Individuals.
On January 27, 2005, members of Tri County Alliance for the Homeless
conducted a Point in Time Survey in Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester Counties.
146
There were 234 valid (unduplicated) surveys returned. The following information is
taken from the Alliance’s full report to which the reader is referred for further data.
Table 76 identifies by County the number of surveys completed in January 2005
as compared to the number completed in February 2004.
Table 75 - Survey County by County
January 2005 February 2004 County
Number Completed/ Percent of Total
Number Completed/ Percent of Total
Somerset 30/12.8% 30/16.8% Wicomico 146/62.4% 114/63.7% Worcester 58/24.8 35/19.6% Total 234/100% 179/100%
One hundred fifty-one (64.5%) individuals indicated that they were living alone.
Of those 151, the number of individuals surveyed in each county was as follows:
Somerset 18, Wicomico 92 and Worcester 41.
However, in order to identify the total number of people who are homeless in the
region, Table 77 presents not only the number of respondents but also the number of
adults and children that are living with the respondent at the time of the survey.
The overall total number of homeless people from all three counties is 382. (In
February 2004, the total was 297. While this is an increase of 85 people, it must be
noted that the two numbers are not comparable because in 2004 the questions
regarding households were asked in a much less specific manner.) A total of 93
homeless adults and children counted during the survey period were living in Worcester
County (24.3% of regional total). A slightly higher percentage of the region’s homeless
children (26.9%) live in Worcester.
147
Table 76 - Total Count of Homeless by County, January 2005
County Number
Respondents Number Other
Adults Living with
Respondents*
Number Children Living
with Respondents*
Total
Somerset 30 14 14 58 Wicomico 146 51 35 231 Worcester 58 17 18 93 Total 234 82 67 382 *Seven surveys did not provide information regarding household members and size; therefore these seven were counted as individuals.
The Alliance report also notes “origination locale” for each of the surveyed
homeless; in other words, where are the homeless currently living in Worcester County
originally from? Of the 54 homeless persons surveyed who provided information on this
subject, 44.4% (24) were originally from Worcester County (a percentage fairly
comparable to the other two regional counties); 27.8% (15) were from one of the other
two regional counties; 9.3% (5) were from other places in Maryland, two from Baltimore;
5.6% (3) were from Delaware; and, interestingly, 13% (7) were from other states outside
of the Delmarva region.
Table 78 presents the sex of respondents by county and compares 2005 and
2004 data.
Table 77 - Sex of Respondents by County
Males Females County 2005 2004 2005 2004
Somerset 16 (53.3%) 13 (43.3%) 14 (46.7%) 17 (56.7%) Wicomico 96 (66.4%) 63 (55.3%) 49 (33.6%) 51 (44.7%) Worcester 35 (60.3%) 23 (65.7%) 23 (39.7%) 12 (34.3%) Total 147 (63.1%) 99 (55.3%) 86 (36.9%) 80 (44.7%) *One respondent did not provide this information in 2005.
148
In Worcester County, it appears that the percentage of female homeless has
increased from 12 in 2004 to 23 in 2005, a 92% increase in female homeless. For
homeless men, the number grew from 23 to 35 during that same one year period, a
smaller percentage increase of 52.2% than was seen among females.
Table 78 presents the age of respondents by county and compares 2005 and
2004 data. Regionally, the mean age of respondents was 40.7 years in 2005 and 38.8
in 2004.
Table 78 - Age of Respondents by County*
Age Group
County
Und
er 2
0
21-3
0
31-4
0
41-5
0
51-6
0
Ove
r 60
Oth
er
2005
Somerset 2 7 4 11 4 1 Wicomico 1 22 44 53 22 3 Worcester 5 9 12 21 9 2 Total 8 (3.4%) 38
(16.4%) 60
(25.9%) 85
(36.6%) 26
(15.1%) 6 (2.6%)
2004
Somerset 1 13 5 8 0 0 Wicomico 7 20 29 35 16 3 Worcester 2 6 11 10 2 0 Total 10
(6.0%) 39
(23.2%) 45
(26.8%) 53
(31.5%) 18
(10.7%) 3 (1.8%)
*Eleven people did not respond to this question in 2005. Eleven people did not respond to this question in 2004.
Like its neighboring counties, the majority of homeless in Worcester County are
in the 41-50 age-group. The number of homeless youth in Worcester County increased
from two to five between 2004 and 2005. On the other end of the age spectrum, there
149
was a significant jump in the number of homeless over age 51 from two in 2004 to 11 in
2005.
Table 79 provides the 2004 and 2005 Race of Respondents by County. In 2005,
48.3% of Worcester’s surveyed homeless (28) were African American; 46.6% were
Caucasian.
Table 79 - Race/Ethnicity of Respondents by County Race County
Afri
can
Am
eric
an/
Bla
ck
Cau
casi
an/W
hite
Asi
an
His
pani
c/
Latin
o
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an
Bi-R
acia
l/ M
ulti-
raci
al
Oth
er
2005
Somerset 15 9 0 0 3 1 0 Wicomico 70 64 0 4 2 2 2 Worcester 28 27 1 0 1 1 0 Total 113
(49.1%) 100
(43.5%) 1
(0.4%) 4
(1.7%) 6
(2.6%) 4
(1.7%) 2
(0.9%) 2004
Somerset 14 11 2 1 1 0 0 Wicomico 52 50 0 1 5 5 1 Worcester 15 17 0 0 1 0 2 Total 81
(45.5%) 78
(43.8%) 2
(1.1%) 2
(1.1%) 7
(3.9%) 5
(2.8%) 3
(1.7%) *Four people did not respond to this question in 2005. One person did not respond to this question in 2004. Telephone Survey Data.
There was one question related to this indicator: The next issue concerns
homeless adults and children. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big a problem is
homelessness for families in Worcester County?
150
Homelessness was seen as a “problem” or “serious problem” by 28.5% of the
sample respondents. This question was not included in the 2002 Needs Assessment so
no comparison can be made.
Table 80 - Telephone Survey Regarding Homelessness
Frequency Percentage No Problem 76 23.6% Somewhat of a Problem 154 47.9% Problem 68 21.2% Serious Problem 23 7.3% Total 321 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 50 Additional Result Area 7 Data
Community Forums.
Although issues related to this Result Area, especially poverty, were not in the
top three concerns of any of the community forums, they did emerge in both the Snow
Hill and Pocomoke forums to a degree worthy of mention. The overarching concern
was children and families living in poverty. Participants were particularly concerned that
many of the families living in poverty may not be aware of available services and that
those services are not delivered in a manner which makes them “user friendly” (i.e.
hours of operation). It was also noted that this concern about service delivery had been
voiced during the 2002 community forums but had not been addressed in the interim.
The need for support services for families with children was also a major concern
reported during the community forums where participants discussed a family support
center with delivery of services in a family friendly environment as a possible solution. It
was frequently voiced that families in crisis need to know where they can go for help.
151
Affordable housing for low income families was also discussed in every community
forum.
Key Informant Interviews.
Among the key informants, the most pressing concern for Worcester County was
parenting and family support. The general feeling is that there is a lack of support
systems in place for many children and families living in poverty. It was also voiced that
some parents need help with out of control teens and there is little available. In addition
there is a lack of mentoring services available. Some outreach services are not user
friendly and not easily accessible. In the same vein, some Key Informants felt that
health care delivery is not accessible or supportive for some families.
The second most pressing concern was affordable housing for middle and lower
level income families. One key informant stated that lower income families can’t afford
to live in the county even with two or three jobs. They felt that trying to make ends meet
sometimes leads to stress between family members and may make it difficult to
maintain healthy family relationships. One problem area that was specifically mentioned
was the Ocean City area where many people work but where housing costs are
unaffordable. Jobs with living wages and benefits for single income families were the
third most pressing concern among key informants. It was mentioned that economic
problems have an impact on stress, violence, and abuse among family members. It was
also noted that no mechanism exists for training and preparing young people for the job
market.
Transportation was listed as the fourth most pressing concern. The costs of
owning a vehicle (tags, license, and insurance) have increased, and many cannot afford
152
them. Some residents need transportation for work or to after-school and summer
programs. The existing public transportation system was said to be inadequate for
county residents.
Another comment that falls into Result Area 7 was the need for more in county
foster homes, especially for victims of incest.
Focus Groups.
Participants said that many of the students who skip school or drop out of school
do not have support from home to encourage them to stay in school.
Discussion of Result Area 7 Findings
Although the secondary data for this Result Area are not easily accessible or
interpreted, it is clear that in Worcester County overall poverty and homelessness is up,
and affordable housing is not sufficient. Out-of-home placements are down but still
above state average. This is in contrast with family reunification which is above the
state average. The primary data reflect the same concerns. Poverty and issues related
to poverty—such as affordable housing, homelessness, and family stress—were
identified as concerns by most sources including the high school respondents. In
addition, the inaccessibility of much needed services was highlighted by both
community members and Key Informants. It would seem, therefore, that both providers
and recipients see the need for service delivery change as relevant and important.
153
Result Area 8: Communities Which Support Family Life
No indicators for this Result Area were identified for the current Needs Assessment.
154
Part II – Additional Questions
Non-Result Area Questions
There were five questions on the Telephone Survey and Key Informant
questionnaires that did not fit into any of the eight Result Areas. These questions are
specific to childcare, after school programs, housing, transportation, and jobs. Only the
data sources with relevant information are indicated.
1. Childcare Question: “The next issue is about the availability of quality child
care. On a scale of 1 to 10, how large a problem is a lack of childcare in Worcester
County?
Telephone Survey Data.
Table 81 - Telephone Survey Regarding Quality Child Care
Frequency Percentage No Problem 75 21.9 Somewhat of a Problem 114 33.5 Problem 114 33.4 Serious Problem 39 11.3 Total 342 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 29 The Table shows that that 44.7% of respondents, as compared to 55.9% in 2002,
feel that the need for quality child care is a “problem” or “Serious problem” in Worcester
County.
Community Forums.
Although the issue of quality child care was not specifically mentioned during any
of the three forum meetings it was alluded to in Pocomoke where the need to support
families was identified. It was also alluded to in Ocean Pines where participants noted
the need for more after school programs.
155
Key Informant Interviews.
Among key informants, the issue of availability of quality child care was a
concern because some families can’t afford child care but don’t meet the financial
criterion for Head Start. Children living in families facing this situation do not have the
opportunity to attend quality early programs.
Focus Groups.
This issue was not discussed during any of the high school groups.
2. After School Program Question: “The next issue concerns after school
programs. On a scale of 1 to 10, how large a problem is a lack of programs that provide
structured academic and/or recreational supervision for elementary and middle school
students in Worcester County?”
Telephone Survey Data.
Table 82 - Telephone Survey Regarding After-School Programs
Frequency Percentage No Problem 121 34.4 Somewhat of a Problem 130 37.4 Problem 80 22.8 Serious Problem 19 5.4 Total 350 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 21 Less than one-third (29.2%) of the telephone respondents felt the need for
structured academic and/or recreational supervision for elementary and middle school
students is a “problem” or “Serious problem” in Worcester County.
156
Community Forums.
This concern surfaced only in the Ocean Pines community forum where several
participated indicated the need for more organized and family-oriented recreational
activities.
Key Informant Interviews.
Key informants did not specifically mention a lack of after-school programs.
However, it was mentioned that many students need such help and support with their
education as tutoring and mentoring, and these activities are lacking in the community.
Focus Groups.
This issue was addressed in several of the high school focus groups where
participants reported the lack of recreational activities (specifically a place to play pool,
play video games, or to become involved in more active outdoor activities such as rock
climbing) as significant in Worcester County.
3. Affordable Housing Question: “The next issue is about the availability of
affordable housing. On a scale of 1 to 10, how large a problem is a lack of good
affordable housing in Worcester County?”
Telephone Survey Data.
Table 83 - Telephone Survey Regarding Availability of Affordable Housing
Frequency Percentage No Problem 17 4.6 Somewhat of a Problem 57 15.7 Problem 99 27.4 Serious Problem 189 52.3 Total 362 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion =9
157
As can be seen in the table above over three-quarters of the respondents felt that
the issue of available affordable housing is a problem in Worcester County. This was
one of the most pressing problems among the telephone respondents.
Community Forums.
Although this issue was not noted directly during any of the community forums,
participants did allude to this issue when talking about the impact of poverty and the
lack of support for families in the county
Key Informant Interviews.
The need for affordable housing, both rental and purchase, was listed by Key
Informants as the second most pressing need. Nine respondents indicated the county’s
need for decent affordable housing for low and middle income families.
Focus Groups.
This issue was not discussed during any of the high school groups.
4. Transportation Question: “The next issue is about the availability of transportation.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how large a problem is a lack of transportation in Worcester
County?”
Telephone Survey Data.
Table 84 - Telephone Survey Regarding Availability of Transportation
Frequency Percentage No Problem 91 25.3 Somewhat of a Problem 105 29.4 Problem 105 29.3 Serious Problem 58 16.0 Total 359 100.0
Don’t know or no opinion = 12
158
Almost half (45.3%) of the respondents felt that the lack of adequate public
transportation in Worcester County is a “problem” or “Serious problem.”
Community Forums.
This issue was not discussed in any of the community forums
Key Informant Interviews.
The need for transportation was the fourth most pressing need reported by Key
Informants.
Focus Groups.
This issue was not discussed during any of the high school groups.
Open-ended Questions
After asking about specific issues, respondents were asked, in an open-ended
format, to identify the “single most important problem facing children, youth, and families
in Worcester County today.” Respondents could choose one of the nineteen issues
already mentioned by the interviewers, or they could present a problem of their own
choosing. A follow-up question, also open-ended, asked if respondents could suggest a
solution to the problem they identified as most important. The responses from these
questions are found in this section.
1. Open Ended Question Related to Problem Definition: “Thinking about all of
the problems just mentioned, which one would you say is the single most important
problem facing children, youth and families in Worcester County today? Or is there a
problem not mentioned that you think is the most important problem?”
Telephone Survey.
• Affordable Housing (122 comments)
159
• Underage Drinking of Alcohol (54 comments)
• Abuse of Illegal Drugs by Teenagers (35 comments)
• Poverty (26 comments)
2. Open Ended Question Related to Problem Solution: “Can you suggest a
solution to this important problem?”
• Increased parental involvement (29 comments)
• Improved educational programs (27 comments)
• Affordable Housing (17 comments)
• Job opportunities (16comments)
• Drug and alcohol enforcement (14 comments)
160
Part III - Community Forum Data
Each of the three community forums is first addressed separately with a composite
summary at the end of the section. Although the top three problems and related
“solutions” are highlighted, a full listing of the issues discussed can be found in
Appendix C.
Pocomoke City
Problems Identified:
• Support for families and parents becoming involved in issues relating to their
children
• Lack of skills for daily living in school age children
• Children not receiving spiritual guidance
Solutions Recommended:
(Support for families and parents becoming involved in issues relating to
their children)
• Family Support Center which uses the Crisis Center Response Model.
Ideally the center would be open 24/7 or at a minimum would use a modified
work week schedule for staff so that the center is easily accessible for families
and children. The center would strive to deliver services in a family friendly
environment. Parents and children could receive services concurrently.
• Tie programs together to achieve program completion. Ex: Grant money for
housing tied to successful completion of parenting classes.
• As a community we want a voice in what our children are learning and suggest
the LMB use creativity in making that voice heard. A Community Education Task
161
Force developed and facilitated by the LMB would be a helpful part of this
solution
(Lack of skills for daily living in school age children)
• Mandatory course in school for economic skills.
• Establish report card for elected officials for accountability
• Ombudsman for Worcester County
(Children not receiving spiritual guidance)
• Character Counts Program
• Support development of youth groups after school in churches
• Mentoring
Ocean Pines
Problems Identified:
• Domestic Family Violence
• Latchkey Children
• Divided Communities
• Lack of Recreational Opportunities
• Mental Health Services
Solutions Recommended:
(Domestic Family Violence)
• Education and treatment for the abuser
• Educate children about Domestic Violence in a safe environment like school
• Attempt to overcome stigma attached to Domestic Violence through education
(Latchkey Children)
162
• Support for latchkey children home alone through a Kid’s hotline run by
volunteers. Advertise in schools. Computer chat rooms may also be used
• After school school-based programs for latchkey kids
• Summer programs located at schools but not operated by school
(Divided Communities)
• Community Center-reallocation of resources by community agencies like DSS
and the Health Department
• Community Dialogue-ongoing discussion on race
(Lack of Recreational Opportunities)
• Organized effort to bring recreational activities into existing communities
• Family integrated activities that are free
• Transportation Issues
• Stop giving waivers to businesses and developers
• Bike trails around the county
(Mental Health Services)
• Maintain existing structure and fill vacancies
Snow Hill
Problems Identified.
• Accountability
• Awareness of available Services and method of delivery
• Lack of a value system
Solutions Recommended.
(Accountability)
163
• Monitoring the Local Access Mechanism (LAM)
• Add mayors to LMB Board Membership. Amend by laws to include mayors
• Include faith based community into LMB process through ministerial councils
(Awareness of available Services and method of delivery)
• Increased communication to community about agency services
• Multi-level marketing plan
(Lack of a value system)
• Continue Asset Building
Summary of Community Forum Data
The following section provides a profile of the problems prioritized by the set of
communities represented at the community forum meetings. A profile summarizing the
commonalities in suggested solutions is also presented.
Problems Identified
Perhaps most notable is the similarity between the community forum discussions
in Snow Hill and Pocomoke and how those differ from the one held in Ocean Pines.
Participants in Snow Hill and Pocomoke indicated a primary concern for what can be
most easily characterized as systems issues, specifically agency flexibility and creativity
in accommodating poor, near poor, and working families. Both groups also reported
concern for the current value system of community youth. In contrast, participants in
Ocean Pines discussed issues related to community safety and lack of specific services
(mostly mental health, after-school care, and recreation). One can speculate, therefore,
that there are distinctly different needs evidenced in the northern and southern ends of
164
the county. This variability will challenge planners to concurrently meet such divergent
needs.
Solutions Recommended
Problem solutions voiced in the three forum meetings reflect the differential
problem identification. Participants in Snow Hill and Pocomoke suggested solutions
related to systems coordination and access. The suggestion was that agencies become
more aware of and responsive to user needs. In both communities the need was voiced
for “24/7” service delivery. Ocean Pines, on the other hand, was much more service-
focused in solution identification. Specifically they identified the need for services
related to domestic violence, after school programming, and recreational opportunities.
165
Part IV - Key Informant Interview Data
Each Key Informant was asked four (4) questions. The data are arranged based
on the answers to those questions in their order of significance. The number following
each answer indicates the number of key informants sharing this opinion.
What do you see as the greatest strengths/assets supporting children and
families in Worcester County?
• Existing programs (21 comments)
o Comprehensive system of care in place through public, private and non
profit agencies. Many programs serving families and children are research
based quality programs. Agencies focus on staff training and increase
competency level of workers and supervisors. (18)
o Easy access to services (1)
o Family Court System is user friendly and supportive to families (1).
o Recreation center provides programs and activities for all age groups (1)
• School system (18 comments)
o Quality education system, caring people, innovative programs, many blue
ribbon schools, informed superintendent, Board of Education, and
community support (12)
o Partnership with faith community, businesses and agencies to meet needs
of residents Ex: LCC, Multi-Ed, Project Intervene, Anger Management, OC
Youth Consortium, OC Drug and Alcohol Prevention Council, and
Worcester County Drug and Alcohol Council (5)
166
o People services team in all schools, three People Personnel Workers
available for students, and every middle and high school has an on site
alternative teaching education program for students with behaviors that
prevents them form being successful in school. (3)
• Sense of Community (15)
o Local community and civic organizations are proactive in supporting youth
and families (7)
o Faith based organizations minister to the needs of local residents and
fosters a sense of community and belonging. Actively support youth and
their families (5)
o Sense of family and roots in many parts of the county which is a powerful
support network (1)
o Access to many natural resources and local festivals and activities (1)
• County leadership (13 comments)
o Human service leadership is visionary, caring, empathetic, understands
the needs and embraces best practice methods (8)
• Collaboration and cooperation between agencies (13)
o Collaboration of agencies to meet the needs of children and families is
good and steadily increasing over time (13)
What would you do or suggest be done to develop these strengths/assets?
• Existing programs: Sixteen responses were made relating to the existing
programs in Worcester County. The most common suggestion was to better
educate the public about both physical and mental health and wellness and to
167
promote human wellbeing. Marketing programs by emphasizing the
importance of developing and maintaining Mental Health in children, youth,
and families should be developed. Educating the public through workshops in
conjunction with the faith community and offering sliding scale fees for mental
health services was also suggested. Another theme to emerge was the need
to increase the variety of programs available to families so they do not have
to leave the county to seek services. A suggested short term goal was to get
to program capacity by expanding and building the programs where families
need the most help and to secure the funding for staff and program
development to support every family that needs the services. Another
suggestion involved increased cooperative services—for instance by
combining Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities.
• School system: Continue to improve the relationship between the schools
and Mental Health providers and better educate teachers about the
relationship between mental health and school success in children. One
response was to focus on early childhood education in order to earlier identify
children and families with needs. Three key informants emphasized the need
for an in-county anger management specialist to work with students enrolled
in the Alternative Education Program and to develop funding to support social
education through field trips for these students. One comment was made
highlighting the importance of education in helping families work their way out
of poverty and the need to continue to help students succeed.
168
• County Leadership: Key informants made fifteen comments concerning
county leadership. Five of the fifteen responses were relating to continued
and increased funding for existing programs in the county. Seeking funding
for new programs like a Child Advocacy Center was also mentioned. Three
Key Informants commented that funding sources could better define ways to
utilize carry-over funds. Expanding latitude and flexibility to allow money to
be moved to a specified area would be helpful for the agency using the funds.
Two comments addressed monitoring county growth by looking at population
projections for the next 5-10 years at both the local and state level to factor in
service development that will be needed to meet population demands in the
future. Rapid growth of the area could deplete current resources without
adequate planning. One participant observed that current leadership of
townships is not representative of all townships’ residents, especially with
regard to the African American community. The participant suggested a
focus on development of leadership skills among members of the African
American community. Development of such skills and encouragement of
community members interested in becoming actively involved in county
leadership would build and strengthen all communities and provide role
models for African American youth.
• Collaboration/Cooperation: Three key informants noted the importance of
collaboration among agencies to prevent duplication of services, to get the
best use of the funding stream, and to not overwhelm clients. Participants
169
called for continuing to develop interagency councils that work well together
and help facilitate agency cooperation.
• Expansion of Services: Seven comments were made with suggestions for
expansion of services if and when funding becomes available. Suggestions
are listed below:
o Develop a child advocacy center with a medical component
o HIPPY program in Pocomoke
o Expand Judy Center to Berlin and Pocomoke Elementary Schools
o Create a Family Support Center that is a collaboration of services
instead of compartmentalizing separate services
What do you see as the most pressing concerns facing children and families in
Worcester County?
• Parenting/ Family Support (11)
o Parents need help with out-of-control teens (4)
o Lack of support systems for many children and families living in poverty
(3)
o Lack of quality early programs for families that can’t afford child care but
don’t meet financial criterion for Head Start (2)
o Lack of mentoring services (1)
o Health care delivery is not accessible or supportive (1)
o Some outreach services are not user friendly or easily accessible (1)
• Affordable Housing (9)
170
o Dire need for decent affordable housing for middle and lower income
families (9)
• Jobs (7)
o Lack of jobs with living wages and benefits (5)
o Stress, violence, and abuse stem from economic problems (1)
o No mechanism in place for training and preparing young people for the job
market (1)
• Transportation (4)
o Needed for work and after-school and summer activities and programs
o The cost of owning a vehicle has increased (tags, license, and insurance).
• Substance Abuse (3)
o Substance Abuse in families is generational and alcohol is just as serious
as drug use for adolescents. Many parents don’t view alcohol use as a
problem but as a rite of passage.
What do you see as (a) possible solution(s) to the above issue(s)?
• Planning (11)
o Strategic planning should address the infrastructure erosion of the current
child/family service system as well as the potential for duplication of
services and target resources to those who are the most vulnerable, the
most fragile, and the most at risk. Visionary programming, for example,
chronic homeless persons with drug and alcohol addictions first need
treatment for addictions, then job training, and finally transitional housing
171
services. They need to acquire the skills that can earn them a living wage
(2).
o Community/ family involvement in program and service planning (2)
o The county needs find funding and start new additional programs to keep
DJS kids in the community (2)
o Educate public about community services (2)
o Invest more dollars in front end services instead of waiting to invest when
at-risk populations are incarcerated
o Seek funding so that kids and seniors can participate in parks/recreation,
and YMCA free. For kids it could be free through high school. Senior
citizens would be eligible at social security age.
o Plan to access money when a need is identified but no program
established to address the issue
• Support Services (10)
o Comprehensive family support center for families that are overwhelmed
and are not sure what to do or where to go for help. Center would offer
family respite, youth drop in center, after school programming, art center,
etc. This kind of facility could offer community members opportunities to
volunteer. Many people want to help but are not sure how to.
o Find another way to help families with children who are not successful in
school (lower economic status and FARM students). The bottom line is to
help these families. Help always comes from the top and works its way
down. Try starting at the bottom to build strengths and relationships. Do
172
things to foster strength in the community and family. Bring up and build
leadership that is already part of the community. FARM and African
American students need models of success to look to. These families see
that doors are closed and decisions already are made. Feeling that they
don’t have a voice in the county fosters a sense of hopelessness. The
current system is token at best.
o Rally churches and groups like the Lions Club to help with mentoring:
need people committed for the long term with youth until they are 18. Can
make a difference
o Paid mentors given the resources (money for gas and recreational
activities) for items or services the child may need. The mentor would be a
positive role model and support person in the child’s life to show love,
concern, and a caring attitude on a continuous basis.
o More foster homes for victims of incest who have nowhere to go locally
o Treatment plans that are holistic and include education and tutoring but
these services aren’t provided. Dollars are needed for this. Families need
the service, but it is unavailable. EX: Sylvan learning center
o In DDA the family may be eligible to receive a wheelchair, but if the
resources are not available then they don’t get it.
o Funding for childcare
o People are in place to serve families and children but more dollars are
needed to expand programs
o Identify at-risk children and families earlier in the child’s life
173
• Parenting/ Family Support (6)
o Increase services to parents. Work one-on-one and go to the families’
residences to protect confidentiality (2)
o Parental accountability for their own behaviors (substance and alcohol
abuse) (2)
o Continue support to families with attention on parents as well as children
o Enhance education from pre-K through adult to create educated work
force to attract companies that will pay living wages to residents
• Transportation (3)
o Increased funding/ move carry-over funds to transportation
• Law Enforcement (3)
o Total community effort to crack down on all facets of drug use by law
enforcement, churches, and community at large (2)
identify the offenders
provide treatment services
get them employed
o Enforceable laws that dictate compulsory education attendance (1)
• Housing: (1)
o Build decent affordable housing
174
Part V - School Focus Group Data
Participants in each group were asked five topic-specific questions and then
given an opportunity to add any additional thoughts or information. The data are
arranged by question.
The first two questions are about out of school activities. What do you and your
friends do after school? What kinds of things would you like to be able to do but cannot
because of the lack of community resources or available facilities?
In every group the participants agreed that there is very little for them to do in
their communities. The following is a list of the things they stated they do:
• School related activities like playing sports, attending after school clubs or
games, and completing homework assignments
• Hang out with friends and listen to music, ride around, go to the beach, mall,
movies or YMCA, play musical instruments, talk on the telephone, and
sometimes drink
• After school job
• Eat and sleep
What would you like to do?
• Teen or recreation center for youth to hang out. Suggested activities were
play pool, video games, rock climbing wall, skate rink, indoor pool, internet
lounge, open gym
• Coffee shop/ bookstore to hang out and play games.
• Planned activities on weekends like dances or family oriented activities
• Local mall or movies
175
The next few questions are related to school. Why do you think that some
students skip school? What do you think are the main reasons why students are late
for school? What do you think schools could do to reduce absenteeism or tardiness?
Sometimes a student decides to drop out of school before he/she graduates. Why do
you think someone would decide to drop out? Do you have any suggestions to reduce
the number of drop outs?
The answers to these questions were common across all of the groups.
The following comments were made about why students skip school:
• Behind in school or failing due to grades or absences and lose motivation
• No support from home to make them come
• Boredom, lack of excitement, tired of school
• Laziness, no will power, do not care attitude
• Absences are easily excused with a parent’s note
• Better than being in school for some students
The following reasons were given concerning why students are late to school:
• Stay up late the night before doing homework, talking to friends or watching
television and then oversleep in the morning. Afternoon naps seem to
contribute to some students’ tendencies to stay up late.
• Traffic, car trouble, speeding tickets, poor driving conditions without school
delays. Bus comes early in outlying areas and if student misses it, there is no
other way to get to school
• Some parents don’t make students get up or are not home to wake them up
176
• Lack of motivation to get up, don’t feel like it, first class is boring, and school
starts too early
• Social anxiety
The following suggestions were given to reduce absenteeism and tardiness:
• Later start for school
• Offer electives in the morning or more exciting classes
• Use different teaching techniques to attract students to class
• Shorter classes and study hall options
• Encouragement
• Offer refreshments
The reasons given for why someone would drop out before graduating were:
• Teen pregnancy
• Violence
• Too many unexcused absences or poor grades which result in class failure
and loss of motivation. Student may feel hopeless, have low self esteem, and
give up on completing high school.
• No support at home, a non-caring attitude
• Lack of support in school. Student may be stereotyped, judged, and labeled.
• Tired of school drama, teasing or ridicule—may result in feeling isolated
• Some students experience poor teacher/ student relationships
• Faster to get GED
• Would rather work and earn money
• School does not apply to the real world
177
• Student focus is on other things
The following suggestions were given to reduce the number of drop outs:
• Teachers as mentors and guiding forces
• Investigate reasons for excessive absences before failing the student
• Reduce judgmental attitude from teachers, administrators, and other
students—reduce labeling
• Show students different jobs/ pay scales that can be obtained with a diploma
versus without a diploma
• Offer night classes at no charge
• Take levels out of classes
• More flexibility in classes offered. Offer career education classes.
No matter how good the school is that you go to, things could always be
improved. Can you think of anything that would help you be more successful in school?
Several common themes emerged among all group participants and some were
area-specific comments. The comments are listed below:
• Participants in all three groups expressed dissatisfaction with the school lunch
routine. Long lines consume most of the allotted time to eat lunch. Another
complaint was that the last lunch shift has less food choices than other shifts.
• Participants in all groups thought that school should be more fun
• Less crowded classrooms and smaller student/teacher ratios were suggested
by participants in all groups
• At Stephen Decatur students said that reinstating the levels in classes would
help with learning
178
• Pocomoke students commented that 90-minute classes can break a student’s
spirit; classes are boring. Some students said that 90 minutes allowed for
more teaching time and less homework because there are only four classes
in the schedule. One student commented on the need for better books and
more current technology
• Some Pocomoke and Snow Hill students said that school renovations or new
school buildings would improve learning, although some students commented
that other area schools they visit for sports activities are in far worse condition
than their school.
The next few questions are about crime committed by teenagers in your
community. What kinds of non-violent things do you hear about people your age doing
in your community? Why do you think they do it? Are you aware of violent crime in the
community committed by young people your age? If yes, why do you think they do it?
What do you think could be done to prevent juvenile crime?
Participants in every group were in agreement about the types of crimes and the
reasons crimes are committed by teenagers. The comments for all the questions are
listed below. The types of non-violent crimes committed by teenagers were:
• Vandalism: Egging cars and housing, keying cars, driving through corn fields
• Theft : clothing, electronics, money, road signs
• Harassment
• Trespassing
All groups agreed that there was not much violent crime in the county committed
by teenagers because of the small communities and the presence of police, although
179
one group said there is more violence in the summer when tourists come to Ocean City.
Some assaults are drug related. The consensus among students was that they all saw
fights in school but most were not of a serious nature. One group stated there is
potential for violence when a student is picked on and judged by teachers,
administrators, or other students.
The reasons teenagers commit nonviolent or violent crimes were seen as:
• Fun, excitement, adrenaline rush
• Boredom
• Need for money
• Stress, frustration, anger, lack of self control
• Minimal consequences if caught
• Attention seeking
• No positive role models, family problems, feeling that no one cares about
them
• Depression
• Peer Pressure
• Jealousy
• Copy what they see and hear about from the media or act out video game
scenarios
Suggestions regarding prevention of juvenile crime included:
• Mentoring
• Discontinue practice of labeling and judgment of students by teachers,
administrators, and other students
180
• Counseling
• Harsher punishments
• Prevention campaign using the phrase “Violence is not the answer”
The next questions are about drug and alcohol use by high school students. Are
you aware of any students about your age who take drugs? If yes, what are some of the
drugs and how often do they take the drugs? How easy is it for young people your age
to get drugs? Are you aware of any students about your age who drink beer or other
alcoholic beverages? If yes, what type of alcohol and how much? Why do you think
high school students drink or take drugs: What would you suggest to do to reduce teen
drug or alcohol use?
Every participant was aware of students their age who take drugs and or drink
alcohol. Both drugs and alcohol were said to be easy to get. Some teenagers use
drugs or alcohol daily while others limit use to the weekend. The most prevalent drugs
that teenagers use are:
• Weed/Marijuana
• Cocaine/crack and powder forms (becoming cheaper and more prevalent)
• Prescription drugs (pain killers)
• Cigarettes
• Huffing (computer dusters, aerosol cans, permanent markers)
A few participants knew of teenagers using heroin, ecstasy, crystal meth, or acid.
Participants stated that teenagers drink anything they can get, although the faster it gets
them drunk the better. Hard liquor (vodka was mentioned by name in three of four
groups) and beer are both easy to obtain. Many teens either steal alcohol from their
181
parents or their parents provide it in an effort to have them drink safely at home. Some
participants said that drinking alcohol is glamorized on television and is not perceived as
a bad thing to do. The most prevalent reasons given for using alcohol were that it was
fun, recreational, easy to get, and consequences were minimal if students were caught.
Other reasons given for using drugs and alcohol were:
• Family addiction
• Environment
• Curiosity/easy access
• Boredom
• Stress relief
• Peer pressure
• Depression
Suggestions to reduce teen alcohol and drug use were:
• Alternative activities like a recreation center, although some participants said
that regardless of available activities, teenagers will still drink
• Mentoring/caring adults in the lives of youth
• Counseling
• Constant interventions in high school
182
Part VI – Awareness and Adequacy of Existing Service Data
The second part of the telephone questionnaire addressed the awareness and
adequacy of services in the county. Respondents were asked if they were aware of
each of ten service areas: alcohol abuse, drug abuse, mental health for adults and
families, mental health for children, juvenile delinquency, healthy mothers, preschoolers’
preparation, parent education, domestic violence, and teen pregnancy prevention. They
were then asked to “rate [the specific service] on a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 meaning
services are not adequate to meet the community’s needs, 10 meaning they are
adequate to meet the community’s needs.”
The table below shows the results of this telephone survey.
Table 85 - Telephone Respondent’s Opinions About Awareness of County Services
Type of Service* Yes No Don’t Know * Alcohol Abuse 65.4 34.4 .2 Drug Abuse 57.6 41.7 .7 Mental Health - Adults/Families
51.9 47.4 .7
Mental Health - Children
49.9 49.0 1.1
Juvenile Delinquency
35.9 62.9 1.2
Healthy Mothers 52.1 46.1 1.8 Preschoolers Preparation
55.8 40.7 3.5
Parent Education 46.1 52.4 1.5 Domestic Violence 39.7 59.1 1.2 Teen Pregnancy Prevention
39.5 59.6 .9
*Listed in the order in which they occurred on the survey * Don’t know equals no opinion / missing data N = 371 Discussion of Awareness Findings
The strongest initial finding in the above table is that, of the ten mentioned
services, only five were known to at least fifty percent of the respondents. The best
183
known services are those most widely used in the community such as substance abuse
treatment services, mental health programs, and preschool programs. When viewing
these data, it should be noted that community forum members expressed concerns that
service delivery systems are not adequately known to county residents. These data
suggest that promotion of available services is warranted.
Unfortunately, this question was not asked in the 2002 survey, so it is impossible
to determine if there has been any change in service awareness during the past three
years.
Discussion of Adequacy Findings
What is perhaps of most concern about the above table is that no service was
seen as “adequate” or “somewhat adequate” by even half of the telephone respondents.
Table 86 - Telephone Respondent’s Opinions About Adequacy of County Services
Type of Service* Adequate Somewhat Adequate
Barely Inadequate
Not Adequate
Don’t Know *
Alcohol Abuse 6.4 16.1 11.8 4.2 61.5 Drug Abuse 7.4 17.4 11.9 7.0 56.3 Mental Health - Adults/Families 7.7 19.5 17.1 8.2 47.5
Mental Health - Children 7.5 19.0 14.6 8.6 50.3
Juvenile Delinquency 8.8 9.5 23.3 7.4 51.0
Healthy Mothers 20.0 17.2 11.9 5.3 45.6 Preschoolers Preparation 18.2 21.9 13.3 5.4 41.2
Parent Education 18.4 20.0 10.5 9.4 41.7
Domestic Violence 10.1 14.9 15.9 9.8 49.3
Teen Pregnancy Prevention 9.1 18.5 16.1 7.4 48.9
*Listed in the order in which they occurred on the survey * Don’t know equals no opinion / missing data N = 371
184
The table below shows that preschooler preparation and parents’ education
programs were the most highly rated services while those addressing juvenile
delinquency and alcohol use were seen as least adequate. Perhaps the best way to
understand these data is in comparison to the data from the 2002 Needs Assessment.
Table 87 - Telephone Respondents’ Opinions Regarding Adequacy of County Services as “Adequate” or “Somewhat Adequate”
Type of Service*
2002
2005/06
Difference
Alcohol Abuse 23.0% 20.5% -2.5% Drug Abuse 33.3% 24.8% -8.5% Mental Health - Adults/Families 25.0% 27.2% +2,2%
Mental Health - Children 22.9% 26.5% +3.6% Juvenile Delinquency 16.6% 18.3% +1.7% Healthy Mothers 27.1% 37.2% +10.1% Preschoolers Preparation 33.4% 40.1% +6.7% Parent Education 18.8% 38.4% +19.6% Domestic Violence 20.9% 25.0% +4.1% Teen Pregnancy Prevention 12.5% 27.6% +15.1%
The above table indicates that, with the exception of substance abuse services,
public opinion views all services in the county as having improved in adequacy. The
three with the greatest perceived improvement are those providing parent education,
Healthy Mothers, and teen pregnancy prevention.
185
Appendix A
Telephone Questionnaire and
Telephone Respondents Results Table
186
WORCESTER COUNTY FAMILY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY
PACE, SALISBURY UNIVERSITY, SALISBURY, MARYLAND JUNE 9, 2005
Interviewer introductory statement: Hello, my name is ________________ from Salisbury University. We are conducting a community survey that will have a direct impact on the type of services available to children and families in Worcester County. Your opinion is extremely important for a successful, complete survey. It is being conducted by Salisbury University for the Worcester County Local Management Board. Your participation is entirely voluntary and anonymous. Do you have a few minutes to participate? SCREENER: Are you a resident of Worcester County? If, YES – proceed If, NO - terminate SCREENER: For the purpose of this survey, we need to interview either the male or female head of the household. Are you a head of the household?
If, YES – proceed If, NO – ask if one is available; if not, terminate
SCREENER: Does your household include at least one child under 21 living at home? If, YES – proceed NO – terminate Interviewer instructions: It is O.K. to interview respondents who say that a son/daughter is in this age group but is away at college during most of the year. I am going to read you a list of issues that have an impact on the quality of life of children and youth. A broad range of issues will be covered such as readiness for school and teen age alcohol abuse. After I read each item, I am going to ask you to rate the degree to which you think each item is a problem in Worcester County. Rate each item on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 meaning that it is virtually NO PROBLEM, and 10 signifying an SERIOUS PROBLEM.
187
On some of these issues you may not have an opinion or know much about them so you can feel free to say “Don’t Know.” 1) The first issue is teen parenting. On a scale of 1 to 10, how large a problem is
adolescent motherhood in Worcester County? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
2) The next issue is low birth-weight babies, babies weighing less than about 5 pounds. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem are low birth-weight babies in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
3) The next issue is preschoolers entering kindergarten who are not considered ready to start school. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is preschoolers’ readiness for school in Worcester County? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview 4) The next issue is about the Maryland School Assessment test, the state’s standardized educational test. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is Worcester County school children’s performance on this test?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
188
5) The next issue is domestic violence. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is domestic violence in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview 6) The next issue is child abuse and neglect. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a
problem is child abuse and neglect in Worcester County? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
7) The next issue is High School completion. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is there in Worcester County with kids dropping out before completing high school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview 8) The next issue is chronic absenteeism from school; that is, missing 20 or more days of school a year. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is chronic school absenteeism in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
189
9) The next issue is underage drinking of alcohol. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is underage drinking in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
10) The next issue is the abuse of illegal drugs by teenagers. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is adolescent drug abuse in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
11) The next issue is about the deaths of children due to accidents, murder or
suicide. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is the death rate of children in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
12) The next issue is about the amount of nonviolent property crime committed by teenagers, that is, crimes like vehicle theft, purse snatching, and breaking and entering. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is this in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
190
13) The next issue is the amount of violent crime committed by teenagers that is
crime like assault or rape. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is violent crime committed by teenagers in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
14) The next issue concerns poverty. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is poverty for families in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
15) The next issue concerns homeless adults and children. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is homelessness for families in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
16) The next issue is about the availability of quality child care. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is the availability of quality child care in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
191
17) The next issue concerns availability of after school programs. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is the availability of after school programs that provide structured academic and/or recreational supervision in after school programs for elementary and middle school students in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
18) The next issue is about the availability of affordable housing. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is the availability of affordable housing in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
19) The next issue is about the availability of transportation. On a scale of 1 to 10, how big of a problem is the availability of transportation in Worcester County?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview 20) Thinking about all of the problems just mentioned, which one would you say is the single most important problem facing children, youth and families in Worcester County today? Or is there a problem not mentioned that you think is the most important problem? Interviewer instructions: ONLY volunteer to briefly read the previous list of problems IF this will help respondents choose the most important problem. EX: if a respondent says, “It was one of the first ones you read to me, but I don’t remember it exactly.” In this case read a few of the early issues to the respondent, just be sure that you do not influence the respondent’s choice.
96) Not Sure/Don’t know 97) No Opinion
192
1. Teen parenting 2. Low-birth weight babies 3. Preschooler readiness 4. Performance on MSA test 5. Domestic violence 6. Child abuse and neglect 7. Dropping out before completing high school 8. Chronic absenteeism from school 9. Underage drinking of alcohol 10. Abuse of illegal drugs by teenagers 11. Death of children due to accidents, murder4 or suicide 12. Nonviolent property crime 13. Violent crime 14. Poverty 15. Homeless families 16. Quality child care 17. After school programs 18. Affordable housing 19. Transportation 20. Other (open ended)
21) Can you suggest a solution to this important problem? (open ended)
Interviewer statement: Now, I have several questions regarding services for children, youth and families in Worcester County. 22) Are you aware of services for alcohol abuse in Worcester County? 1) Yes (Skip to 23A) 2) No (Skip to 24) 96) Not Sure/Don’t know (Skip to 24) 97) No Opinion (Skip to 24) 98) Refused to Answer (Skip to 24) 99) Discontinued Interview 22A) On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 meaning services are NOT ADEQUATE and 10 meaning they are ADEQUATE; how would you rate services for alcohol abuse in
193
Worcester County? Or do you feel you don’t know enough about these services to rate them? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) Don’t know enough to rate. 97) No opinion 98) Refused to answer 99) Discontinued interview 23) Are you aware of services for drug abuse in Worcester County? 1) Yes (Skip to 23A) 2) No (Skip to 24) 96) Not Sure/Don’t know (Skip to 24) 97) No Opinion (Skip to 24) 98) Refused to Answer (Skip to 24) 99) Discontinued Interview 23A) Again, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate services for drug abuse in Worcester County? Or do you feel you don’t know enough to rate them? Interviewer instructions: If you have not previously told the respondent that 1 means services are NOT adequate and 10 means they are ADEQUATE, please explain the scale at this time. Ensure that respondents understand “Don’t know enough to rate” is an acceptable response.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) Don’t know enough to rate. 97) No opinion 98) Refused to answer 99) Discontinued interview 24) Are you aware of mental health services for adults/families in Worcester County? 1) Yes (Skip to 23A) 2) No (Skip to 24) 96) Not Sure/Don’t know (Skip to 24) 97) No Opinion (Skip to 24) 98) Refused to Answer (Skip to 24) 99) Discontinued Interview 24A) Again, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate mental health services for adults/families in Worcester County? Or do you feel you don’t know enough to rate them?
194
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) Don’t know enough to rate. 97) No opinion 98) Refused to answer 99) Discontinued interview 25) Are you aware of mental health services for children in Worcester County? 1) Yes (Skip to 23A) 2) No (Skip to 24) 96) Not Sure/Don’t know (Skip to 24) 97) No Opinion (Skip to 24) 98) Refused to Answer (Skip to 24) 99) Discontinued Interview …. 25A) Again, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate mental health services for children in Worcester County? Or do you feel you don’t know enough to rate them? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) Don’t know enough to rate. 97) No opinion 98) Refused to answer 99) Discontinued interview 26) Are you aware of services for juvenile delinquents in Worcester County? 1) Yes (Skip to 23A) 2) No (Skip to 24) 96) Not Sure/Don’t know (Skip to 24) 97) No Opinion (Skip to 24) 98) Refused to Answer (Skip to 24) 99) Discontinued Interview …. 26A) Again, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate services for juvenile delinquents in Worcester County? Or do you feel you don’t know enough to rate them? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) Don’t know enough to rate. 97) No opinion 98) Refused to answer 99) Discontinued interview
195
27) Are you aware of services for healthy mothers and their newborns in Worcester County? 1) Yes (Skip to 23A) 2) No (Skip to 24) 96) Not Sure/Don’t know (Skip to 24) 97) No Opinion (Skip to 24) 98) Refused to Answer (Skip to 24) 99) Discontinued Interview …. 27A) Again, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate services for healthy mothers and their newborns in Worcester County? Or do you feel you don’t know enough to rate them? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) Don’t know enough to rate. 97) No opinion 98) Refused to answer 99) Discontinued interview 28) Are you aware of resources to prepare pre-school children for entering school? 1) Yes (Skip to 23A) 2) No (Skip to 24) 96) Not Sure/Don’t know (Skip to 24) 97) No Opinion (Skip to 24) 98) Refused to Answer (Skip to 24) 99) Discontinued Interview 28A) Again, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate resources to prepare pre-school children for entering school in Worcester County? Or do you feel you don’t know enough to rate them? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) Don’t know enough to rate. 97) No opinion 98) Refused to answer 99) Discontinued interview 29) Are you aware of parent education programs in Worcester County? 1) Yes (Skip to 23A) 2) No (Skip to 24) 96) Not Sure/Don’t know (Skip to 24)
196
97) No Opinion (Skip to 24) 98) Refused to Answer (Skip to 24) 99) Discontinued Interview 29A) Again, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate parent education programs in Worcester County? Or do you feel you don’t know enough to rate them? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) Don’t know enough to rate. 97) No opinion 98) Refused to answer 99) Discontinued interview 30) Are you aware of services for domestic violence in Worcester County? 1) Yes (Skip to 23A) 2) No (Skip to 24) 96) Not Sure/Don’t know (Skip to 24) 97) No Opinion (Skip to 24) 98) Refused to Answer (Skip to 24) 99) Discontinued Interview 30A) Again, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate services for domestic violence in Worcester County? Or do you feel you don’t know enough to rate them? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) Don’t know enough to rate. 97) No opinion 98) Refused to answer 99) Discontinued interview 31) Are you aware of services to prevent teen pregnancy in Worcester County? 1) Yes (Skip to 23A) 2) No (Skip to 24) 96) Not Sure/Don’t know (Skip to 24) 97) No Opinion (Skip to 24) 98) Refused to answer (Skip to 24) 99) Discontinued Interview 31A) Again, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate services to prevent teen pregnancy in Worcester County? Or do you feel you don’t know enough to rate them?
197
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) Don’t know enough to rate. 97) No opinion 98) Refused to answer 99) Discontinued interview 32) In general, if you or someone in your family needed any of these services, do you feel they are easily accessible to you?
1) Yes 2) No 96) Not Sure/Don’t Know 97) No Opinion
98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview Interviewer instructions: If a respondents volunteers a personal experiences concerning any of the above services, please record it here (open ended) . We’re almost finished, just another minute. The last few questions are for statistical purposes only and will assist us greatly in analyzing your responses. 34) How many children do you have under 21 years of age? 1. 1 2. 2 3. 3 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6 7. 7 8. 8+ 9. None
96) Not Sure/Don’t Know 97) No Opinion
98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview 35) Do you have any children between 1 day and 5 years old? 1. Yes (Skip to 35A) 2. No (Skip to 36)
96) Not Sure/Don’t Know
198
97) No Opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview 35A) How many? (open ended) 36) Do you have any children between 6 and 12 years old? 1. Yes … 2. No
96) Not Sure/Don’t Know 97) No Opinion
98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview 36A) How many? 37) Do you have any children between 13 and 17 years old? 1. Yes 2. No
96) Not Sure/Don’t Know 97) No Opinion
98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview 37A) How many? 38) Do you have any children between 18 and 20 years old?
1. Yes 2. No
96) Not Sure/Don’t Know 97) No Opinion
98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview 38A) How many?
199
39) Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic or Latino? 1. Yes 2. No
96) Not Sure/Don’t Know 97) No opinion 98) Refused to Answer 99) Discontinued Interview
40) Which of the following best describes you? 1. White/Caucasian 2. Black or African American 3. Native American/American Indian
4. Asian or Asian American, including Pacific Islander 5. Some other race 6. More than one race 96) Not Sure/Don’t Know
97. No opinion 98. Refused to answer 99. Discontinued interview
41) What is the primary language spoken in your household? 1. English
2. Spanish 3. Other: _(open ended)_______
42) Which of the following would best describe the structure of your household: A two-parent family, a one-parent family, or some other arrangement?
1. Two-parent family 2. One-parent family 3. Some other arrangement; explain (open ended)
43) Into which income range does your household fall?
1. $10,000 or less 2. $10,001 to $25,000 3. $25,001 to $50,000 4. $50,001 to $75,000 5. $75,001 and above
200
44) What is your zip code? __(open ended)______________________ 45) Respondent’s gender:
1. Male 2. Female
46) Interviewers initials: (open ended ??) 47) Respondent’s phone number: (open ended??) THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS SURVEY, YOU MAY CALL SALISBURY UNIVERSITY AT 1-888-543-0148, AND ASK FOR BETSY. HAVE A GOOD DAY/EVENING
201
Table 88 - Telephone Respondent Results Table
Issue*
No Problem
Somewhat of a Problem
Problem Serious Problem
Teen Parenting 16.2% 33.9% 37.7% 12.2% Low Birth-weight babies 32.1% 42.0% 22.5% 3.5%
Preschoolers’ readiness to enter school
25.3% 41.2% 24.7% 8.9%
Maryland Achievement Performance
29.0% 41.8% 18.0% 11.3%
Domestic Violence 10.2% 45.6% 31.1% 13.1%
Child Abuse and Neglect 7.7% 43.7% 36.4% 12.3%
High School Completion 28.2% 43.2% 21.9% 6.8%
Chronic Absenteeism 28.8% 42.7% 21.1% 7.5%
Underage Drinking 1.6% 17.4% 38.9% 42.1%
Adolescent Drug Use 2.9% 13.0% 50.2% 33.9%
Child Death Rate 27.2% 42.7% 20.8% 9.3%
Nonviolent Crime 22.8% 43.0% 24.7% 9.5%
Violent Crime 42.9% 33.0% 17.0% 7.2% Poverty 13.2% 38.6% 32.9% 15.3% Homelessness 23.6% 47.9% 21.2% 7.3% Child Care 21.9% 33.5% 33.4% 11.3% After School Programs 34.4% 37.4% 22.8% 5.4%
Housing 4.6% 15.7% 27.4% 52.3% Transportation 25.3% 29.4% 29.3% 16.0%
202
Appendix B
Telephone Respondent
Problem Comparison Table
2002 vs. 2005/06
203
Table 89 - Problem Comparison - 2002 vs. 2005/06
Issue* 2002 2005/06 Difference
Teen Parenting 74.9% 49.9% -25.0% Low Birth-weight babies 23.5% 26.0% +2.5% Preschoolers’ readiness to enter school 36.1% 33.6% -2.5%
Maryland Achievement Performance 38.4% 29.3% -9.1%
Domestic Violence 49.5% 44.2% -5.3% Child Abuse and Neglect 50.5% 48.7% -1.8% High School Completion 40.6% 28.7% -11.9% Chronic Absenteeism 50.5% 28.6% -21.9% Underage Drinking 82.3% 81.0% -1.3% Adolescent Drug Use 78.3% 84.1% +5.8% Child Death Rate 32.6% 30.1% -2.5% Nonviolent Crime 33.9% 34.2% +0.3% Violent Crime 21.8% 24.2% +2.4% Poverty 58.5% 48.2% -10.3% Child Care 60.4% 44.7% -15.7% After School Programs 49.0% 28.2% -20.8% Housing 54.0% 79.7% +25.7% Transportation 33.8% 45.3% +11.5%
Note: The subjects of Infant mortality and homelessness could not be compared using this table because the 2002 Telephone Survey contained a question about infant mortality which was not included in the 2005/06 Telephone Survey. Likewise, the 2005/06 Telephone Survey included a question about homelessness that was not included in the 2002 Telephone Survey.
204
Appendix C
Telephone Survey Responses
Open Ended Questions 20 and 21
205
Question 20A Qualitative Categorization What is the single most important problem?
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 362 Q_20A Lack of parent involvement in school with children 19 Q_20A Parental involvement 119 Q_20A Not proper supervision of children by parents. Children are exposed to pornography and are let out on the streets because they are home alone. 145 Q_20A Parents don't spend enough time with their children 187 Q_20A Mentorship- one on one with kids in community- too much time with
no adults present 215 Q_20A Lack of parental guidance 364 Q_20A Lack of good parenting 374 Q_20A Parents not spending enough time with their kids 361 Q_20A A lot of neglect- parents are working and kids run the streets SCHOOLS 364 Q_20A School curriculum 365 Q_20A Lack of education- kids graduating without being able to read and write 367 Q_20A Quality of education 39 Q_20A School funding 250 Q_20A Education in the middle schools 272 Q_20A Schools pass children when they are not ready to advance to the
next grade 350 Q_20A Not enough rooms in schools RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES 369 Q_20A No bicycle trails- can't safely send kids out 125 Q_20A We don't have anything like a YMCA. I would like to see more recreational things available for the children, not in a school environment. Beside the schools there aren't many other places the kids can go. I'd like to see an agency addressing all ages of
children giving them more activities. 227 Q_20A The ability for children of all ages to have something to do such as bowling or get together or what not. No outlet for socializing.
Everything in Worcester County is for the adults and nothing for the children
JOB OPPORTUNITIES 372 Q_20A Too many small minded people around here, nepotism in the job market. 113 Q_20A The problem is the people controlling the county - it's still a very 'old
boys' network. With minimum wage being $5.15 in MD, that
206
means if you want to live in Worcester County, you'll have to compete with many foreigners who are willing to work at that rate without benefits or 401k, etc. It's very hard to find positions.
290 Q_20A Large gap of rich and poor people in area VIOLENCE 370 Q_20A Violence from teenagers toward authority 371 Q_20A Violence in schools 316 Q_20A Racism. OTHER CONCERNS 4 Q_20A Housing, residents having to move on a seasonal basis. Or else
move out altogether. Big problem for kids when they constantly have to be uprooted and change schooling.
68 Q_20A Health care 172 Q_20A Trash, pick up more trash
Question 21 Qualitative Categorization Can you suggest a solution to this problem?
IMPROVED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 365 Q_21 Restructure the educational process- go back to the discipline in the
hands of parents and teachers 367 Q_21 Privatized education vouchers 369 Q_21 Raise funds for them and make them- new school buildings also 8 Q_21 Better adult education programs throughout the county. 19 Q_21 Try to have someone from schools contact parents on a more regular
basis to communicate with them and make them feel more at home coming into the schools. provide more instruction for parents. 26 Q_21 BETTER EDUCATION 49 Q_21 Build bigger schools 79 Q_21 They’re slowing the kids down by making the slower ones catch up
with the ones that perform well 105 Q_21 Teach parenting in schools or life skills instead of standardized tests.
Teach people to be mom and dads. 106 Q_21 Better education 117 Q_21 Get rid of no child left behind. 123 Q_21 I don't know how we could do anything except through education,
parents should be more vigilant. 137 Q_21 Winter time after school programs 144 Q_21 Shouldn’t be standardized test, schools not good enough, need to
have better types of families moving into the area. 191 Q_21 Better education of alcoholism
207
204 Q_21 Better programs in the school, 229 Q_21 Education 237 Q_21 Government run head start program, we need 252 Q_21 Alternative forms of recreation for kids and continue drug awareness in school and after school programs 261 Q_21 To do not teach for test only 272 Q_21 If not ready they should either be tutored during the summer or
remain in the same grade another year 293 Q_21 Give more after-school programs 350 Q_21 Build bigger schools or stop building so many houses so less
people come! or pay a fee towards schools when moving in 362 Q_21 Qualified staff 366 Q_21 Expand programs they have for preschoolers in the area. More
programs or broader programs. HIPPY -- In home teaching for parents 377 Q_21 Stronger focus on education 365 Q_21 Open a center that is priced affordable INCREASED PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 370 Q_21 More parent involvement in children's lives 25 Q_21 I think that whether or not they're low-income, people need to care.
They need to care for their children. As a parent, your children are your sole responsibility. There are lots of activities these children can get involved with. Parents need to use these resources, they need to educate themselves.
50 Q_21 More parental involvement 70 Q_21 Lack of caring by adults 114 Q_21 Parents need to watch their kids more closely, because nowadays
parents let them run, and then when parents try to correct them, they get criticized by the county for correcting their children, so you have no choice but to let your children run.
115 Q_21 More policies in the county to hold parents accountable for children’s attendance.
118 Q_21 They need more help 119 Q_21 More supervision and involvement. 121 Q_21 Maybe more parental involvement. 122 Q_21 For families to stay together and be there for their children and stay
together as families 179 Q_21 Children/teenagers need to be better supervised 180 Q_21 Greater awareness and parental involvement 182 Q_21 Parents should get involved in what their kids are doing 188 Q_21 More parent involvement in children's lives and what they are doing 190 Q_21 More neglect- latchkey kids- more after school programs in other
areas of county 208 Q_21 Parents should be more responsible for their children
208
209 Q_21 More checking of kids 222 Q_21 Parents are not around to supervise children 227 Q_21 Not sure what to suggest. Should have a social hall for children
with parental guidance. 280 Q_21 More parent involvement 358 Q_21 Better supervision of children/teens 364 Q_21 Emergence of more two family households. less divorce. church.
return to values. personal responsibilities 371 Q_21 Parents should start paying more attention to their kids and what
they bring to school and their children's social life with others 374 Q_21 Spend more time with their kids 103 Q_21 Tougher on them about dropping out 278 Q_21 Being involved in children’s lives and be there for them say and
were more involved 347 Q_21 More supervision 361 Q_21 Lower of prices of other things so one parent can be home 210 Q_21 More family time, more time with school and friends AFFORDABLE HOUSING 368 Q_21 There has to be better addressing of the growth of the county as far
as real estate development goes because real estate development is driven by market situations where people develop property because they want to make a lot of money, then that drives taxes up and families who have been here for years are no longer able to live where they have lived
1 Q_21 More temporary housing availability. 15 Q_21 Property values are too high, cant work here and live here 33 Q_21 Government has to step in and subsidize places 45 Q_21 Income level available for this community not consistent with price
of housing, lower housing prices or higher wages 92 Q_21 Property tax, too high for young people 102 Q_21 Build more and make cities like Snow Hill and inland housing more
desirable with more services. recreation, shopping, medical services, transportation
112 Q_21 To put a hold to the skyrocketing property values, but I don't know how you would go about it. I know that if I didn't buy my house 15 years ago, I wouldn't be able to afford it today
124 Q_21 Build a neighborhood with affordable houses instead of trying to cater to retiree baby boomers like Riddle Farm.
155 Q_21 Government subsidized housing can’t get out of 168 Q_21 Build more houses for low income people, people who are on
disability. 207 Q_21 Cheaper rent 249 Q_21 Federally subsidized housing like in cities or programs to help
people buy their own homes
209
274 Q_21 More subsidized housing 363 Q_21 Developments that is not expensive 13 Q_21 Build houses for low income people 101 Q_21 Bring the taxes down on land and the prices and taxes of houses JOB OPPORTUNITIES 372 Q_21 Try to be more professional in the work place, how to treat employees 39 Q_21 Not enough money 51 Q_21 Hard to be a young parent and not make enough money to live in the
county 53 Q_21 Lower taxes 63 Q_21 Jobs 77 Q_21 Not enough money to go around 113 Q_21 If we had big companies / industry, you'll be able to land a job working
for one of them, a big company that can support a decent income around here. Without the companies, you're forced to work in the service industry around here - you're working for tips and minimum wage.
120 Q_21 I think we just need more jobs available and affordable housing. 141 Q_21 Less taxes 236 Q_21 Market is going crazy 242 Q_21 The government needs to spend money different ways 244 Q_21 Not enough high paying jobs, more people should be working with the
schools 290 Q_21 Bring more jobs to area for everyone!! 291 Q_21 More jobs and lower prices 351 Q_21 Higher paying jobs in the area 370 Q_21 Need more DRUG AND ALCOHOL ENFORCEMENT 378 Q_21 Something more than alcohol citations 2 Q_21 I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and maybe more
education. 3 Q_21 More deputy sheriffs, more patrolmen. That would probably be the
easiest way, because programs can come from that. 18 Q_21 I don’t think kids are trained long enough to get a car license and drinking along with that is a problem. They really ought to give bigger
sentences to those caught with it. 52 Q_21 Too many people coming into the county, to many people using drugs who aren't working and should be. People should be taken off street or pay fine that have a problem. More young people should go
to school, or go to work. 76 Q_21 More police 183 Q_21 Tougher penalties 203 Q_21 When kids get caught, they should get in trouble so bad they never
want to get in trouble again.
210
315 Q_21 Regulate the sale of alcohol. 372 Q_21 Drug and alcohol- more counseling, stricter laws for violators and
repeat offenders 371 Q_21 Drug testing in schools 9 Q_21 I think the parents need to drink less. 257 Q_21 Increase the police force but other than that don’t know 349 Q_21 Keep carding IMPROVED RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS 379 Q_21 Not enough ice skating rings 54 Q_21 More churches for after school programs, more facilities 125 Q_21 Building facilities to provide this. 200 Q_21 Harder punishments other than situations, teach children better
values, and more activities, better transportation after school to get to activities.
231 Q_21 More involvement with churches 253 Q_21 Kids don't have anything to do- needs clubs to keep them entertained
after school other than sports 317 Q_21 If there was something for them to do in Pocomoke. 186 Q_21 More activities to keep the teens busy- more things to offer 185 Q_21 No transportation home after programs IMPROVED CHILD CARE 366 Q_21 Have a county daycare for Worcester county- cut down the price on
daycare 20 Q_21 BETTER CHILD CARE AND BETTER JOBS 178 Q_21 Can't get child into day care
211
Appendix D
Results Table
Community Forum Data
212
Table 90 - Community Forum Results Table
Concerns Snow Hill
Pocomoke Ocean Pines
Total
Domestic Violence 11 11 Community centeredness/divided communities
1
9
10
Latchkey children 10 10 Lack of recreational activities 1 8 9 Substance Abuse 4 4 8 Delivery of services 5 3 8 Accountability 5 2 7 Value system of children and families
5
2
7
Affordable housing 3 4 7 Support for families 7 7 Lack of daily living skills 7 7 Awareness of available services 6 6 School age mental health 6 6 Children not receiving spiritual guidance
5
5
Poverty 4 4 Transportation 2 2 4 Comprehensive physical health/dental for children
1
3
4
Lack of resilience in youth 4 4 Communication 2 1 3 Career opportunities 3 3 Systemic change 2 2 Juvenile Delinquency 2 2 Self confidence deficit 2 2 Develop leadership that is knowledgeable and representative
2
2
Access to services 1 1 Early education for families 1 1
213
