|

Sevca.org

Hardship Persists Among Windham and Windsor County
Residents with Lower Incomes—
Findings from SEVCA's Community Assessment
November 2015
Approved by SEVCA Board of Directors on November 17, 2015
Acknowledgements

Community Assessment developed and overseen by SEVCA Strategic Planning Committee:
Stephen Geller, Executive Director
Becky Himlin, Planning and Development Director
Kathryn Poston, Board Secretary
Donald Skekel, Board member
Linda Brooks, Executive Assistant
Thomas Clews, Finance Director
Judy Trow, Accounts Payable Administrator
Pat Burke, Family Services Director
Elizabeth McEwen, Family Services Worker
Denise Mason, Economic Development Director
Karen Woodcock, IDA/Financial Fitness Coordinator
Harald Schmidtke, Weatherization Director
Chip Sullivan, Weatherization Chief Energy Auditor
Lori Canfield, Head Start Director
Barbara Vandenburgh, Head Start Family/Community/Mental Health Manager
Analysis and write-up by: Becky Himlin, Director of Planning and Development, with assistance from
Melanie Jennings, Data Analysis Intern

Data entry by: Ayanda Himlin-Mayekiso, Sue Barnett, Amanda Sabo, and Melissa Richmond
Hardship Persists Among Windham and Windsor County
Residents with Lower Incomes—
Findings from SEVCA's Community Assessment

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary / Key Findings of the Community Assessment…………………………………….3
3. Demographics of Service Area and SEVCA Client Survey Respondents……………………………….9 5. Housing / Homelessness / Energy………………………………………………………………………………….15 10. Financial Capability and Asset Development…………………………………………………………….30 11. Other Issues (Advocacy / Empowerment, Basic necessities, Accessibility)………………….…….33 12. Organizational Capacity Building and Service Coordination……………………………………….…….36
Appendices
A. Copy of Client Survey instrument
B. Copy of Community Partner Survey instrument C. Copy of Staff Survey instrument D. Data tables for Client Survey List of Graphs and Tables
Table 1. "Top 5" Choices Overall (Staff and Community Partner Surveys)
Table 2. Categories Ordered (Staff and Community Partner Surveys)
Table 3. Staff Survey—Organizational Capacity Building "Top 5" Choices Overall

Graph 1. Top 5 Choices—Staff and Community Partner Comparison
Graph 2. Public Benefits Received by Respondents
Graph 3. Age Range of Respondents
Graph 4. Household Type of Respondents
Graph 5. Employment Issues
Graph 6. Main reason for not getting / keeping job
Graph 7. Jobs / Workforce / Economic Development— Staff / Community Partner Priorities
Graph 8. Housing Issues
Graph 9. What would you save money for?
Graph 10. Housing / Homelessness / Energy— Staff / Community Partner Priorities
Graph 11. Health and Mental Health
Graph 12. Health and Mental Health-- Staff / Community Partner Priorities
Graph 13. Transportation Issues
Graph 14. Main reason for transportation problems
Graph 15. Transportation— Staff / Community Partner Priorities
Graph 16. Child Care Issues
Graph 17. Child / Youth Development— Staff / Community Partner Priorities
Graph 18. Food and Nutrition—Staff / Community Partner Priorities
Graph 19. Finances
Graph 20. Challenges to becoming financially stable
Graph 21. Asset Development—Staff / Community Partner Priorities
Graph 22. Community Involvement
Graph 23. Advocacy and Empowerment
Graph 24. Basic Necessities / Other
Graph 25. Accessibility
Graph 26. Collaboration / Coordination of Services
Graph 27. Training / Skill-Building
Graph 28. Community Visibility / Presence / Awareness
Graph 29. Internal Agency Systems and Infrastructure
1. Executive Summary / Key Findings of the Community Assessment
Southeastern Vermont Community Action (SEVCA) was created in 1965 as a part of the nationwide "War on Poverty" and chartered as a Community Action Agency (CAA), designated by local, state, and federal officials as the "anti-poverty agency" serving Windsor and Windham counties. Each year, SEVCA serves 5,000 or more households comprising over 10,000 individuals with lower incomes through a variety of programs designed to meet the needs of households struggling with immediate crises and/or seeking to stabilize and improve their lives. The agency offers a wide array of programs and initiatives addressing a diverse range of poverty-related needs in the areas of crisis intervention, homelessness prevention, home repair, energy conservation, business startup and support, workforce development, education and skills training, early childhood development, family support and stabilization, food and nutrition, affordable clothing / household needs, financial fitness education, tax preparation assistance, income budgeting / savings, information and referral, service coordination, and disaster recovery. SEVCA undertook this Community Assessment in order to better understand and document some of the major challenges that people with lower incomes face in Windham and Windsor counties. As a CAA, SEVCA conducts such an assessment every three years to help inform the organization's Strategic Plan. This year, SEVCA's Community Assessment included conducting three surveys—a Client Survey of the area's low-income population, a Community Partner Survey of organizations in the community that have insight into the needs of this population, and a Staff Survey to gather staff and Board feedback on community needs and ways to strengthen SEVCA's organizational capacity. We also reviewed a variety of secondary data sources to gain further evidence as to the extent and severity of the challenges facing low–income residents; this is discussed in the main body of this report. This Executive Summary will focus on the results of the surveys we conducted directly. Client Survey. SEVCA distributed the survey to over 1,200 people who use our services, and also asked
various other community organizations to help distribute the survey to their clients. 351 lower-income
residents responded. The results portray a troubling picture of the difficulties so many of our neighbors face
as they struggle to make ends meet. While the survey is not necessarily representative of the low-income
population as a whole, it does offer some valuable insights into their experiences and their causes and
effects. Highlights include the following:
 Households with lower incomes struggle just to meet their basic needs. 64% of those surveyed said
their household income is not enough to meet their family's basic needs (i.e. food, shelter, clothing,
medical care, etc.). 69% said they have had to borrow money or use their credit cards just to pay for their
basic needs.
 Chronic lack of adequate income or even a period of financial stress can lead to a debt trap for many
lower-income households. 60% of survey respondents said they can't afford the monthly payments on
their debt, and 68% said they can't get credit or have bad credit. Only 17% of those surveyed said they
are able to save money regularly.
 Few opportunities other than low-wage work are available to this population. Among lower-income
workers surveyed, 85% said that most of the jobs they can get don't pay well, and 85% said they and/or
their partner had to work more than 40 hours/week just to pay the bills.
 More education and/or training is needed to help households move out of poverty. 66% of
respondents said they need more education or training to get a better job, and 79% of this group said
they are not able to afford the education or training program they need. 50% said they would like to
start a business but need more support and training.
 Lack of transportation and lack of affordable child care are common employment barriers. 43% of
respondents said they had trouble getting or keeping a job due to problems with transportation, and
34% had trouble getting or keeping a job because they could not find affordable child care. In general,
71% of respondents said that public transportation does not go where they need to go at the times they
need it, and 69% of those with a car said they had a hard time maintaining it.
 Many people in lower-income households are no longer able to work. A large proportion of those we
surveyed were disabled and unable to work (28%) and/or retired (20%) and on fixed incomes.
 Housing costs represent one of the most persistent barriers to sustainability for low-income
households. 86% of respondents agreed that it is hard to find affordable, safe housing in their area, and
68% said that they have a hard time paying their rent and/or mortgage. 40% said they are behind in their
rent or mortgage payments, and are therefore at risk of homelessness. Housing subsidies are scarce:
only 12% of those surveyed had rental assistance or lived in affordable housing.
 Housing quality is also a concern, with 80% of lower-income homeowners surveyed saying that their
home needs major repairs but they can't afford them. 68% of all respondents said that their home or
apartment was cold in the winter and/or not insulated well.

 Most lower income households have trouble making ends meet despite receiving at least some public
benefits. For example, 80% of survey respondents received 3SquaresVT (Food Stamps), yet 60% of those
surveyed said they sometimes skip meals to save money on food, one of the indicators of food
insecurity. 28% said they don't have enough nutritious food to feed themselves and their families.

 Lack of access to dental care emerged as a major issue among the households surveyed, with 66%
saying that they have a hard time finding dentists that take their insurance. In comparison, only 19% said
they had a hard time finding doctors that take their insurance. 63% of the respondents indicated they
had Medicaid / Dr. Dinosaur, 36% had Medicare, and 18% had a VT Health Connect medical plan.

 Mental health is also a significant concern for many lower-income households. Sometimes poor
mental health is a contributing factor to a household being in poverty, and other times the stresses of
living in poverty are at the root of the mental health problems experienced. 58% of survey respondents
say they or someone in their family needs help with a problem like depression, anxiety / stress, or other
mental health issue.

Community Partner Survey. SEVCA's Community Assessment included a survey of a diverse set of
organizations throughout Windham and Windsor counties, seeking their perspectives on community needs.
91 people responded. Respondents were asked to choose the three highest priority community needs
among a range of options listed for each of eleven categories: Jobs / Workforce / Economic Development;
Health; Housing; Child / Youth development; Transportation; Food / Nutrition / Hunger; Collaboration /
Coordination; Advocacy / Empowerment, Asset Development, Accessibility, and Other Basic Necessities.
They were then asked to choose their "Top 5 Overall" priorities from among all the priorities they identified.
The most commonly chosen priority needs, in order, were:
1) Maintain / increase safe, affordable housing 2) Livable wage / good benefit jobs 3) Accessible and affordable dental care for all 4) Alcohol / substance abuse counseling / treatment 5) Public transportation (general) 6) Mental health counseling / treatment 7) Accessible and affordable health care for all 8) Childcare affordability 9) Job creation 10) Homelessness prevention / Housing stabilization Staff Survey. Staff and Board members completed the same set of questions on community needs that were
asked on the Community Partner survey. 66 people responded. Most of the priority items chosen were the
same, though ordered differently. When you consider that there were almost 100 different priorities to
choose from, the level of similarity between the two groups is quite remarkable. The most commonly
chosen "Top 5 Overall" priority needs among this group, in order, were:
1) Maintain / increase safe, affordable housing 2) Livable wage / good benefit jobs 3) Accessible and affordable health care for all 4) Alcohol / substance abuse counseling / treatment 5) Public transportation (general) 6) Accessible and affordable dental care for all 7) Childcare affordability 8) Affordable, nutritious food 9) Homelessness prevention / Housing stabilization 10) Mental health counseling / treatment 11) Public transportation to get to work The Staff Survey included another set of questions related to Organizational Capacity Building. Three main topics were considered: Training / Skill-building; Community Visibility / Presence / Awareness; and Internal Agency Systems and Infrastructure. Similarly to the questions on community needs, staff and Board respondents were asked to choose their top three priorities from among a list of choices for each topic, and then were asked to name their "Top 5 Overall" priorities from among all possible choices. The most commonly chosen priorities, in order, were: 1) Move toward livable wages / benefits for all staff 2) Technology / computer skills training 3) Expand collaboration and service integration among SEVCA's programs 4) Implement agency-wide intake / database system 5) Expand / enhance use of website and social media 6) Increase availability of services in the community 7) Initiate / expand inter-agency collaboration and service integration 8) Training in de-escalation of volatile situations 2. Background and Methodology
a. Overview of strategic planning process. SEVCA's strategic planning process began towards the end of
2014 with brainstorming sessions held with the Board, the Program Directors Team (PDT) (senior
management / department heads), and at an All Staff meeting. These meetings focused on a series of
questions designed to unearth ongoing and emerging issues related to community needs as well as
reflections on internal capacity. We then convened a Strategic Planning Committee with representation
from all three groups and began to design a Theory of Change about the root causes of and ways to address
poverty. The committee then began planning a Community Assessment and formed three subcommittees,
each of which was tasked to design a survey for a designated target group: 1) SEVCA program participants /
clients; 2) Community Partners (service providers, government departments, and businesses related to
SEVCA's work); and 3) Staff and Board members. We incorporated questions related to the key issues we
learned about in the initial brainstorming sessions as well as subsequent discussions into these survey tools
(See Appendix A-C for survey instruments). Analysis of the primary data collected through these surveys
forms the basis of the Community Assessment. We also incorporated information from secondary data
sources (data collected and analyzed by the Census, other government agencies, and researchers) to further
document community needs in our service area. We then worked with our Board, the Strategic Planning
Committee, and the PDT to sort through the information gathered, and develop and prioritize strategies and
action steps based on the findings of the Community Assessment. This is laid out in a separate document.
b. Primary data collection methodology. For each survey, paper copies as well as electronic surveys were
made available to potential respondents. (See Appendix A-C for copies of the surveys; also see Appendix D
for data tables with the responses to each question.)The survey instrument and the distribution method
differed for each target group.
 Client Survey. This survey focused on self-reported experiences and needs of SEVCA's primary target
group: households with lower incomes. In an effort to get as many surveys as possible, SEVCA sent out a mailing to around 1,200 recent clients (most had been assisted within the past year) of the Crisis Fuel, Weatherization and Economic Development programs. The mailing included a copy of the survey, a postage-paid business reply envelope, and a form to fill out to participate in a raffle to win one of four gift cards (valued at $100, $50, and two at $25). SEVCA's Head Start program (for Windsor County) distributed the survey at parent meetings held during April, and we also distributed it to Windham County Head Start parents at a parent meeting hosted at our office. SEVCA staff were asked to distribute the survey to current clients, and a box was available at the front desk for completed surveys. We also sent e-mails asking many of our partner organizations to distribute the survey, and advertised the survey link in our electronic newsletter as well. The survey link was also available on our website, with a description of the purpose and target group for the survey. We received 351 surveys before our deadline in mid-July; most of these were hard copies sent back to us through the mail, predominantly by SEVCA clients. Fewer than 10 electronic responses were received.  Community Partner Survey. This survey focused on respondents' views of the highest priority
community needs. SEVCA had e-mail contact information for several hundred organizations throughout our service area, and Subcommittee members made efforts to get more contact information to broaden the range of groups to which we could distribute the survey. Types of organizations represented included nonprofits; faith-based organizations; local, state, and federal government offices; fuel dealers, landlords and other for-profit businesses; consortiums (human service as well as business-related, i.e. Chambers of Commerce); financial institutions; low-income housing providers / consortiums; school districts; post-secondary institutions; child care providers, and health service providers. We contacted most through email, but physically mailed around 100 surveys. We received 91 responses, primarily through the electronic survey, by the deadline.  Staff Survey. This survey focused on respondents' views of the highest priority community needs (in the
same format as the Community Partner survey) as well as internal needs including training, service coordination, organizational visibility, and internal systems / structures. It was sent to SEVCA's staff e-mail list. For those staff without a work e-mail account, Program Directors were asked to distribute a hard copy or to arrange for a computer to be available for staff to complete the survey. SEVCA's Board members were also invited to complete this survey. 58 responses were received prior to our early-August deadline. Since most Head Start staff were not yet back to work from the program's summer break, we provided an opportunity in late August through mid-September for these staff to respond; we received another eight surveys for a total of 66 respondents. c. Notes on interpreting the data.
 Client Survey. For each major issue addressed in the survey (Employment, Housing, etc.), respondent
were asked to choose one answer for each of several related questions—either Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Don't Know/Doesn't Apply to me. The main chart for each issue summarizes those responses, with percentages calculated after excluding those who indicated Don't Know/Doesn't Apply or didn't answer the question. This was done so that the percentages calculated for each question were more comparable to one another. Some questions--for example, about Public Benefits received-- allowed more than one response per question. Respondents chose multiple responses if they had multiple benefits. Percentages were calculated for each option; e.g., 80% of all respondents indicated they had 3Squares Benefits, 79% of all respondents said they had Fuel Assistance, etc. Some of the questions asked respondents to write in the answer. We analyzed those questions by grouping the responses into categories and making a pie chart based on all of the responses. Note that many people did not write in any responses to the open-ended questions, and the charts only include those who did so.  Staff & Community Partner Surveys. Many, but not all, of the same issues in the Client Survey were
covered in these surveys. The way that the questions were asked was quite different, and involved a prioritization of observed / perceived community needs. A number of possible community needs were listed for each topic / issue category, and respondents were asked to choose the three that they felt were most important. The graphs of the results shows the percentage of Staff and Community Partners that chose each community need as one of their top three priorities. These graphs appear in the relevant section in the main body of this report. Respondents were also asked to choose their "Top 5 Overall" items from all of the choices within all of the categories. The choices that the most people included in their Top 5 are listed in Table 1, "Top 5 Choices Overall," with the number of people who chose each item shown next to it. The graph, "Staff and Community Partner Comparison," displays those top choices as a percentage of all Staff and Community Partner respondents. Table 2, entitled Categories Ordered, shows ALL the responses to the "Top 5 Overall" question by category of need (e.g., Health, Housing, Employment) and calculates the percentage by dividing each category by the total number of responses. We make reference to these tables throughout this document, wherever we mention "Top 5 Overall" results. Table 1. "TOP 5" CHOICES OVERALL
nity Partners
Maintain / increase safe, affordable Maintain / increase safe, affordable apartments (incl. 'Affordable housing' apartments (incl. 'Affordable housing' Livable wage / Good benefit jobs Livable wage / Good benefit jobs Alcohol / substance abuse counseling Accessible & affordable dental care for all / treatmentAccessible & affordable health care for Alcohol / substance abuse counseling / Public/ transportation for everyone Public/ transportation for everyone Accessible & affordable dental care for Mental health counseling / treatment Childcare affordability Accessible & affordable health care for all Affordable, nutritious food Childcare affordability Homelessness prevention / Housing Homelessness prevention / Housing Mental health counseling / treatment Public transportation to get to work Graph 1. Top 5 Choices--Staff and Community Partner
Comparison
Maintain / increase safe, affordable apartments (incl.… Livable wage / Good benefit jobs Alcohol / substance abuse counseling / treatment Accessible & affordable health care for all Public/ transportation for everyone Accessible & affordable dental care for all Childcare affordability Affordable, nutritious food Homelessness prevention / Housing stabilization Mental health counseling / treatment Public transportation to get to work Table 2. CATEGORIES ORDERED
Community Partners
Child/youth development Child/youth development Basic necessities / other Asset development Asset development Basic necessities / other Combined Staff and Community Partners
Child/youth development Basic necessities / other Asset development The Staff Survey questions related to Organizational Capacity Building were calculated similarly. Within each category, the percentage of staff that chose each item as one of their top three choices is shown. For example, in the Training / Skill Building category, 38.4% of the staff respondents chose training in Leadership / management as one of their top three choices (see Graph 26 in the Organizational Capacity Building and Service Coordination section). Table 3, ‘Top 5 Priorities Overall,' shows the most popular items and the number of staff who chose each one to be among their highest priorities.
3. Demographics of SEVCA's service area and Client Survey respondents.1
a. SEVCA's service area. SEVCA serves the low-income population of Windham and Windsor counties. This
area is quite rural, and each county has lower population densities (56.7 and 58.5 persons per square mile
respectively) than that of the state (67.9 p/m2). In the 1,760 square-mile area of both of these Vermont
counties, there are no "micropolitan" areas – the closest ones are in adjacent areas of New Hampshire. In
the two counties, only one town had a population over 10,000 (Brattleboro – 12,046) according to 2010
Census data; however, Hartford and Springfield both had over 9,000 residents. According to 2009-13
estimates (American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau), the two counties had an estimated combined
population of 98,178 (Windham: 42,812 and Windsor: 55,366). Of these, an estimated 11,014 (Windham:
5,306 (12.4%) and Windsor: 5,708 (10.3%)) live below the poverty line. Many more have income inadequate
to meet their needs. 33% of all people in Windham County and 27% in Windsor County live in households
with incomes less than 200% of the poverty level. The median household income was $50,234 and $52,460
for Windham & Windsor counties respectively, compared to $54,267 for Vermont overall. Although recent
data show that Vermont is becoming increasingly ethnically and racially diverse, it remains a state with an
overwhelmingly white, non-Hispanic population – 93.8% compared to 62.6% for the U.S. This holds true for
both Windham (95%) and Windsor (96%) counties. Vermont's most notable demographic trend is the aging
of its population, which is even more accelerated in SEVCA's service area. The Census Bureau estimates
Windham County's 2013 over-65 population at 17.1% and Windsor County's at 18.3% compared to 15.3%
for the state and 13.4% for the U.S. as a whole.
b. Characteristics of Client Survey respondents. The survey was well-targeted; almost all respondents
received one or more public services and/or had low incomes. The median monthly income of the sample
was $1,219 (with 277 responses, or about 80% of all respondents reporting income). The median income for
renters with housing subsidies was $785, for renters without subsidies, $1,341, and for homeowners,
$1,290. As shown in the graph below, about 80% of respondents either are currently or had in recent years
received 3SquaresVT, and about the same received Fuel Assistance. 63% had Medicaid and 36% had
Medicare.
Graph 2. Public Benefits Received by
Respondents
3SquaresVT (food stamps) Medicaid/Dr. Dinosaur VT Health Connect medical plan Child care subsidy or voucher Head Start or Early Head Start Rental subsidy (ex. Section 8, public housing) Unemployment Benefits 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% The racial composition of the respondents was close to that of our area as a whole, with 4.5% reporting another race besides Caucasian; thus, 95.5% reported Caucasian only, comparable to that of the service area. The ages of the respondents ranged from age 20 all the way up to 95. The age distribution was fairly close to the distribution in our area's population as a whole, based on the population aged 20 and above (since we did not survey teens and children). The majority of our sample was aged 50 and above (53%), compared to 55-56% in Windham and Windsor county as a whole. 40-49 year-olds were slightly under-represented in our sample (14%), compared to about 18% of the population as a whole, and 30-39 year-olds were slightly over-represented (21%), compared to about 14% in the population as a whole. Graph 3. Age Range of Respondents
The household type with the greatest representation in our sample was a single person living alone, with 38% in this category. This particular population group was over-represented in our sample when compared to the percentage of those households in our service area—32% in Windham County and 30% in Windsor County. The high percentage of disabled people among our respondents (36%) is likely a contributing factor to this. There was a higher proportion of single-parent households among our respondents—18%, versus 8% in our service area's population as a whole; however, single-parent families are much more likely to have low incomes, so this is expected. Our sample also had a higher proportion of two-parent families with children –20%, versus 15% in the area's population, and a much lower proportion of people who are married without children—only 10% versus their representation in the population of 33%. Essentially, the differences between the sample and our area's population can best be explained by the differences in the populations most affected by poverty. Graph 4. Household Type of Respondents
Single person, no children Two parent family with children Single parent family with children Married, no children 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 4. Employment Barriers
a. Participant/Client Survey results. The survey sample was heavily dominated by people who indicated
they were disabled and unable to work (30%), or retired (19%). This accounts for the lower number of
respondents to the Employment section than to most other sections (192 was the highest number of
respondents to any question in this section). 16% said they were employed full-time, 16% were employed
part-time, 13% were unemployed (but only 6% said they had received unemployment benefits), and 6%
were disabled and able to work. (Please note that the respondent was able to choose more than one
answer; e.g., employed part-time and disabled and able to work.)
The survey provided evidence of employment constraints and hardship faced by these low-income respondents. 85% said that they or their spouse/partner has to work more than 40 hours/week just to pay the bills. 85% also agreed with the statement that most of the jobs I can get don't pay well, and 77% agreed that there are not enough jobs available. The results also indicated various barriers to employment that a large number of participants face. Foremost amongst these is the lack of sufficient education and training. 66% said they needed more education and/or training to get a good or better job, and 79% said they can't afford to pay for the education and/or training they need. 43% indicated that lack of transportation was a barrier to finding or keeping a job, and 34% indicated that finding affordable child care was a barrier for them. A fairly high proportion (51%) wanted support and/or training to help them start a business, and 39% say they need help finding a job. Graph 5. Employment Issues
I or my spouse/partner has to work more than 40 hours/week just to pay the bills Most of the jobs I can get don't pay well I can't afford to pay for the education or training program I There are not enough jobs available I need more education or training to get a good job or a better I would like to start my own business, but need help or training to get me started I have trouble finding or keeping a job because of problems with transportation I need help finding a job I have a hard time getting or keeping a job because I can't find affordable child care I feel I have been discriminated against when applying for jobs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Strongly disagree When asked for details about their employment difficulties, (i.e., What is the main reason you have had problems getting or keeping a job?) respondents cited their Disability (17%), Transportation (17%), Age (15%), Overall Health (13%), Stress / Mental Health (10%), and Child Care (9%). Many respondents (30%) felt they had been discriminated against when looking for work, citing their age, disability, or health status as major reasons for that discrimination. Not surprisingly, 45% of respondents indicated that their greatest challenge in becoming financially stable was Lack of Employment / Income. Graph 6. Main reason for not
getting/keeping job

b. Community Partner and Staff Survey results. Livable wage/good benefit jobs was the second highest
priority community need identified in both the Community Partner and Staff surveys in response to the
question about overall Top 5 Priority Needs (Table 1). Within the Jobs / Workforce / Economic Development
category (Graph 7, below), Livable wage / Good benefit jobs was most frequently chosen by both groups,
followed by Building a strong economy and Job readiness / life & workplace skills.
Graph 7. Jobs/ Workforce/ Economic Development--
Staff/Community Partner Priorities
Livable wage / Good benefit jobs Building a strong local economy Job readiness / life & workplace skills Job training/education Equal access / pay / opportunities for all Job retention: work supports & interventions Access to good jobs for people with disabilities 13.6% 10.1% Locally-driven community development Small business startup / support 10.6% 4.4% Job search support 7.5% 14.6% Don't know/ no opinion 100% 120% 140% 160%
c. Findings from secondary sources. A number of respected studies have provided ample evidence that
poverty is not associated solely with being unemployed or on welfare, and that working, even full time,
doesn't at all guarantee a way out of poverty. Adults receiving TANF represent less than 20% of all those in
poverty. Over 70% of low-income families – 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) – and half of all poor
families (100% of FPL) are working; they are just not earning enough to meet their basic needs.2 And the
problem has been steadily growing. Since 1987, the number of people in the workforce grew by almost
30%, but those working and living in poverty grew by more than 65%.3 Most American workers aren't
reaping the benefits of their increasing productivity; instead, the wealthiest Americans are earning an
increasing share of the pie. While productivity increased 76% in the U.S. between 1979 and 2013, wages
only increased 11%; in Vermont, productivity increased by over 84% during the same period, compared to a
34% increase in wages.4 In Vermont, as in the rest of the U.S., this has resulted in increasing income
disparity, so that the share of income going to the top 1% of Vermont taxpayers more than tripled since
1980, standing at 15% of all income earned in 2012.
Current and short-term future economic conditions are not encouraging as they relate to un- and underemployment and to the prospect for the ‘working poor' to earn enough to make ends meet. The
Vermont economy, impacted by the same structural economic problems operating at the national level, is
still at risk. Tax revenue continues to be lower than expected, hundreds of state jobs have been eliminated,
vital programs have been cut and continue to be cut, and prospects for improvement are uncertain at best.
Many companies are still downsizing or closing, and when that happens, the most recently hired – often the
working poor – are the first to be laid off. This leaves many individuals unemployed and challenged to re-
enter the workforce. Employment opportunities continue to be limited, especially in the most rural areas. A
little-publicized fact of the "recovery" from the Great Recession is that, although unemployment rates had
declined to pre-recessionary levels (4.4%) by 2013, there were many fewer people employed than before
the recession—from 2009-2013, 9,400 people left Vermont's unemployment lines, but employment rose by
just 1,100 jobBy the broadest measure – including discouraged workers and part-time workers who
would rather be working full-time – actual unemployment was more than double the official unemployment
rate.
One of the more distressing economic trends in Vermont is that the professions and workers who are
already making the least tend to be the ones experiencing stagnating or declining wages. According to a
July 2014 report by the Public Assets Institute,5 between 2008 and 2013, the hourly wage in real terms fell or
increased only slightly for earners in all income groups up to the 60th percentile (where 60% of wage-earners
earned less and 40% earned more). During the same period, wages for the highest 20% of earners increased
by over 7%. At the same time, prices for heating oil, gasoline, and food rose much faster than the rate of
inflation. Low-wage jobs have become the norm in the The bulk of new jobs added since the
worst point of the Great Recession (February 2010) have been concentrated in a few low wage industries,
accounting for 40% of all new jobs added, according to a Center for American Progress analysis.6 Temporary
help jobs accounted for 10% of overall job gains, and accommodation and food service jobs accounted for
17% of overall jobs added. Similarly, in Vermont, the top 5 occupations with the most openings are: 1)
Cashier; 2) Personal Care Aides; 3) Food Service; 4) Retail Sales; and 5) Waiter/Waitress, all jobs with some
of the lowest and most inconsistent wages.7 The median wage for the largest employment category in
Vermont – retail sales – was $11.57/hour in Southern Vermont, and even lower for many of the most
prevalent and fastest growing occupations – as low as $9.58/hour for food servers, including tips.
The result of these trends is that few of those lucky enough to be employed are able to achieve anything close to self-sufficiency. According to figures from the Vermont Legislature's Joint Fiscal Office (cited in the
Public Assets Institute reporin 2013, a family of two working adults and two children needed to earn
almost $79,000/year just to meet their basic needs—and 46% of couples with children earned less than this.
Real incomes have been declining, reaching their lowest level in 10 years in 2013—this, despite a 10%
increase in the Gross State Product from 2009-13. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, minimum
wage is currently less than half the amount needed for families with even one child to meet their basic
needs, and is only about 1/3 of the livable wage for 1 adult and 2 children.8
Female employees are particularly shortchanged in the Connecticut River Valley region, much of which is in SEVCA's service area. According to a Connecticut River Valley Workforce Investment Board (WIB) Report,9 women in the region consistently earn far less than their male colleagues, with an overall average earnings ratio of 72.3% ($30,725 average earnings for women compared to $42,479 for men). The worst gaps are evident in the professional / technical services and healthcare / social services sectors, with earnings ratios of 58% ($34,318 women, $59,140 men) and 54.8% ($35,354 women, $64,479 men) respectively, for comparable work. Low wages are of particular concern for single mothers. According to the Legislature's Joint Fiscal Office, 81% of Vermont single mothers make less than they need to meet their basic needs, based on an estimate of $51,381 in annual earnings needed for a family consisting of one parent and one childNationally, around half of today's children will likely spend at least part of their childhood in a single-parent family. At some time during 2013, 28% of all children were living with a single parent, and 42% of single-parent families are poor, compared to 13% of children in two-parent families.10 Based on recent data, 26% of the households served by SEVCA's Family Services program are single-parent households, and of our single-parent households, 90% have a female head of household. Despite these economic conditions, there is evidence that there are still jobs available in Vermont that employers have difficulty filling. In a survey conducted by the Windham Workforce Investment Board (WIB) in 2011 (unpublished report), more than half of the employer respondents reported that they struggled to find appropriate candidates to fill available jobs. The problem wasn't so much that candidates were lacking in task-specific job skills, since employers were equipped to provide that training; employers frequently cited job readiness deficiencies in areas such as basic grammar and writing proficiency, positive attitude, effective communication, accountability, courtesy and customer service skills, and appropriate appearance. The need for more comprehensive job readiness training programs was cited. This finding has been confirmed repeatedly by continued input to the WIB from local employers since then. Livable wage campaigns could offer some of the greatest potential for a significant positive impact on low-income workers. Raising thwould increase the purchasing power of millions of poor
and lower-middle-class Americans, stimulating buying, production, and hiring. Studies by show that raising the minimum wage to $12/hour by 2020 would directly or indirectly
benefit 35 million workers (1 in every 4), generating $80 billion in increased earnings over the next five
years, most of which would be injected back into the U.S. economy.11
5. Housing/Homelessness/Energy
a. Participant Survey results. As evident from the following graph, housing issues are a dominant concern
in the lives of area households with lower incomes. Yet very few in this sample (only 12%) were receiving a
housing subsidy of any kind. An overwhelming majority (86%) agree with the statement: "It is hard to find
affordable, safe housing in my area," more than the percentage who agree with any other statement. 83%
say they have a hard time paying their heating or electric bills, and 68% say they have a hard time paying
their rent or mortgage. A significant proportion (40%) say they are behind in their rent or mortgage
payments, a clear indication that these households are at risk of homelessness. 46% say they want to move
or get an apartment but can't afford the security deposit. It should be noted here that most of the survey
respondents were households who still lived at the address we had on file, but about 10% of the 1100+
households we mailed surveys to were no longer at that address. The level of housing instability within this
population is staggering. It should be noted that because the bulk of surveys distributed were through the
mail, we did not have many homeless families among the respondents—4% of the respondents were
homeless or staying with family or friends—so this data cannot fully capture the experience of this
population.
The condition of the housing that the respondent households occupy is also a serious concern. A majority of the respondents were homeowners (56%), and almost 80% of these said their home needed major repairs they could not afford. It is notable that the majority of renters thought that their landlord kept up with the maintenance on their apartment, though 31% did not think so. Among both renters and homeowners, 68% said their home was cold in the winter and/or not insulated well. This clearly influences the affordability of heating their homes, and 83% of this sample said they have a hard time paying their heating and/or electric bills. Graph 8. Housing Issues
It is hard to find affordable, safe housing in my area I have a hard time paying my heating or electric bills My home needs major repairs, but I can't afford them My home or apartment is cold in the winter and/or not insulated I have a hard time paying my rent or mortgage I want to move or get an apartment but can't afford the security I am behind in my rent or mortgage payments My landlord does not keep up with the maintenance on my 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Strongly disagree Information from some of the other survey questions also points to the importance of housing in the lives of the respondents. When asked what they would do if they could save money for something, over 30% of the responses dealt with housing—16% would get a new home or apartment, and 15% would save for home repairs. Graph 9. What would you save money for?
Education/ college 5% Vacation/travel b. Community Partner and Staff Survey results. It is significant that both the Community Partners
surveyed and SEVCA's staff identified the same top three priority community needs in the Housing /
Homelessness / Energy category. Maintaining and/or increasing the supply of safe, affordable apartments
topped the list, followed by homelessness prevention and fuel/utility assistance. Affordable
alternative/renewable energy was the fifth most common priority chosen. When respondents were asked to
list the community's top five priority needs overall, Maintaining and/or increasing the supply of affordable
apartments was again the most common priority chosen among both groups. Homelessness prevention was
the 9th most common priority among staff) and 10th among Community Partners.
It should be noted that these surveys did not conclusively identify home repair as a high priority community need. About 26% of SEVCA's staff included it among their top three priorities in the Housing / Homelessness / Energy category (sixth on the list), but only 6.7% of community partners did so. It is likely that this community need is more hidden and less publicized than many other housing needs. But data from the Client survey clearly identifies the importance of this problem among low income homeowners. Staff/Community Partner Priorities
Maintain / increase safe, affordable apartments Homelessness prevention / Housing stabilization Fuel / utility assistance Affordable homeownership opportunities / education Affordable alternative / renewable energy Weatherization enhancement / expansion Transitional housing Community / neighborhood rehabilitation Community Partners Tenant education / certification / mediation 10.7% 2.2% Rapid re-housing of the homeless Alternative models (e.g., shared housing, add-on 6.1% 21.3% Special needs / supported housing & services 4.6% 17.9% Maintain / increase emergency shelter beds Don't know/no opinion 1.5% 4.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% c. Findings from secondary sources. There is no shortage of data documenting the extent to which
housing is unaffordable to households with lower incomes in SEVCA's service area. Exacerbating factors in
Vermont's housing crisis include: a large proportion of households (22.4% of renters and 12% of
homeowners) with "severe housing cost burdens" (paying more than 50% of their income on housing)12; the
9th most expensive housing in non-metro areas in the nation; and the 3rd highest gap in the nation between
the average renter wage and the "Housing Wage" (hourly wage needed to rent affordably).13 Other
complications include low wages and lack of good job opportunities, lack of reliable transportation, long
waiting (and often closed) lists for housing subsidies, closure of mental health facilities, lack of shelter space,
and lack of large family-size apartments. Inadequate funding for homelessness prevention / rapid-rehousing
services makes it difficult to provide the staff time needed to meet the ever-increasing needs of low-income
residents, which greatly exceed the resources available. The amount SEVCA spends annually on
homelessness prevention increased by almost 55% between 2010 and 2014, and we are still not able to
meet the need.
A 2015 report issued by the National Low Income Housing Coalitioshows that in Vermont, the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,075. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities,
without paying more than the standard of 30% of income on housing, a household must earn $43,017
annually (an increase over last year of almost $3,000). Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year,
this level of income translates into a ‘Housing Wage' of $20.68, compared to the actual median renter wage
in Vermont of $11.78. In order to afford the FMR (Fair Market Rent) for a two-bedroom apartment at this
wage a household must include 1.8 FTE workers earning the mean renter wage and working 40 hours per
week. A minimum wage worker in Vermont earning an hourly wage of $9.15 would have to work 90 hours
per week year-round to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment. (When the minimum wage rises to
$9.60 on 1/1/16, it will be 86 hours/week.) Or put another way, a household would need to have 2.3 (2.2 on
1/1/16) minimum wage earners working 40 hours per week year-round in order to make the two-bedroom
FMR apartment affordable. SEVCA's service area has some of the highest housing costs in Vermont, with a
housing wage of $19.56 in Windsor County and $18.69 in Windham County. Over 300 occupations have
median salaries less than this, and 80% of people working in service occupations earn less than the housing
wage.14
For those who can't work, monthly Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments for an individual are typically $785 in Vermont. If SSI comprises an individual's sole source of income, a monthly rent of $236 is considered affordable, in contrast to the FMR of $836 for a one-bedroom apartment; or nearly four times the rent that's affordable to someone with that income. And homeownership is out of reach to many – according to the Vermont Housing Finance Agency,15 as of May 2015, the median single-family house price was $200,000. Household income needed to afford homes at this price is around $7,000 more than the median household income in the state. The housing affordability crisis fuels an increase in homelessness, resulting in an increasing need for supplemental assistance to prevent families from being evicted or ending up in substandard housing, putting
them at risk of becoming homeless. The 2014 HUD Point-in-Time survey16 documented 1,027 individuals
who were homeless or precariously housed in Vermont's "Balance of State" Continuum of Care (CoC)
(outside Chittenden County) on a given day in January (over half of whom were in families), a 34.4%
increase over the previous two years. There is troubling new data from a recent Vermont Agency of Human
Services report17 indicating the driving issues behind homelessness in each of their catchment areas. In both
the Brattleboro and Hartford AHS Districts, Domestic Violence / Child Abuse was cited by homeless families
as the #1 cause of their homelessness, and it is also the #1 cause statewide. This has major implications for
how caseworkers should interact with homeless families that could be fleeing domestic abuse, as well as the
kind of shelter that should be available. While the top cause of homelessness in the Springfield AHS District
is being Kicked Out by Family/Friends, Domestic Violence / Child Abuse is the 4th most common reason cited.
The high cost of heating their homes has also plunged many lower-income households into crisis. According to the research firm Fisher, Sheehan & Colton,18 energy costs for Vermont households with
incomes below 50% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) amounted to an estimated 64% of annual income in
2013 (before any fuel assistance or utility discounts), more than six times the widely accepted affordability
standard of 10% of household income. Their model shows that even households with incomes between 185-
200% of the FPL had to pay 14% of their income on home energy costs. On average, Vermont households
with incomes below 200% of FPL paid $3,224 more than they could afford on home energy bills in 2013. A
recent report for the Vermont Low Income Trust for Electricity (VLITE)19 echoes these findings, estimating
that 1 in every 5 Vermonters (125,000) can be considered "fuel poor" and that "excess winter deaths,
caused largely by fuel poverty, kill more Vermonters each year than car crashes. Despite the recent respite
in which fuel costs decreased over the past year, the likelihood is great that they will fluctuate and even
increase over the next and future heating seasons, particularly as the economy continues to improve.
During the 2013-14 heating season, 45,208 Vermont households received Seasonal Fuel Assistance benefits totaling almost $36 million, according to a report by the Department for Children and Families.20
This represents a 16% increase over the year before, and a 64% increase since 2009-10 (during the height of
the Great Recession). For the second winter in a row, Crisis Fuel assists were down significantly in 2014/15
due to reduced funding and imposition of much more restrictive eligibility rules by the state. Only 65% of
the households that applied were eligible for assistance last winter and 68% during the previous winter
(2013-14)—down substantially from the 88% acceptance rate during the winter of 2012-13. The amount of
Crisis Fuel funding distributed by SEVCA also declined precipitously from $492,022 in 2013-14 to $358,131
in 2014-15. Just as they had done in the previous winter, the Legislature ultimately had to authorize a new
"Special Warmth Fund" in response to the hardships suffered by several thousand households who were cut
off by the new rules and decreased funding. As a result, SEVCA was able to provide a second assist to 110
households in the amount of $250 per person (despite the minimum fuel delivery charge often being much
more than that). Overall, SEVCA spent $484,455 in emergency fuel and utility funds on direct client
assistance, but $126,324 of that had to come from other sources – including the GMP Warmth program and
locally raised private / community fuel assistance funds – to make up the difference in the lower level of
state-funded assistance. As a result, those other resources, on which we have historically relied to serve
households before and after Crisis Fuel season and those who had not been eligible under the previously
less restrictive rules, were significantly depleted.
Poor housing quality also seriously impacts low-income households. In this rural area, many of SEVCA's clients own their own homes, especially senior citizens. Over 70% of Vermont's housing stock is composed
of owner-occupied units, about 60% of which were built prior to 1979.21 Many reside in mobile homes
(25,000 Vermonters) that come with their own particular set of challenges such as being old, obsolete, and
deteriorated, and having odd sized windows, doors, and water heaters, and/or substandard plumbing and
wiring. Windham and Windsor counties have the highest share of severely cost-burdened homeowners in
the state, according to the Housing Needs Assessment commissioned by the stateConsequently, our staff
has seen an increase in the inability of many families to find the resources to address urgent repair needs of
their properties that may jeopardize health and safety. Young children, senior citizens, and the disabled are
particularly vulnerable when there are immediate home repair crises such as leaking roofs; frozen and burst
pipes; failed water, septic, and heating systems; dangerous steps and flooring; or heating fuel leaks.
Vermont's high number of older homes and its harsh winter conditions increase the likelihood and urgency
of building envelope failures that can become serious health threats for children and their families.
6. Health and Mental Health
a. Client Survey results. Health emerged as a serious issue of concern for the population surveyed. From
fatal diseases or chronic conditions, to depression or lack of dental care, many of the respondents are
affected by health conditions which interfere with their quality of life as well as their economic prospects.
Use of state health programs was prevalent among the respondents, with 63% indicating they had Medicaid,
36% had Medicare, and 18% had coverage under a Vermont HealthConnect medical plan. Despite this, 48%
said that their health insurance and/or medical bills were too expensive for them to afford, and 19% said
they had trouble finding doctors that take their insurance.
Lack of access to dental care emerged as the most common problem among the areas addressed in the survey, with 66% saying they had a hard time finding dentists that took their insurance (and many people commenting they had no dental coverage at all). Mental health concerns were cited by 58% of the sample, with Depression and Stress/Anxiety being the most common concerns; PTSD, bi-polar disorder, and other diagnoses were also mentioned. 19% of the sample indicated that they or someone in their family needed substance abuse treatment or support. As previously noted, health, mental health, and disabilities were cited by a number of respondents as barriers to employment and financial stability. In addition, when asked what is getting in the way of being able to volunteer in their communities, health or mental health conditions were given as a reason for 31% of the sample. A relatively large portion of low-income respondents--over a third--reported a disability, and the vast majority of those were disabled and unable to work. Obtaining "self-sufficiency" is an elusive goal for many in these circumstances. For those who are disabled and unable to work, help with budgeting to stretch their meager stipend or help obtaining SSDI are potentially helpful interventions. Yet for those able and interested in obtaining employment, specialized assistance is needed. Graph 11. Health and Mental Health
I have a hard time finding dentists that take my I sometimes skip meals or eat less to save money on I or someone in my family needs help with a problem like depression, anxiety/stress, or other mental… My community does NOT have enough substance abuse and mental health services My health insurance and/or medical bills are too expensive for me to afford I DON'T have enough nutritious food for myself and my I or someone in my family needs substance abuse treatment or support I have a hard time finding doctors that take my 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Strongly disagree
b. Community Partner and Staff Survey results. In the Staff Survey, Health was the category with the
highest number of items chosen as "Top 5" priorities, and in the Community Partner Survey it was the
second most common category. Key priorities identified include the following:
 Accessible and affordable dental care for all was most frequently chosen as a need in the Health
category by Staff and Community Partner respondents; it was the third most common priority need on
the "Top 5 Overall" list among Community Partner respondents, and sixth among Staff respondents.
 Accessible and affordable health care for all was the fourth most common "Top 5 overall" priority in the
Staff Survey, and seventh in the Community Partner survey.
 Alcohol/substance abuse counseling and treatment appeared third on the "Top 5 Overall" list for Staff
and fourth for Community Partners. Within the Health/Mental health category, Alcohol / substance
abuse counseling and treatment was the third most common priority need cited by Staff and fourth
among Community Partners.
 Mental health counseling/treatment appeared sixth on the "Top 5 Overall" list for Community Partner
respondents, and tied for tenth among Staff respondents. When asked to choose their top three
concerns within the Health/Mental health category, Mental Health was the third most commonly-
chosen need among Community Partners and fourth among Staff. While mental health concerns appear
to be much more common among our Client Survey respondents than substance abuse, it seems
probable that the destructive nature of substance abuse issues is felt by many to have a greater impact
on the community, or to require a greater level of response by service providers. It is clear that both
issues are considered by Staff and Community Partners to be a major community need.
Graph 12. Health and Mental Health--Staff/Community
Partner Priorities
Accessible & affordable dental care for all Accessible & affordable health care for all Alcohol / substance abuse counseling / treatment Mental health counseling / treatment Fitness / exercise / obesity prevention Sexual health/safety/birth control & education SSI / SSDI application assistance 12.3% 15.9% Workers health and safety 9.2% Community Partners Developmental / disability services 7.6% HIV/AIDs treatment & support Don't know/ no opinion Women's health care Traumatic brain injury treatment & support 100% 120% 140% 160%
c. Findings from secondary sources. Many of the findings in our surveys are corroborated in studies
conducted by major health care providers in Windham and Windsor counties. A 2015 Community Health
Needs Assessment produced by Grace Cottage Hospital described the major health concerns of Windham
County residents, with an emphasis on underserved populations.22 A 2013 Community Health Needs
Assessment by Springfield Medical Care Systems provided similar data on Windsor County.23
Dental Care. According Grace Cottage's survey in Windham County, dental care appeared as the third
most common health concern facing respondents or their families. When asked a slightly different question,
"What most prevents you and your family from attaining good health and well-being, the fourth most
common response was that they don't have a dentist. Participants in a focus group cited the lack of dental
insurance and lack of dentists, especially those who accept Medicaid, as major problems. In SMCS's survey
of Windsor County residents, 64% said that they or someone they know were not able to access dental care
when they needed it.
Mental Health. According to Grace Cottage's report, 24% of the adult population in Windham County
has reported a diagnosis for a depressive disorder, with higher rates among people with lower incomes; 36% with incomes below $25,000 were affected by depression versus 15% of those with incomes above $50,000. Stress was the top health concern among Windham County residents surveyed, followed by Depression. A focus group discussed barriers to mental health care, finding that the waiting list for mental health services (2-3 months), the lack of treatment centers in southern Vermont, and the lack of access to emergency psychiatric prescribers (especially for women fleeing domestic abuse without their medications) were major concerns. According to SMCS's survey, 29% of respondents said that they or someone they know was not able to get mental health care they needed within the past year. Substance Abuse. Comparatively few respondents to Grace Cottage's survey ranked Drug Abuse /
Addiction and Alcoholism as significant health concerns facing themselves or their families (13% and 10%), but when asked about the most significant health concerns facing their neighbors or community, Drug Abuse / Addiction topped the list (41%), followed by Alcoholism (40%). The report cites Department of Health data on heroin-related fatalities, which have sharply increased since 2012—there were 35 heroin-related deaths in Vermont in 2014 versus 9 in 2012, although as a whole, opioid-related deaths remained relatively stable over the past 10 years. Increasing heroin usage and highly-publicized heroin-related deaths certainly influence the perception of this problem in the community. Health Care Access / Affordability. Grace Cottage's focus group discussing underserved populations
spoke of health care costs being prohibitive for lower and middle income households, with a medical emergency likely to send them into a financial crisis as well. The difficulties of navigating the health care system was seen as an ongoing issue, with many people "falling through the cracks." 7. Transportation
a. Client Survey results. It is no surprise that transportation poses a huge challenge to the low-income
population surveyed. Windham and Windsor counties are primarily rural and have limited public
transportation options, so people mainly rely on cars. The vast majority of respondents (71%) say that public
transportation does not go where they need to go at the times they need it. However, the costs of car
ownership are considerable, and unaffordable to many. 87 people in our sample (25% of the total sample of
351 people) say they need a car but can't afford one.
Graph 13. Transportation Issues
Public transportation does NOT go where I need to go at the times I need I have a hard time maintaining my car I need a car but can't afford one I have a hard time making my car payments My community does NOT have good public I can't afford to get my driver's license or car registration reinstated I don't have car insurance because I can't afford it I have a hard time getting transportation to medical 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Strongly disagree For those low income households that do own a car, car payments, insurance, maintenance, fuel costs, etc., put a large dent in their budgets, making it more difficult for them to meet their other basic needs. 47% say they have a hard time making car payments, and 31% say they can't afford to get their driver's license or car registration reinstated. 23% say they don't have car insurance because they can't afford it. A high proportion of those who have cars--almost 70%--say they have a hard time maintaining their cars, making car maintenance the most common transportation-related concern cited. Among the 142 write-in responses to the open-ended question "If you have problems with transportation, what is the main reason," Car maintenance tops the list (see Graph 14 below). It is also significant that, as shown in Graph 9 above (Housing / Homelessness / Energy section), obtaining or repairing a car is the number one item that respondents say they would save money for if they could. Graph 14. Main reason for transportation
problems
transportation/ schedule issues The effects of not having reliable transportation are many, but possibly the most significant is the effect on employment. 43% of respondents indicate that they have had trouble finding or keeping a job because of problems with transportation (Graph 5, Employment section). A much smaller proportion—22%--say they have a hard time getting to medical appointments; this particular problem is ameliorated by the extent to which Medicaid and Medicare help provide transportation to medical appointments. b. Community Partner and Staff Survey results. Transportation is the fourth most common category
chosen by Staff and the fifth most common category chosen by Community Partners, as shown in Table 2.
Public transportation (in general or ‘for everyone') was also the fifth most commonly chosen "Top 5"
priority in both surveys; it should be noted that many of these respondents wrote their response in general
terms, rather than using the language provided in the survey questions. Additionally, Public transportation
to get to work appeared as the tenth most commonly chosen "Top 5" priority in the Staff Survey responses.
When asked to choose their community's top three needs within the Transportation category, both Staff and Community Partners most commonly cited Public transportation to get to work. The next most common Staff choices were Obtaining an affordable car and Vehicle maintenance and repairs. Among Community Partners, Public transportation to medical and other services was the second most common choice followed by Obtaining an affordable car. As discussed above, respondents to the Client Survey definitely cited the lack of public transportation as a problem, though obtaining a car or paying for car repairs and maintenance may be even more immediate concerns for most. But Transportation to medical appointments did not appear to be a problem among the majority of the Client respondents, an apparent contradiction to the high priority the Community Partners ascribed to this need. Graph 15. Transportation--Staff/Community Partner
Priorities
Public transportation to get to work Obtaining an affordable car Vehicle maintenance & repairs Public transportation to medical & other services Affordable auto financing Volunteer driver programs Carpooling programs Cooperative 'on-demand' transportation system Car sharing programs 13.6% 11.4% Don't know/ no opinion 8. Child and Youth Development
a. Client Survey results. Early education and care is an important area of concern because of the role that
it plays in educating and enriching the lives of participating children and increasing their chances of later
educational success as well as its supporting role in families' financial stability by making it possible for
parents to work. Families with children (either single or two-parent) made up about 38% of the sample (134
households), but there were, in addition, a few parenting grandparents. There were 100 families in the
sample who indicated they had children who were receiving or in need of child care. Of these, a significant
number (44) were participating in Head Start, since Head Start staff in both Windham and Windsor counties
helped to distribute the survey. Also, 47 families indicated they received a childcare subsidy or voucher. It is
important to keep this in mind, since it is more likely that the child care needs of families with Head Start
and/or a child care voucher is being met when compared to families without this assistance. We should also
keep in mind that families with children in need of care is a smaller subgroup within the overall sample, and
so findings should be interpreted with caution.
On the positive side, we find that the overwhelming majority of respondents (91%) believe that their child's pre-school program is doing a good job of preparing him/her for kindergarten. However, the results of other questions point to the difficulties that many families have experienced related to early education and care. 31% say they have had trouble finding affordable, good quality pre-school programs in their area, and 38% say they have had trouble finding good quality infant/toddler programs. Among the few families whose children are not in preschool (27), 37% say they would send their child to preschool if there was a good quality program in their community. The two biggest problems cited related to the affordability and availability of child care. 45% of respondents say they have a hard time paying for child care, and 40% say that it is hard to find child care during the hours they need it. Over a third of survey respondents say they have a hard time getting or keeping a job because they can't find affordable child care (Graph 5 above, Employment section) . Graph 16. Child Care Issues
I have a hard time paying for the child care I need It is hard to find child care during the hours I need it I have had trouble finding good quality infant/toddler programs in my area I don't send my child to preschool, but would if there was a good quality program in my community I have had trouble finding affordable, good quality preschool programs in my area I think my child's pre-school program is doing a good job of preparing him/her for kindergarten (Disagree) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
b. Community Partner and Staff Survey results. The Staff and Community Partner Surveys looked more
broadly at child and youth development than the Client Survey did, so is not directly comparable. Yet there
are some parallels in terms of the priority needs identified. Within the category of Child / Youth
Development, Child care affordability is the most commonly chosen community need by both Staff and Community Partners, with Child care availability chosen by the same percentage of Community Partner respondents (though this appears fifth among Staff respondents). Parent education / family support and intervention also figures prominently in both the Staff (3rd) and Community Partner (2nd) surveys. The second most common choice in the Staff Survey is Life skills / residential/ transitional support for young adults. Analysis of the "Top 5 Overall" question shows that Child care affordability is the 7th and 8th most
common priority chosen in the Staff and Community Partner survey responses, respectively. The Child /
Youth Development category ranks fifth in the Staff Survey and fourth in the Community Partner Survey.
Graph 17. Child/Youth Development
Childcare affordability Life skills / residential / transitional support Parenting ed. / Family support & Head Start / Early Head Start expansion Childcare availability (incl. infant & evening Child abuse / reporting / intervention Anti-discrimination / bullying training & Reading / literacy skills Special education needs support / advocacy Collaboration and partnerships 10.6% 14.4% Child support/advocacy ("deadbeat" 10.6% 10.0% Don't know/ no opinion 9.0% 6.6%
c. Findings from secondary sources. This section will briefly touch on issues affecting young children and
their families as well as youth. Given that we gathered very little information on youth needs through our Community Assessment surveys, SEVCA will be looking more closely at this in the coming year to determine in what ways, if any, we are able to better respond to these needs. Information from secondary sources, discussed below, indicates some areas of concern that merit attention.  Child care affordability and quality. According to a 2014 state fact sheet by Child Care Aware,24 in
Vermont there were 26,311 children under 6 potentially needing childcare, 9,887 of whom are in single-parent families with a parent in the workforce, and 16,424 in two-parent families with both parents in the workforce. Overall, there were 12,219 single working mothers in Vermont. Single mothers in VT with an infant or preschooler pay, on average, 42% of their income for center-based child care if they do not have a child care subsidy, making Vermont the state with the 10th highest cost-burden (for single parents) in the nation. Another concern is that, of the 522 child care centers in VT, only 12% are nationally accredited, while just 1 % of the 884 Family Child Care homes are accredited.  Role of early education in school success. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), U.S. adults perform much more poorly than most industrialized countries in terms of literacy and numeracy skills; 17.5% have less than adequate skills in literacy and 28.7% have less than adequate numeracy skills.25 In Windsor and Windham counties, an estimated 6% of adults lack basic literacy.26 Lack of education greatly reduces access to job opportunities and increases the risk of being chronically unemployed. 36 million U.S. adults read at a 3rd grade level or below.27 Among U.S. adults with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills, 26% are not economically active and another 10% are unemployed and looking for work.28 40% of this group have earnings in the bottom 20% of the income distribution. An estimated 75% of state prison inmates have not graduated from high school and/or have low literacy rates. The lack of achievement of basic skills and educational credentials greatly reduces the chance of ever becoming self-sufficient. Researchers have identified the importance of learning to read by the end of Grade 3 as a critical milestone in educational success. Those who are less than proficient in reading at this point are four times more likely to leave school without a diploma than those who are proficient readers, and children who have lived in poverty for one or more years and are not proficient readers by the end of Grade 3 are more than six times more likely not to graduate.29 Unfortunately, in Vermont there is a huge disparity between the performance of children receiving free or reduced price meals (low-income) and those who do not. The most recent results of the Smarter Balanced Assessment30 show that only 35% of low-income 4th graders scored in the "proficient or above" range in the English/literacy subject test compared to 63% of higher income students, and only 30% of low-income 4th graders achieved scores considered proficient in the Math test compared to 56% of higher income students. In an economy where jobs increasingly require higher level skills, high school (at the very least) and, more frequently, college degrees are essential—by 2018, even most service industry jobs will require a minimum of a high school diploma, according to the National Coalition for Literacy.  Youth development. As noted above, youth issues were not featured in the Client Survey and were only
touched on briefly in the Community Partner and Staff surveys. However, there are many reasons to consider the specific needs of Youth (generally ages 16-24): o Youth Unemployment: In the recent Great Recession, youth (ages 16-24) were among the hardest
hit in terms of workforce participation, with record unemployment that many worry will permanently disadvantage a generation. With jobs as scarce as they were, inexperienced youth job seekers found it difficult to compete with their older, more experienced counterparts. Nationally, unemployment for this group reached a record high 19.6% in April 2010, and the "Employment-to-Population" ratio for this age group declined by over 7 percentage points, from an annual average of 53.1% in 2007 to 46% in 2012.31 People ages 25-54 experienced only a 4.2% decline in employment-to-population ratio during the same period. Youth employment rates have continued to lag behind other groups throughout the recovery. Recent national data from the Economic Policy Institute shows that youth underemployment (jobless, working part-time when they need a full-time job, and no longer looking for work, combined) for the year ending May 2015 was 33.8% for whites, 51.3% for blacks, and 36.1% for Hispanics.32 According to ACS data (American Community Survey, 2009-13 estimates) in Vermont, 17.7% of youth ages 16-19 were unemployed (with only 46% of this age group in the workforce), and 14% of youth ages 20-24 were unemployed (with 75% of this age group in the workforce), compared to an unemployment rate of 6.8% for all age groups combined. In Windham and Windsor Counties, youth unemployment was higher than state averages: 20% of Windham County and 22.4% of Windsor County youth ages 16-19 were unemployed, and among youth ages 20-24, 14.4% in Windham and 14.6% in Windsor were unemployed. o Youth and Housing / Homelessness: Another legacy of the Great Recession was the increasing
number and proportion of homeless families, a trend that has continued despite the "recovery." As a consequence, many more youth have experienced homelessness along with their families, and, in addition, there has been increased homelessness among unaccompanied minors (runaways, youth who have been kicked out of their homes, who have fallen through the cracks in the foster care system, etc.). According to studies cited by the National Conference of State Legislatures,33 1 in 7 young individuals between the ages of 10 and 18 will run away; youth ages 12 to 17 are more at risk of homelessness than adults; 75% of runaways are female; 20-40% of homeless youth are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or questioning; 46% of runaway / homeless youth report being physically abused and 17% of them report being forced into unwanted sexual activity by a family or household member. Nationally, about 1.3 million youth are living unsupervised on the streets, with friends, or with strangers, and 5,000 of them die each year due to assault, illness, or suicide. There is a national effort by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness34 to gain better data on this population, including their needs and ways to reach them, and to develop coordinated, preventive strategies to deal with the driving forces behind youth homelessness. o Youth and Substance Abuse: Detailed information from the Vermont Department of Health's
implementation of the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey,35 available for 2013, paints a rather sobering picture of the problem of alcohol and substance use among high school youth in SEVCA's service area, particularly in Windham County, where on several measures, results were worse than the state as a whole. Among 9th-12th graders in Windham County, 37% drank alcohol in the past 30 days compared to 33% of both Windsor County and all Vermont high school students. A higher proportion (17%) of Windham County youth also reported that they drank alcohol before age 13 (compared with 15% of Windsor County and 14% of Vermont 9th-12th graders). The proportion of Windham County students who said they "binge drank" (had 5 or more drinks in a row) in the past 30 days (23%) was also higher than the state as a whole (19%). Similarly, rates of smoking and marijuana use were higher in Windham County, with 17% of 9th-12th graders reporting they had smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days (compared to 13% for the state) and 29% that they had used marijuana (compared to 24% for the state). Windsor County marijuana use for this age group (27%) was also statistically higher than the state as a whole. 9. Food/Nutrition/Hunger
a. Participant/Client Survey results. The Client Survey results show that 80% of respondents receive
3SquaresVT benefits, showing that this program has an extensive reach within the population surveyed.
However, a number of respondents (22) named this program as one they need but couldn't get, most
commonly because they were over-income, or because of errors on the application. Many respondents
expressed the need for support with the 3SquaresVT application process. The survey also showed that 60%
of respondents said they skip meals or eat less to save money and 28% of respondents said they don't have
enough nutritious food for themselves and their families. (See Graph 11 in the Health and Mental Health
Section).

b. Community Partner and Staff Survey results. Food / Nutrition / Hunger is the sixth most common
category chosen by both Staff and Community Partners in their "Top 5" responses. When asked to choose
their community's top three priority needs within the Food / Nutrition / Hunger topic, both the Staff and
Community Partners chose affordable, nutritious food and basic food security as the top two needs, but
differed on the third most frequently chosen need. Staff had an equal percentage of respondents choose
food shelves & distribution systems, accessibility of locally grown/produced food. Community partners chose
adequate food/nutrition for shut-ins/elderly as the third most common priority.
Graph 18. Food and Nutrition--Staff/ Community
Partner Priorities
Affordable, nutritious food Basic food security for all Food shelves & distribution systems Accessibility of locally grown / produced food Nutrition education Adequate food / nutrition for shut-ins / elderly Community gardening 12.3% 12.5% Food Stamp (3SquaresVT) application assistance 10.7% 20.4% Don't know/ no opinion 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%
c. Findings from secondary sources. In September of 2015, the Economic Research Service at the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its most recent report on food insecurity, indicating that
48 million people in the United States are living in food insecure households, over 15 million of whom are
children.36 Around 17 million people are considered to have very low food insecurity. These figures were
only slightly improved from the previous year. A 2014 report of the U.S. Conference of Mayors37 found that
low wages, poverty, and housing costs were cited as the top causes of hunger. The report shows that 71% of
the surveyed cities reported that requests for emergency food assistance had increased over the past year.
Of the individuals requesting emergency food assistance, 56% were persons in families, 38% were
employed, 20.5% were elderly, and 7% were homeless.
According to the leading domestic food relief agency, Feeding America, approximately 1 in 7 people struggle with hunger in Vermont.38 The food insecurity rate in Vermont is 13.6%, with about 85,000 Vermonters affected. In Windsor County, 12.4% of all residents and 18.1% of all children experience food insecurity, and in Windham County, that figure is 13.1% of all residents and 19.1% of all children. Food insecurity has slightly increased in Windham and Windsor counties over the previous year. Another Feeding America report39 documents the difficult choices facing families experiencing food insecurity--69% of these families had to choose between food and paying utilities, 67% had to choose between food and transportation, 66% had to choose between food and medical care, and 58% had to choose between food and paying for housing. 10. Financial Capability and Asset Development
a. Participant/Client Survey results. The financial constraints of the survey respondents are clearly evident
within each of the topics covered in this survey, and this section describes their financial situations in more
detail. 64% of the sample say their household income is not enough to meet their family's basic needs, and
69% say they have had to borrow money or use their credit cards just to pay for their basic needs. Even
more--85% say they are unable to save money on a regular basis. Problems with credit and unaffordable
debt are rife. 60% say they can't afford the monthly payments on their debt, and 68% say they can't get
credit or have bad credit. 45% say they could use help with budgeting or financial education to help them
save for the future. This last number is lower than might be expected, but many people feel they are able to
budget well, they just simply don't have enough income. Respondents cited lack of income or a job as their
biggest challenge to becoming financially stable (See Graph 20, below).

Graph 19. Finances
I am NOT able to save money on a regular basis I have had to borrow money or use my credit card just to pay for my basic needs I can't get credit or have bad credit My household's income is NOT enough to meet my family's basic needs (food, housing, clothing) I can't afford the monthly payments on my debt I could use help with budgeting or financial education to help me save for the future 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Strongly disagree Graph 20. Challenges to becoming financially stable
Childcare/single Debt/credit/loans The survey included an open-ended question asking respondents what they would save money for if they could save. The results are telling, reflecting their needs, priorities, and aspirations. A car or car repairs
was most frequently cited (22% of responses), followed by a home / apartment (16%) and home repairs
(15%). Various other financial (savings for emergencies, pay off debt, retirement) and personal goals
(vacation, education, children / grandchildren) were also noted. (See Graph 9 in the Housing / Homelessness
/ Energy section)
b. Community Partner and Staff Survey results. The top priorities chosen by Staff and Community Partners
within the Asset Development category were in the same order. Budget / financial management counseling
was most frequently chosen, followed by Financial literacy education, Credit-building and repair, and
Encouraging / supporting saving and building assets. However, none of these items made the list of the "Top
5 Overall" priorities for either group surveyed. As a category, Asset Development appeared as the 9th priority
need overall in both Staff and Community Partner surveys.

Graph 21. Asset Development--Staff/Community
Partner Priorities
Budget / financial management counseling Financial Literacy education / training Credit building and repair Encouraging / supporting saving & building assets Overcoming credit abuse / addiction Community Partners Income tax / Tax credit preparation assistance 13.6% 11.3% Other 9.0% 10.2% Don't know/no opinion 7.5% 19.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%
c. Findings from secondary sources. The lack of household assets and unmanageable debt are significant
factors in the cycle of poverty among low-income families. Researchers at Demos examined the factors driving
credit card debt within a national random sample of low- and moderate-income households.40 They found that
those with debt had less formal education, were less likely to have had sufficient health care coverage and
more likely to have experienced recent unemployment, have children under 18, and, for homeowners, have
negative equity in their homes. This analysis shows the economic factors at work in the lives of low-income
households in a recession and post-recession period—when unemployment was high, health care coverage
was elusive (prior to the Affordable Care Act but even with ACA, it's still beyond many families' financial reach),
and home values plummeted, particularly in areas affected by irresponsible and predatory lending. Many
households turned to credit card debt as a way to finance basic needs they could no longer afford. Households
who managed to avoid debt had substantially more assets, including more savings, than those with credit card
debt. Another Demos study found that older persons (over age 50) on average had more credit card debt than
younger ones, mainly due to medical expenses, assisting other family members, car and home repairs, and
basic living expenses.41
In Vermont, there are worrisome signs indicating the need for more financial capability and asset- building initiatives. According to the Corporation for Enterprise Development, Vermont ranks 12th in U.S. in the percentage of asset-poor households: 26.7% of residents don't have enough resources to subsist at the poverty level for three months in the absence of income and 12.6% have extreme asset poverty (i.e., zero or negative net worth and no cushion to weather a financial crisis).42 Furthermore, 3.1% are ‘unbanked' and 16.2% ‘underbanked' (i.e., may have a checking or savings account, but use non-bank products such as payday loans, rent-to-own services, money orders, and check cashing services, and pay more for financial services); and 45.8% have sub-prime credit. The average Vermont resident with revolving credit has a balance of $9,822. 11. Other Issues: Advocacy and Empowerment, Basic necessities, Accessibility
a. Advocacy/Empowerment: Community Partner and Staff Survey results. This topic was only touched on
in the Participant/Client Survey, but is worth consideration as a means toward effecting change in the
structural conditions that perpetuate poverty.
Promoting community involvement among low-income residents has been a difficult challenge for CAAs to meet. For most people struggling with the hardships of poverty, the daunting task of making ends meet is overwhelming, often taking up the vast majority of their time and attention and leaving them drained of energy and ability to focus on anything but subsistence for themselves and their families. Between working at low wage jobs, applying for and fulfilling the requirements of public assistance and other vital services, finding affordable housing, transportation, and child care, staving off landlords, utilities, banks and other creditors to avoid evictions, foreclosures, shutoffs, loss of credit, etc., begging vendors to deliver fuel without the ability to pay for it, going to food shelves and thrift stores to obtain the basic necessities, low-income people find themselves with very little time to volunteer and participate in community affairs. The overwhelming stress of low-wage workers living in poverty and the low self-esteem, depression, and other emotional and physical ailments that are often both cause and effect of their situations, all combine to inhibit their ability to face new experiences and take on an active role in their communities. Many clients report to us that they do not feel confident about participating in those kinds of activities, feel too overwhelmed to become involved, or feel intimidated by those they perceive as being more able or knowledgeable, if they do make the effort. Our Client survey found that many people in our target group are already involved in their community through volunteering, participating in community activities, attending town meetings, and voting (see Graph 21 below), but many experience obstacles to involvement. The most common barriers cited were: lack of time /schedule conflicts, health/illness and disabilities, transportation, mental health, and single parenting. It is important to be aware of and to attempt to ameliorate these challenges when working with our target group to increase their involvement in community affairs and their ability to advocate for themselves and their interests. Graph 22. Community Involvement
I participate in community events or activities I am involved in my church or other religious institution I volunteer at a program in my community I volunteer at my child's school or attend PTO/PTA… I attend my town meetings I provide care for an extended family member I belong to a civic or other community group I coach a youth athletics team 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% SEVCA Staff and Community Partners surveyed were supportive of the goal of empowering low-income people. Self-advocacy / skills training topped the list as the most frequently chosen priority within the
Advocacy/Empowerment category in both the Staff and Community Partner surveys. Staff chose increase
low-income political participation second most frequently, while Community Partners prioritized advocacy
for increased services. Fighting state budget / service cuts was the third most commonly chosen priority
need in both surveys. Among the overall "Top 5" results, the Advocacy category was ranked 7th in the Staff
Survey and 8th in the Community Partner survey.
Graph 23. Advocacy and Empowerment--
Staff/Community Partner Priorities
Self-advocacy skills training Increase low-income political participation Fighting state budget / service cuts Community organizing of the disenfranchised Social / economic justice campaigns Advocacy for increased services Don't know/ no opinion 12.1% 9.5%
b. Basic Needs: Community Partner and Staff Survey results. This area did not have parallel questions in
the Client survey, so the only information we have is from the Staff and Community Partner Surveys. On the
Staff Survey, Affordable clothing for children and adults and affordable furniture topped the list. Affordable
household appliances and housewares, legal aid, and alternatives to high cost furniture / appliance rentals
were all tied for third, with 36.3% listing these among their top three concerns. Legal aid was the most
common priority among Community Partner respondents, followed by affordable clothing for children and
adults and affordable household appliances and housewares. None of these items appeared on the "Top 5
Overall" list. As a category, Basic Necessities / Other was the 8th most commonly chosen category in the Staff
survey, but last (11th) in the Community Partner survey.
Graph 24. Basic Necessities/ Other--
Staff/Community Partner Priorities
Affordable clothing for children & adults Affordable furniture Affordable household appliances & housewares Alternatives to high cost furniture/appliance rentals Disasters / Emergency preparedness Affordable professional clothing for work Payee / Guardian ad litem services 12.1% Don't know/ no opinion 6.0% 13.3% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
c. Accessibility: Community Partner and Staff Survey results. This area was also only addressed in the
Staff and Community Partner Surveys. Within the Accessibility category, technological barriers (‘Digital
Divide') was most frequently chosen by both groups. The next priorities differ—for Staff, developmental
disability barriers and automated call center barriers were tied for second, followed by language and literacy
limitations. For Community Partners, language and literacy limitations was the second most common
priority, followed by developmental disability barriers and automated call center barriers. None of these
items made the list of top priorities overall, and as a category, Accessibility appeared last on the list in the
Staff Survey and next-to-last (10th) in the Community Partner Survey.
Graph 25. Accessibility--Staff/Community Partner Priorities
Technological barriers ('Digital Divide') Developmental disability barriers Automated call center barriers (state,… Language & literacy limitations Handicapped- accessible facilities 16.9% 26.1% Community Partners Don't know/no opinion 16.9% 14.7% Hearing & vision barriers 12.3% 11.3% Other 10.7% 23.8% 12. Organizational Capacity Building and Service Coordination
By itself, SEVCA cannot hope to address the myriad of community needs identified in this report. It takes a strong network of human services providers, community-based organizations, schools, state and local agencies, businesses, and more to share resources, coordinate them effectively, and intervene positively in the lives of households with lower incomes. Where gaps exist, collaboration is the key to closing them. In addition, SEVCA needs to focus on its own internal systems and procedures and identify ways to strengthen our staff capacity, infrastructure, systems, and resources, and hone our strategies so that we can have a larger impact on the quality of life of those we serve and our communities as a whole. Here, we present relevant findings from the Community Partner and Staff surveys that have a bearing on how to better coordinate services and build the organization's capacity to deliver results. Our strategic goals and the actions we intend to take to address these issues are deeply informed by this Community Assessment and are detailed in SEVCA's Strategic Plan. a. Collaboration / Coordination Community Partner and Staff Survey results. Within this category,
coordination of services (reducing ‘silos') was the most frequently chosen priority in both surveys, followed
by sharing resources cost-effectively. Collaboration agreements was third in the Staff Survey results, while
Co-location of facilities (‘one-stop shopping') was third among Community Partners.
Graph 26. Collaboration/ Coordination of Services--
Staff/Community Partner Priorities
Coordination of services (reducing 'silos') Sharing resources cost-effectively Collaboration agreements / partnerships Co-location of facilities ('one-stop shopping') Partnerships with state agencies Don't know/ no opinion 15.0% 11.6% Mergers / consolidation of agencies b. Organizational Capacity Building Staff Survey results. The survey focused on three areas related to
capacity-building: Training/skill-building, Community Visibility, and Agency Systems and Infrastructure. The
percentage of Staff respondents who chose each of the following items to be among their top three
priorities is shown below:
Graph 27. Training/Skill-building
Cross-training between programs De-escalation of volatile situations Understanding Poverty Community organizing Trauma-sensitive approach to client service Child abuse / neglect Diversity & inclusion SEVCA vision / values / history Don't know / no opinion Graph 28. Community Visibility/ Presence/ Awareness
Increase availability of services in community Expand/enhance use of website and social media (e.g. Facebook) Initiate/expand inter-agency collaboration and service integration Participate in more community meetings / events Greater use of press releases to mass media Improve outreach to and ability to meet service needs of minority groups Open more visible & inviting office space Initiate / sponsor local meetings and events More frequent / effective one-on-one networking Don't know / no opinion Expand/enhance SEVCA newsletter 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Graph 29. Internal Agency Systems and Infrastructure
Move toward livable wages / benefits for all staff Expand collaboration/service integration w/in SEVCA Fast, reliable computer network Implement agency-wide intake / database system Explore shared services/co-location opportunities Workplace safety systems / protocols Explore / introduce further "greening" initiatives in the agency High quality program / office space in all areas SEVCA's internal emergency preparedness Fast, reliable phone system Don't know / no opinion Increase sensitivity to diversity & inclusion The importance that staff place on service integration and coordination is clear in each of these questions, as items that relate to this appear in the top three in each set of questions: Cross-training
between programs is the second most-commonly chosen priority in the Training / Skill-building question
(this relates to better service coordination within SEVCA); Initiate/expand interagency collaboration is
the third most common priority in the Community Visibility question; and Expand service integration
within SEVCA is the second most common priority in the Interagency Systems and Infrastructure
question. Another important priority area that emerged in the results relates to improvements in the
use of technology: technology skills training, technology infrastructure, and implementing an agency-
wide database all featured strongly in the responses. Moving toward livable wages and benefits for staff
was the priority chosen by the highest proportion of respondents to any question in this section. Other
important priorities include Expanding /enhancing use of the website and social media, Increasing the
availability of services in the community, and De-escalation of volatile situations training.
When Staff were asked to choose their "Top 5" priorities overall, the most common responses are listed below in Table 3. It must be noted, though, that there was a great deal of diversity in the "Top 5" responses--aside from the Move toward livable wages / benefits for all staff, which about 40% of all staff respondents listed among their Top 5 choices, only two items were chosen by more than 15% of staff—Technology / computer skills training and Expand collaboration and service integration (both 16.6%). It may be more useful in this case to consider the results within each section (as shown in the graphs above) as a better representation of staff preferences on organizational capacity building needs. STAFF SURVEY--Organizational Capacity Building
"TOP 5" PRIORITIES OVERALL
Move toward livable wages / benefits for all staff Technology/computer skills (training) Expand collaboration and service integration among Implement agency-wide intake / database system Expand/enhance use of website and social media Increase availability of services in community Initiate/expand inter-agency collaboration and service De-escalation of volatile situations 1 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2009-13) or 2010 Census data used for this section 2 Roberts, Brandon, et all. Low-Income Working Families: The Growing Economic Gap; The Working Poor Families Project, Winter 2012-1 3 Aaron, Kat & Lynne Perri, Working, but Still Poor, New American Media, Sept. 2011; 4 Public Assets Institute; State of Working Vermont, December, 5 Public Assets Institute; Jobs Return, With Inequality in Tow, July18, 2014; 6 Hersh, Adam, Economy's New Jobs Strain to Deliver Middle-Class Wages, Center for American Progress June 6, 2014; 7 Vermont Department of Labor; Vermont Short-term Employment Projections for 2014-2016; 8 Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Poverty in America: Livable Wage Calculator, Windham & Windsor counties 2014 9 Connecticut River Valley WIB; Local Employment Dynamics, 2011; 10 Legal Momentum, Single Parenthood Snapshot, 2013 edition; 11 Economic Policy Institute, It's Time to Raise the Minimum Wage, April 23, 201 12 Vermont Dept. of Housing and Community Development, 2015 Vermont Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2015; http://accd.vermont.gov/sites/accd/files/Documents/strongcommunities/housing/ Vermont%20Housing%20Needs%20Assessment%2014-363%20%28Final%202.25.15%29.pdf. 13 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2015; http://nlihc.org/oor/vermont. 14 Vermont Department of Labor; Vermont: An Economic-Demographic Profile Series (2014); http://labor.vermont.gov/2014-economic-demographic-profile-report/. 15 Vermont Housing Finance Agency, Vermont Housing Data Profiles, May 2015; http://www.housingdata.org/profile/. 16 HUD Exchange, CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports, 2014; 17 Vermont Agency of Human Services, General Assistance Emergency Housing Program: Bi-Annual Report to the Vermont Legislature; July 201 18 Fisher, Sheehan & Colton, Home Energy Affordability Gap, 2014; 19 Energy Costs and Burdens in Vermont: Burdensome for Whom? A report for the Vermont Low Income Trust for Electricity, Inc. 20 The Vermont Dept. for Children and Families; Outcomes for Vermonters, January 2015, 21 Vermont Housing Finance Agency, Vermont's Housing Profile, November 2014; 22 Grace Cottage Hospital, 2015 Community Health Needs Assessment 23 Springfield Medical Care Systems, Inc., Community Health Needs Assessment September 30, 2013; http://www.springfieldmed.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Z9pACzfg330%3d&tabid=39. 24 Childcare Aware of America, Childcare in the State of Vermont, 2014 25 OECD (2013), Time for the U.S. to Re-skill? What the Survey of Adult Skills Says, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, 26 National Center for Education Statistics: State & County Estimates of Low Literacy --Windham & Windsor counties in Vermont (2003) 27 ProLiteracy, The U.S. Crisis 28 National Coalition for Literacy Fact Sheet. 29 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Early Warning! Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters, January 2010; 30 Vermont Agency of Education, 2015 Smarter Balanced Assessment Results; 31 GOVERNING Data; Youth Unemployment Rate 32 Economic Policy Institute, Report on Youth Unemployment; prepared for Rep. Bernie Sanders, June 5, 2015; 33 National Conference of State Legislatures, Homeless and Runaway Youth, 10/1/2013; 34 United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, February 2013; Framework to End Youth Homelessness: A Resource Text for Dialogue and Action, 35 Department of Health, Agency of Human Services; 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey; 36 Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, et all, Household Food Security in the United States in 2014, USDA: Economic Research Service 37 U.S. Conference of Mayors, Hunger and Homelessness Survey, December 2014. 38 Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap, (data from 2013) 39 Feeding America, Hunger in America 2014; 40 Demos, The Debt Disparity: What Drives Credit Card Debt in America, May 1, 2014; 41 Demos, In the Red: Older Americans and Credit Card Debt; January 15, 2013; 42 CFED, Assets & Opportunity Scorecard, Vermont Appendix B
Southeastern Vermont Community Action (SEVCA)
2015 Community Needs Assessment
Community Partner Survey

A. Community Partner Information
1. Name of Organization / Agency:
2. Which of the following describes your service area? (Check all that apply)
Windham & Windsor Counties:  All or most  All or most;  Northern;  Southern;  Eastern;  Western  All or most;  Northern;  Southern;  Eastern;  Western 3. Which of the following describes your target population? (Check all that apply)
 Children & Families  People with Disabilities  Discrimination Victims  Prisoners / Ex-Offenders  Domestic / Financial Abuse & Sexual Violence Victims  General Assistance Clients  Sex Offenders  Immigrants-- Documented  Immigrants--Undocumented  Working Poor  Isolated Rural Residents  Low-Income Households  People with Addictions 4. Which of the Following Program / Service Sectors Do You Work In? (Check all that apply)
 Accessibility  Food & Nutrition / Hunger  Child Services  Health Services  Corrections / Diversion / Probation / Parole  Housing / Homelessness  Domestic Violence  Legal Services  Economic/ Workforce Development  Mental Health  Early Childhood Education  Public Safety  K–12 Education  Substance Abuse / Addiction  Higher Education  Transportation  Youth Programming  Energy/ Conservation  Family Support  Financial Services B. Community Needs Assessment
In each major category listed in the following questions (e.g., Accessibility, Asset Development, etc.), please
indicate the 3 highest priority needs you see in your community/service area. You may specify a need that is not
listed using the "Other" option. In the last question you will be asked to list the top 5 priority needs overall
from among all your priority selections.

Accessibility
Advocacy & Empowerment
 Automated call center barriers (state, utilities, etc.)  Advocacy for increased services  Developmental disability barriers  Community organizing of the disenfranchised  Handicapped-accessible facilities  Fighting state budget / service cuts  Hearing & vision barriers  Increase low-income political participation  Language & literacy limitations  Self-advocacy skills training  Technological barriers (‘Digital Divide')  Social / economic justice campaigns  Other:  Other: Asset Development
Child / Youth Development
 Budget / financial management counseling  Anti-discrimination / bullying training &  Credit building and repair  Child abuse / reporting / intervention  Encouraging / supporting saving & building assets  Childcare affordability  Financial Literacy education / training  Childcare availability (incl. infant & eve. care)  Income tax / Tax credit preparation assistance  Child support/advocacy ("deadbeat" parents)  Overcoming credit abuse / addiction  Collaboration and partnerships  Other:  Head Start / Early Head Start expansion  Life skills / residential/transitional support for Housing / Homelessness / Energy
 Parenting ed. / Family support & intervention  Affordable alternative / renewable energy  Reading / literacy skills  Affordable homeownership opp'ties / education  Special education needs support / advocacy  Alternative models (e.g., shared housing, add-on  Community / neighborhood rehabilitation  Fuel / utility assistance  Food & Nutrition/ Hunger
 Homelessness prevention / Housing stabilization  Accessibility of locally grown / produced food  Home repair / training  Adequate food / nutrition for shut-ins / elderly  Maintain / increase safe, affordable apartments  Affordable, nutritious food  Maintain / increase emergency shelter beds  Community gardening  Rapid Re-housing of the Homeless  Food shelves & distribution systems  Special needs / supported housing & services  Food Stamp (3SquaresVT) application assistance  Transitional housing  Basic food security for all  Tenant education / certification / mediation  Nutrition education  Weatherization enhancement / expansion  Collaboration / Coordination of Services
 Collaboration agreements / partnerships  Affordable auto financing  Co-location of facilities (‘one-stop shopping')  Carpooling programs  Coordination of services (reducing ‘silos')  Car sharing programs  Mergers / consolidation of agencies  Cooperative ‘on-demand' transportation system  Partnerships with state agencies  Obtaining an affordable car  Sharing resources cost-effectively  Public transportation to get to work  Other:  Public transportation to medical & other services  Vehicle maintenance & repairs  Volunteer driver programs  Accessible & affordable health care for all  Accessible & affordable dental care for all  Alcohol / substance abuse counseling / treatment Jobs / Workforce / Economic Development
 Developmental / disability services  Access to good jobs for people with disabilities  Fitness / exercise / obesity prevention  Building a strong local economy  HIV/AIDs treatment & support  Equal Access / pay / opportunities for all  Mental health counseling / treatment  Job creation  Sexual health/safety/birth control & education  Job readiness / life & workplace skills  SSI / SSDI application assistance  Job retention: Work supports & interventions  Traumatic brain injury treatment & support  Job search support  Workers health and safety  Job training/education  Women's health care  Livable wage / Good benefit jobs  Other:  Small business startup / support  Locally-driven community development Basic Necessities / Other
 Affordable clothing for children & adults Five Highest Priorities Overall
 Affordable professional clothing for work Among all the items that you indicated as priority needs in this survey, please list below the top 5 priority needs
 Affordable furniture overall that you see in your community/service area.
 Affordable household appliances & housewares  Alternatives to high cost furniture/appliance rentals 2.  Disasters / Emergency preparedness  Payee / Guardian ad litem services Other Needs / Comments / Explanation: (Optional): If you'd like to receive a copy of the Needs Assessment results, and/or be informed of any future activities, please provide the following information: Name Appendix C
A. Staff Survey--Community Needs Assessment
In each major category listed in the following questions (e.g., Accessibility, Asset Development, etc.), please
indicate the 3 highest priority needs you see in your community/service area. You may specify a need that is not
listed using the "Other" option. In the last question you will be asked to list the top 5 priority needs overall
from among all your priority selections.

Accessibility
Advocacy & Empowerment
 Automated call center barriers (state, utilities, etc.)  Advocacy for increased services  Developmental disability barriers  Community organizing of the disenfranchised  Handicapped-accessible facilities  Fighting state budget / service cuts  Hearing & vision barriers  Increase low-income political participation  Language & literacy limitations  Self-advocacy skills training  Technological barriers (‘Digital Divide')  Social / economic justice campaigns  Other:  Other:  No opinion/don't know  No opinion/don't know Asset Development
Child / Youth Development
 Budget / financial management counseling  Anti-discrimination /bullying programs  Credit building and repair  Child abuse / reporting / intervention  Encouraging / supporting saving & building assets  Childcare affordability  Financial Literacy education / training  Childcare availability (incl. infant & eve. care)  Income tax / Tax credit preparation assistance  Child support/advocacy ("deadbeat" parents)  Overcoming credit abuse / addiction  Collaboration and partnerships  Other:  Head Start / Early Head Start expansion  No opinion/don't know  Life skills/residential/transitional support for Housing / Homelessness / Energy
 Parenting ed. / Family support & intervention  Affordable alternative / renewable energy  Reading / literacy skills  Affordable homeownership opportunities/education  Special education needs support / advocacy  Alternative models (shared housing, add-on apt's)  Community / neighborhood rehabilitation  No opinion/don't know  Fuel / utility assistance  Homelessness prevention / Housing stabilization  Food & Nutrition/ Hunger
 Accessibility of locally grown / produced food  Maintain / increase safe, affordable apartments  Adequate food / nutrition for shut-ins / elderly  Maintain / increase emergency shelter beds  Affordable, nutritious food  Rapid Re-housing of the Homeless  Community gardening  Special needs / supported housing & services  Food shelves & distribution systems  Transitional housing  Food Stamp (3SquaresVT) application assistance  Tenant education / certification / mediation  Basic food security for all  Weatherization enhancement / expansion  Nutrition education  Other:  Other:  No opinion/don't know  No opinion/don't know Collaboration / Coordination of Services
 Collaboration agreements / partnerships  Affordable auto financing  Co-location of facilities (‘one-stop shopping')  Carpooling programs  Coordination of services (reducing ‘silos')  Car sharing programs  Mergers / consolidation of agencies  Cooperative ‘on-demand' transportation system  Partnerships with state agencies  Obtaining an affordable car  Sharing resources cost-effectively  Public transportation to get to work  Other:  Public transportation to medical & other services  No opinion/don't know  Vehicle maintenance & repairs  Volunteer driver programs  Accessible & affordable health care for all  No opinion/don't know  Accessible & affordable dental care for all  Alcohol / substance abuse counseling / treatment Jobs / Workforce / Economic Development
 Developmental / disability services  Access to good jobs for people with disabilities  Fitness / exercise / obesity prevention  Building a strong local economy  HIV/AIDs treatment & support  Equal Access / pay / opportunities for all  Mental health counseling / treatment  Job creation  Sexual health/safety/birth control & education  Job readiness / life & workplace skills  SSI / SSDI application assistance  Job retention: Work supports & interventions  Traumatic brain injury treatment & support  Job search support  Workers health and safety  Job training/education  Women's health care  Livable wage / Good benefit jobs  Other:  Small business startup / support  No opinion/don't know  Locally-driven community development Basic Necessities / Other
 No opinion/don't know  Affordable clothing for children & adults  Affordable professional clothing for work  Affordable furniture Five Highest Priorities Overall
 Affordable household appliances & housewares Among all the items that you indicated as priority needs in this survey, please list below the top 5 priority needs
 Alternatives to high cost furniture/appliance rentals overall that you see in your community/service area.
 Disasters / Emergency preparedness
 Payee / Guardian ad litem services  Other: 4.  No opinion/don't know Other Needs / Comments / Explanation: Open-Ended Questions:

What are some of the things SEVCA is doing that are working well in terms of meeting community needs?
What are you most proud of?

What ideas do you have for improving services?
B. Staff Survey – Agency Capacity-Building Needs Assessment
In each major category listed below (e.g., Training/Skill Building, etc.), please indicate what you see as the
agency's 3 highest priority capacity-building needs. You may specify a need that is not listed using the "Other"
option. In the last question you will be asked to list the top 5 priority needs overall from among all your priority
selections.
Training / Skill-Building (Choose 3 top priorities below)
 Trauma-sensitive approach to client service  Child abuse / neglect  SEVCA vision / values / history  Community organizing  Cross-training between programs  Technology/computer skills  Customer Service  Understanding Poverty  De-escalation of volatile situations  Program-specific (Specify under ‘Comment'  Diversity & inclusion  Leadership/Management  No opinion/don't know Please comment on or further explain the priorities you chose above:
Community Visibility / Presence / Awareness (Choose 3 top priorities below)
 Expand/enhance SEVCA newsletter  Initiate / sponsor local meetings and events  Expand/enhance use of website and social media  More frequent / effective one-on-one networking  Open more visible & inviting office space  Greater use of press releases to mass media  Participate in more community meetings / events  Improve outreach to and ability to meet service needs of minority groups  No opinion/don't know  Increase availability of services in community  Initiate/expand inter-agency collaboration and service integration Please comment on or further explain the priorities you chose above:
Internal Agency Systems and Infrastructure (Choose 3 top priorities below)
 Expand collaboration and service integration  Implement agency-wide intake / database system among SEVCA's programs  Increase sensitivity to diversity & inclusion  Explore / introduce further "greening" initiatives in  Move toward livable wages / benefits for all staff  Workplace safety systems / protocols  Explore shared services/co-location opportunities  SEVCA's internal emergency preparedness  Fast, reliable computer network  Fast, reliable phone system  No opinion/don't know  High quality program / office space in all areas Please comment on or further explain the priorities you chose above:
Five Highest Priorities Overall
Among all the items that you indicated as priority needs in this section, please list below the agency's top 5 priority
capacity-building needs overall.
Please comment on or further explain the priorities you chose above:
Indicate the agency department / group you work in below:
 Weatherization / Home Repair  Family Services  Fiscal / Admin or Economic Development  Thrift Stores / Textile Recycling

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey!
A report of the results will be shared with staff, and the information will be used in developing
SEVCA's Strategic Plan.
SEVCA Community Assessment Survey Results
Appendix D
Data below includes 'Don't know/doesn't apply to me' responses
I am currently.
Number of
Employed full-time Employed part-time Disabled and unable to work Disabled and able to work Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Top number is the count of respondents Doesn't apply
selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of Strongly
to me, or I
the total respondents selecting the option.
don't know
Most of the jobs I can get don't pay well I or my spouse/partner has to work more than 40 hours/week just to pay the bills There are not enough jobs available I need help finding a job I need more education or training to get a good job or a better job I can't afford to pay for the education or training program I want/need I have a hard time getting or keeping a job because I can't find affordable child care I have trouble finding or keeping a job because of problems with transportation I would like to start my own business, but need help or training to get me started I feel I have been discriminated against when applying for jobs (please explain below) If you have had problems getting or keeping a job, what is the main reason?
Stress/Mental Health Which of the following programs have you benefited from in the past 3 years?
Number of
3SquaresVT (food stamps) Rental subsidy (ex. Section 8, public housing) Child care subsidy or voucher Medicaid/Dr. Dinosaur VT Health Connect medical plan Unemployment Benefits Head Start or Early Head Start None of the above Are there any programs that you really need that you couldn't get?
Number of
If Yes, which ones? Why did you not get them?
Unemployed
dependents. Over
income. Errors on
forms. Unemployment.
Waiting list.
Childcare Subsidy Owned a business. Needed seasonal fuel. Dental/Other medical Not available.
requirement. Denied. Limits/Restrictions. Difficult system. Medicaid/Dr. Dinosaur requirement. Never Mortgage/Property Tax Program Not available.
Didn't meet income Public Housing/Rental Subsidy requirement. Waiting list. Not enough funds. Children age requirement. Over income. Criminal record. Program unavailable. Denied assistance. Application under review. Unfair treatment of claim. Utility Assistance Vocational Rehabilitation Not available.
VT Health Connect Waiting list.Renting.
Didn't ask or apply.
Over income limit.
Application under
review. House on
market. Denied. Told too
busy to assist. Unsure of
process.
I currently.
Number of
Rent an apartment/house Stay with family or friends Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Top number is the count of respondents Doesn't apply
selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of Strongly to me or I don't
the total respondents selecting the option.
It is hard to find affordable, safe housing in my I have a hard time paying my rent or mortgage I am behind in my rent or mortgage payments I have a hard time paying my heating or I want to move or get an apartment but can't afford the security deposit My home needs major repairs, but I can't My landlord keeps up with the maintenance on My home or apartment is cold in the winter and/or not insulated well If you have problems with housing or utilities, what is the main reason?
Utilities, Electric Home repairs/maintenance Needs Weatherization Mortgage payments/Rent SSI/SSDI too low Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Top number is the count of respondents Doesn't apply
selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of Strongly to me or I don't
the total respondents selecting the option.
My household's income is enough to meet my family's basic needs (food, housing, clothing) I can't get credit or have bad credit I have had to borrow money or use my credit card just to pay for my basic needs I can't afford the monthly payments on my I am able to save money on a regular basis I could use help with budgeting or financial education to help me save for the future If you were able to save money for something, what would it be?
Children/grandchildren Education/college fund Necessities (clothing, phone, etc.) Monthly expenses/bills Heat/Oil/Utilities What is your greatest challenge to becoming financially stable?
Health/mental health Budgeting/saving money Childcare/single parent Property tax/taxes Fuel Assistance/heat Affordable housing Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Top number is the count of respondents Doesn't apply
selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of Strongly to me or I don't
the total respondents selecting the option.
My community has good public transportation I have a hard time making my car payments I have a hard time maintaining my car I need a car but can't afford one I don't have car insurance because I can't I can't afford to get my driver's license or car registration reinstated I have a hard time getting transportation to medical appointments Public transportation goes where I need to go at the times I need If you have problems with transportation, what is the main reason?
Car repairs/maintenance Lack of public transportation/ schedule issuesCannot drive/no license Medical/disability Weather/road conditions Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Top number is the count of respondents Doesn't apply
selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of Strongly to me or I don't
the total respondents selecting the option.
I have enough nutritious food for myself and I sometimes skip meals or eat less to save My health insurance and/or medical bills are too expensive for me to afford I have a hard time finding doctors that take my I have a hard time finding dentists that take I or someone in my family needs substance abuse treatment or support I or someone in my family needs help with a problem like depression, anxiety/stress, or My community has enough substance abuse and mental health services If you have problems with health or mental health, what is the main reason?
Lack of dental/eyecare Access to health care Back pain/bone/joints Substance abuse/drugs Heart disease/attack Do you have children currently receiving or in need of child care?
Number of
Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Top number is the count of respondents Doesn't apply
selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of Strongly to me or I don't
the total respondents selecting the option.
I have had trouble finding good quality infant/toddler programs in my area I have had trouble finding affordable, good quality preschool programs in my area I have a hard time paying for the child care I It is hard to find child care during the hours I I think my child's pre-school program is doing a good job of preparing him/her for I don't send my child to preschool, but would if there was a good quality program in my If you have had problems with child care, what is the main reason?
Finding quality daycares Access to programs After-school care Are you involved in any of the following? (Check all that apply)
Number of
I am involved in my church or other religious institution I belong to a civic or other community group I volunteer at my child's school or attend PTO/PTA meetings I coach a youth athletics team I provide care for an extended family member I attend my town meetings I participate in community events or activities I volunteer at a program in my community (please specify below) If you would like to volunteer or get involved in something, but haven't, what's getting in the way?
Time/schedule conflicts Child care/single parent Mental health/Anxiety Unsure of opportunities Complete this sentence: If I could do one thing to change my life for the better, I would.
Job/better paying job College/education Fix medical issues/disability More income/money Pay debt/save money Find peace/start over Therapy/rehab, sober, quit smoking Transportation/car Eat healhty/nutrition Clear legal issues What is your race or ethnicity? (choose all that apply)
Number of
Black/African American What is your household type?
Number of
Single person, no children Married, no children Single parent family with children Two parent family with children

Source: http://www.sevca.org/images/pdf/FINALCommunityAssessmentappendices.pdf