Community Action Plan

Fiscal Year July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006

Needs Assessment

The 2005-2006 Needs Assessment relies on data and input from the 2000 Census, the University of Tennessee in conjunction with Nine Counties. One Vision. and CAC’s Board and customers. The University of Tennessee’s College of Social Work Office of Research and Public Service (SWORPS) prepared an extensive report for the Social Services Task Force of Nine Counties. One Vision. The Task Force identified gaps in services, perceived or actual barriers to services, or duplication of services throughout the nine county region. Data was compiled for the region as a whole and for each of the nine counties (http://sworps.utk.edu/PDFs/viewbook.pdf). Knox County data is presented in this document. There were three phases to the needs assessment. The first phase gathered social indicator data. This phase relied heavily on the 2000 and 2004 Census data (http://www.census.gov/). In addition, SWORPS gathered data from more than 100 different sources. The information is available at www.ninecountiesonevision.org. The second and third phases were conducted by SWORPS. In the second phase, perceptual data was gathered using a telephone survey. A random sample of people in each of the nine counties, including Knox County, was interviewed by telephone about their household problems, needs, and services. An analysis of this information is also available on the above referenced website. The third phase utilized focus groups from each of the nine counties. These groups brought together a cross section of people having the “big picture.” After all phases were completed, SWORPS produced an analytical report.

The needs assessment includes the results of Board member and customer surveys. Additionally, we have relied on the needs assessment and planning materials produced by provider organizations. These include:

1. Homelessness in Knoxville/Knox County 2004, prepared by Dr. Roger Nooe, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

2. Workforce Connections Board Minutes, January 2005

3. Salt and Light Guide Book, Second Edition, 2002

4. The Knox County Consolidated Plan, July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010

5. Hunger in East Tennessee, a White Paper, Second Harvest Food Bank

6. City of Knoxville Consolidated Plan, Draft, July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010

These and other materials used in the preparation of this plan are not attached, but they are available upon request from the Needs Assessment file maintained at CAC’s Central Office.

Social Indicator Data: Consistent with a national trend showing population growth in urban areas, the 2000 census indicated population growth in both the City of Knoxville and Knox County. The total Knox County population has grown by 13.8% to 382,032. The population in Knox County outside the city limits increased by 22% with most of the growth in West Knox County, both in the southwest and along the northern boundary. The City of Knoxville grew by 5.3% to a total of 173,890, reversing a decline during the previous decade.

2000 census data states that while the total population increased, the percent of the population in poverty decreased slightly from 14.1% to 12.6% (46,572 individuals). The Knox County poverty rate is lower than the statewide rate of 13.5% and about the same as the nationwide rate of 12.4%. However, Census Bureau’s figures released August 31, 2005 reflect an increase in the poverty rate coinciding with the 2001 recession. The number of Americans who fell into poverty rose to 37 million in 2004, up 1.1 million in 2003. Overall, the nation’s poverty rate rose to 12.7% in 2004, up from 12.5% in 2003. This marks the fourth straight increase in the government’s annual poverty measure, with the last decline in overall poverty occurring in 2000.

The Census Bureau reports that poverty in Tennessee increased from 12.7% to 15% when comparing the 2-year average of 1999-2000 to the 2-year average of 2003-2004. The number of Tennesseans in poverty during these periods rose from 710,000 to 879,000. Poverty has increased as a result of the 2001 recession, but also because income support programs like Unemployment Insurance and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families are helping fewer individuals.

According to 2000 Census Bureau figures, the percentage of children in Knox County in poverty decreased from 15.7% in 1990 to 12.9% in 2000. In Knox County, while 8.4% (8,440) families are below the poverty level, 28.8% (4,896) of families with a female head of household with no husband present live below the poverty level. 38.4% of these families include children under age 18, and 55% include children under age five. 25.9% of the poverty population in Knox County is composed of children less than 18 years of age. Moreover, figures released by the Census Bureau in August 2005 are not encouraging. Nationally, the percentage of children in poverty had risen to 17.8% by the end of 2004 when more than one in six of America’s children lived in poverty, and close to one-third of those in poverty were children. Many parts of the south, including Knox County, experience poverty rates higher than the rest of the nation.

An analysis of individual census tracts shows the significant impact of poverty on some portions of the Knoxville community. In the 19 inner city census tracts that make up the Empowerment Zone, poverty rates for all ages range from 30% to 67% compared to a Knox County rate of 12.6%. With one or two exceptions, poverty rates for all groups (under 18, over 65, and families) exceed the county rates by very wide margins. See charts 3a and 3b.

The racial profile of Knox County is 88.1% white, 8.6% black, 1.3% Asian, and 1.2% Hispanic. 32,987 Afro Americans comprise 8.6% of the Knox County population. While accounting for a relatively small percent of the total poverty population, poverty and poverty-related issues are significant for the Afro American community. Blacks make up 21.8% of the poverty population. This means 10,187 black persons, or 32.3%, are below the poverty level. See chart 3c.

According to the 2000 Census Bureau report, Knox County became more integrated in the 1990s. The black population of Knox County (city and county) grew by 11.4% to a total of 32,987 with 28,171 (85%) living within the city limits. Outside the city limits, the black population increased from 3,550 to 4,816. While the number of blacks living in the county outside the city limits increased by 36%, the actual percentage of blacks in the Knox County population (city and county) decreased from 8.8% in 1990 to 8.6% in 2000. This is explained by the fact that the total population (city and county) increased by almost 14% while the black population grew by 11.4%. Of interest is that area in the county where growth of the black population has been most notable, including Farragut, Karns, Ball Camp, and Powell. Whether the increase in the minority population in the county outside the city represents upward mobility will not be determined until the annual income figures are analyzed by race and census tract.

Census figures indicate the Hispanic population has more than doubled, growing from 2,067 in 1990 to 4,803 in 2000. Hispanics comprise 1.26% of the total county population. This rate might be higher if undocumented immigrants were included. For social service providers, the increase in the Hispanic population is significant because the system is not used to dealing with large numbers of people who do not speak English.

The percent of the population aged 65 and older remained about the same between 1990 (12.7%) and 2000 (12.6%). The 2000 Census identifies 48,415 individuals aged 65 and older. There was a significant decrease in the number and percentage of senior citizens below poverty, reflecting a national trend. In 1990, 14.9% of those over 65 were below poverty. In 2000, that rate had dropped to 9.7% (4,468 individuals). There was growth in the old/old (those over 75 and over 85 years of age), growth in the number of persons 75 years and older living alone, and an increase in persons with disability, mobility, and self-care limitations. On a regional basis, the percentage of the population being cared for in institutions is decreasing, even though the absolute number in those institutions is increasing. People prefer to age at home. If they do, social services are needed to support them. The availability and affordability of these services relates directly to one’s ability to live at home and function independently.

According to the 2000 Census, there are 157,872 households (families) in Knox County. 64% (100,726) are composed of more than one family member, 36% (57,146) represent non-family units where the household member lives alone. 31% (48,873) of the households include individuals less than 18 years of age, and 22% (34,497) are households with individuals 65 years and over. 9% of households (14,356) are composed of an individual over 65 years living alone. The average household size is 2.34 and the average family size is 2.92.

97% of the population lives in households. Just 3% live in group quarters, including both institutionalized and non-institutionalized persons. 88% of those living in households live in families composed of some combination of householder/spouse/children. 4% live in households with other relatives, and 5% live in households with non-relatives.

171,439 housing units are listed in Knox County. 7.9% are identified as vacant. Census information indicates 2/3 of housing units are owner occupied and 1/3 are renter occupied. The rental vacancy rate is 10%.

The unemployment rate for Knox County has been declining since January 2005, and remains well below the state and national averages. In September 2005, the Knox County unemployment rate was 3.6% compared to 4.9% for the State of Tennessee and 4.8% for the United States. The 2000 per capita income for Knox County ($28,281) was above the state average ($25,946), but below the national average ($29,469). However, an analysis of individual census tracts shows a very different picture. For example, 2000 census data shows the 19 inner city census tracts that comprise the Empowerment Zone had an average unemployment rate of 14% with individual census tract rates ranging from 5.5% to 43%. It is important to note the per capita incomes in the Empowerment Zone census tracts range from $6,952 to $14,712. See chart 3d.

The University of Tennessee Center for Business and Economic Research has used census data to study the relationship between education levels and earnings. The accompanying chart shows clearly that earnings increase with each increase in educational credentials. The only exception is at the PhD level. The relationship between education and unemployment was also studied. The attached chart shows that persons with lower formal education levels are much more likely to be unemployed. This analysis holds true when the educational levels, unemployment rates, and median income levels of the Empowerment Zone census tracts are compared to countywide rates. For example, in Knox County, 17% of persons over age 25 do not have a high school diploma or GED as compared to 34% for the Empowerment Zone. Median family income countywide is $49,182 compared to $20,668 in the Empowerment Zone. See charts 3e and 3f.

Telephone Survey: SWORPS conducted telephone surveys in the nine counties region. Responses were tabulated for the region as a whole and for each county. Knox County residents from all socio-economic groups were randomly sampled. The responses provide a snapshot of perceptions and beliefs held by Knox Countians. Four hundred thirty-one (431) surveys were completed for Knox County. The survey did not ask respondents if they had used local services or knew of persons who had used them. The survey assessed respondents’ perceptions of the availability of social services to household members, the degree of satisfaction with existing services, issues or problems encountered by household members in the past year, and real and perceived barriers that prevented household members from using existing social services.

84% of survey respondents reported living in neighborhoods described as “good” or “excellent.” 57% felt they had “opportunity to affect how things happen in your neighborhood.”

One question asked respondents to select the household problem they regard as most important using a select list of 23 issues. The 10 top issues selected are:

1. Not being able to pay for or get medical insurance

2. Not being able to get emergency help (police, ambulance, fire, etc.) when needed

3. Having a lot of anxiety, stress, or depression

4. Not being able to afford help with care for an elderly person or someone with a disability or serious illness

5. Not having enough money to pay for prescription medicines

6. Not being able to find work

7. Not having enough money to buy food

8. Children or teenagers experiencing behavior or emotional problems at home or at school

9. Not having enough money to pay for housing

10. Experiencing an alcohol and/or drug problem

Thirty-one percent of respondents reported seeking help for the issues they identified for their household, and 52% of the 31% reported difficulty in getting that help. The top 5 difficulties are:

1. Ineligible for the help

2. Lacked information on available services

3. Unable to afford

4. Had to wait too long to get the help

5. Couldn’t get a person at the agency to help

SWORPS conducted focus groups with community leaders and social service providers in Knox County. Five Most Critical Problems are identified as:

1. People living in or near poverty

2. Shortage of good-paying jobs & Unemployment among African-Americans

3. People unable to afford health care

4. Needs of the growing elderly population

5. Needs of the growing Latino and immigrant population

The 6 Major Service Gaps are identified as:

1. Affordable, quality child care

2. Drug and alcohol treatment

3. Mental health services

4. Transportation

5. Transitional & independent services for teens & Leaving foster care

6. Safe, affordable housing

CAC Board and Client Surveys: CAC Board members were surveyed. From a list of services, Board members were asked to select and rank the five services they felt were most important in meeting community needs. They were also asked to identify other needs that should be studied and considered for future planning. The results of the ranking are summarized in the following table. The Priority Ranking considers the combined number of times a service was ranked either first or second. The Overall Ranking considers the number of times a service was ranked in the top 5.

OVERVIEW OF CAC BOARD MEMBER SURVEY RESULTS

Priority Rank Selected as 1^st or 2^nd choice at least once	Description of Service		Overall Rank Selected as a top 5 choice at least once
1^st	Helping people become more self-sufficient through education by increasing literacy, getting a GED, obtaining job training or post secondary education		1^st
2^nd	Helping low-income families move out of poverty by providing comprehensive case management services		2^nd
3^rd	Helping people become more self-sufficient by getting and keeping a job		2^nd
4^th	Helping people in crisis avoid utility shut-off, eviction, or other emergencies		2^nd
5^thand 6^th	Helping people access needed services such as medical, mental health and other treatments, social services, grocery shopping, and other needed services through transportation	Helping elderly people to live independently in their homes and prevent the high costs of institutionalization*	*5^th

The other services listed for selection were also chosen a number of times, two of them tying for seventh place. Because the total number of surveys was small, the difference at this level is not significant. The other services listed for selection ranked as follows:

7. Helping low-income people meet their food needs by community gardening

and Helping the working poor people qualify for and get better jobs

8. Insuring access to emergency food pantries by providing staff support to Emergency Food Helpers

9. Providing financial education programs

Helping people become more self-sufficient through education by increasing literacy, getting a GED, obtaining job training or post secondary education was ranked first by the Board, moving up from second place in the previous survey. This reflects the Board’s understanding of the strong link between level of education and employment. Helping low-income families move out of poverty by providing comprehensive case management services was ranked second by the Board, moving down from first place in the previous survey. Case management helps clients make connections between programs, maximize opportunities to use available resources, and move out of poverty. The Board continues to identify these 2 services as critical.

Helping people become more self-sufficient by getting and keeping jobs moved from sixth place to third place this year, perhaps reflecting the current economic downturn. Helping people in crisis avoid utility shut-off or other emergencies held its fourth place rank from the previous survey, also reflecting the current economic downturn. Providing people access via transportation and keeping the elderly in their homes was ranked equally by the Board. The Board demonstrated consistency in both the Priority Ranking and the Overall Ranking.

When asked to identify other needs that should be studied and considered for future planning, the Board suggested emphasis on educating the community on what services are available and programs to encourage young people to be more independent, motivated to become role models, and participate in the community.

CAC clients were also surveyed. From a list of needs/problems, clients were asked to check those that applied to them or any member of the family. Clients were also asked to give their opinions about problems in the community. From a specific list, respondents were asked to rank the top five community problems. Each CSBG funded component was asked to distribute 20-25 surveys. One hundred and thirty-four of 155 client surveys were returned for a return rate of 87%. The 134 usable surveys are tabulated in the following table.

CLIENT SURVEY: INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY LEVEL

Rank	Needs/Problems	Of 134, Number Selecting Problem	Of 134, Percent Selecting Problem
1	Can’t pay utility bill	95	71%
2	Transportation	70	52%
3	Money for food	61	46%
4	Health problem	58	43%
5	Money for rent/house payment & Finding a job	53	40%
6	House needs repair	44	33%
7	Care for elderly family member	22	16%
8	Day care for children	21	16%
9	Predatory lending	20	15%
10	After school care for children & Drug or alcohol problem	17	13%

Compared to the previous year’s survey results, transportation, money for food, and money for rent and house payments ranked higher. Can’t pay utility bill remains the number one problem.

Survey results of client’s rankings of the Needs/Problems in their communities are presented in the following table. Seventy-six of 135 surveys were usable.

CLIENT SURVEY: NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY LEVEL

Priority Ranking	Needs/Problems	Of 76, Number of Times Selected	% Who Rated Problem 1 or 2	% Of Times Selected as a Top Five Choice
1	Lack of affordable housing	44	22%	58%
2	Lack of good-paying jobs	38	29%	50%
3	Crime Unemployment	33	22% 17%	43% 43%
4	Inadequate transportation Inadequate health care	29	17% 12%	38% 38%
5	Drug abuse	22	13%	29%
6	Homelessness Lack of job training	20	½ % 11%	26% 26%
7	Mental illness	17	11%	22%
8	Lack of recreation programs Teen pregnancy Hunger	13	½ % 12% 10%