family involvement project - southwestern public health · family involvement project 2012 2 hired...

FAMILY

INVOLVEMENT

PROJECT

“[Community] is possible but you have to build it” ~ parent in St. Thomas ON

Elgin Children’s Network: Service Gaps Committee

Family Involvement Project 2012

Released: October 2012

Questions or comments on this report may be directed to:

Elizabeth Gough, Data Analysis Coordinator Ontario Early Years Elgin-Middlesex-London Ph: (519) 631-9496 Email: [email protected]


Table of Contents Page

Introduction .………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

The Family Involvement Project ……………………………………………………………………… 2

Project Goals & Objectives ……………………………………………………………………. 2

Methodology and Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………. 3

A. Focus Groups ………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

Design ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

Demographics …………………………………………………………………………………… 5

Results ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 6

Table 1: Summary of Themes across Focus Groups by Neighbourhood . . . . . . 6

Key Findings ……………………………………………………………………………………… 9

B. Community Survey …………………………………………………………………………. 11

Design ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11

Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

Demographics ………………………………………………………………………………….. 12

Results …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13

Table 2: Survey Question 1: Do you have access to the following PLACES

in your neighbourhood? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 3: Survey Question 2: Do you have access to the following SUPPORTS

in your neighbourhood? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 4: Survey Question 3: Do you have access to the following PROGRAMS

in your neighbourhood? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


Table 5: Survey Question 4: How important is each of the following in

CHOOSING a program or service for your family? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 6: Survey Question 5: How important is the following support services

to you and your family concerning YOUR CITY of ST.THOMAS

in general? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 7: Survey Question 6: Statements regarding RELATIONSHIPS

and TRUST were rated agree/disagree by parents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 8: Survey Question 7: Statements regarding SAFETY were rated

agree/disagree by parents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Key Findings …………………………………………………………………………………….. 23

Project Findings and Suggested Priorities ……………………………………………………….. 24

Summary of Limitations ………………………………………………………………………….......... 26

Future Project Goals ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 27

Reference List …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27

APPENDICES

A. Location of three identified neighbourhoods in St. Thomas …………….. 28

B. Map of South Edgeware Neighbourhood in St. Thomas …………………… 29

C. Map of Balaclava South Neighbourhood in St. Thomas ……………………. 30

D. Map of Courthouse Neighbourhood in St. Thomas ………………………….. 31

E. Focus Groups: Targeted Social Marketing Strategy ………………………….. 32

F. Focus Group: Recruitment Flyer ………………………………………………………. 33

G. Survey: Targeted Social Marketing Strategy …………………………………….. 34

H. Survey: Recruitment Flyer ………………………………………………………………. 35

I. Survey Sample …………………………………………………………………………………. 36

J. Map of all Early Years Neighbourhoods for the City of St. Thomas …… 51


1

INTRODUCTION

Elgin Children’s Network (ECN) is a committee consisting of a broad range of community partners

involved in children’s services for Elgin County, supporting young families with children prenatally to six

years of age. The Service Gaps Committee (SGC, the “Committee”) is a subcommittee of ECN and

consists of community representatives including: Ontario Early Years Elgin-Middlesex-London, Family &

Children’s Services of St. Thomas & Elgin County, Elgin St. Thomas Public Health and West Elgin

Community Health Centre.

The Committee began work in the Fall of 2010 to understand how and where local service gaps were

occurring in children’s services. Neighbourhood level data was available to support Early Years

planning for the City of St. Thomas, thus the Committee started looking at this geography first, with

future intent to continue this work for the Municipalities of Elgin County.

Three St. Thomas neighbourhoods were chosen as priority based on an Early Years vulnerability

assessment. Vulnerability was assessed using three criteria to predict risk in this demographic: Social

Risk Index (SRI), population of children aged 0-6 years and Early Development Instrument (EDI) scores-

percent vulnerable (low on one or more domains of school readiness). The neighbourhoods identified

include: South Edgeware, Balaclava and Courthouse. Please see Appendix A for a map illustrating the

location of the three neighbourhoods. Please see Appendix B through D for maps of the three

individual neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood boundaries for the City of St. Thomas were established for

Early Years planning purposes for Elgin Children’s Network in September 2008.

The Committee completed an environmental scan, “Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

(SWOT) Analysis” for each of the three neighbourhoods using available data and service provider

insight. Although very rich in data and perspective, the Committee needed to understand the

experience of families living in each neighbourhood. External research became the goal for this

committee.

In the Spring of 2011, the Committee received a grant from Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas

& Elgin County to support early years community research. By Summer of 2011, SNJ Associates were


2

hired as the consultant lead. The work that began with the Service Gaps Committee, later became

known as the “Family Involvement Project” (FIP, the “Project”).

THE FAMILY INVOLVEMENT PROJECT – The Parents Voice

The Committee is dedicated to creating a family-driven community, where children of Elgin-St. Thomas

are healthy and develop to their full potential. The Project began as a pilot with two specific phases.

Phase one focused on hearing from parents across three selected neighbourhoods within the City of St.

Thomas through focus groups while the second phase included implementation of a community wide

survey of parents across the City of St. Thomas. Results of the Family Involvement Project will advise

future community research throughout all neighbourhoods in St. Thomas and municipalities of Elgin

County. The over-riding goal of the Project was to ensure the voices of parents in the community and

specifically their views and concerns about their neighbourhoods were heard and acknowledged. The

Committee remains committed in taking the parent voice forward. Results of the Project will inform a

series of recommended priorities to be presented to ECN.

PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES

1. Involve families in planning for service delivery in their neighbourhood.

2. Present formal recommendations for better family-centred delivery of service for children and families in 3 priority neighbourhoods and across the City of St. Thomas.

3. Facilitate the development of Family Neighbourhood Advisory Groups in 3 priority neighbourhoods.


3

PROJECT FIELD TEAM

Principle Team Leader: Bev Fellows, Ontario Early Years Elgin-Middlesex-London

Research and Epidemiological Consultant: SNJ Associates

Project Coordinator: Elizabeth Gough, Ontario Early Years Elgin-Middlesex-London

Project Team: Erica Arnett and Jody Lorch, Elgin-St. Thomas Public Health Amy Adams, Family and Children’s Services St. Thomas & Elgin

Cora King, West Elgin Community Health Centre

ETHICS REVIEW: Ellison Consulting

METHODOLOGY & ANALYSIS

The Project used a mixed methodological approach to capture both qualitative and quantitative data.

The Committee had produced themes and questions for data collection based on the goals, objectives

and purpose of the Committee as a whole. In addition, data collection tools were informed by

literature, data and evidence. The development of the theoretical framework utilized data from

Statistics Canada (2006), local vulnerabilities from the Early Development Instrument (2008/09 cohort),

neighbourhood SWOT analysis data (2011) and literature such as Pascal’s Report “With Our Best Future

In Mind” (2009).

A series of focus groups were held that invited parents from the three neighbourhoods of South

Edgeware, Balaclava and Courthouse to share their perspectives across several themes surrounding

their particular neighbourhood. Additionally, a community wide survey (the “Survey”) asked parents

about four major themes concerning their neighbourhood. Focus group and survey parents were also

asked about their interest in participating on a neighbourhood advisory committee.


4

A. FOCUS GROUPS

DESIGN

Both focus groups and key informant interviews were used to collect qualitative data. Sampling

techniques included non-random sampling, a convenience sample and specifically the snowball

sampling technique; whereby parents informed other parents in their neighbourhood about the

opportunity to participate in the focus group. A targeted social marketing strategy was

developed by the Committee and is available for review in Appendix E. A copy of the

distributed Flyer is available in Appendix F. Recruitment duration for the focus groups was

twenty-seven days, beginning September 28th and ending October 25th 2011. Each of the focus

groups took place October 24, 25 or 26th from 5-8pm at the Ontario Early Years Centre in St.

Thomas. Participants were assigned a focus group based on their neighbourhood residence, as

neighbourhoods were segregated by committee design.

Study population – Focus Group Inclusion Criteria

Over age 18 years as of screening, recruitment and enrolment date

Parent of a child 0-12 years old or expecting a baby at the time of screening, recruitment and enrolment date

Resides in one of the three priority neighbourhoods of Balaclava, Courthouse or South Edgeware in the City of St. Thomas

All enrolees were offered childcare, a meal/refreshments and transportation to/from the focus

group. All focus group and key informant participants received a $25 grocery gift certificate as

a thank-you for their time.

Focus Group Objectives

A. Indentify Assets

B. Identify Needs

C. Identify Barriers

D. Build Neighbourhood Social Capital/Social Cohesion


5

ANALYSIS

The analysis of the qualitative data from the three focus groups included coding and

summarizing both the a priori and emerging themes.

DEMOGRAPHICS

In total, twenty-four parents attended one of three focus groups. Eight parents were from

Balaclava, nine from Courthouse and seven from the South Edgeware neighbourhood. There

were a total of four Key Informant Interviews also included in the qualitative data. Two

interviewees were from Courthouse and two from South Edgeware neighbourhoods.

Additionally, one informant in each neighbourhood was also interviewed in a professional

capacity in the areas of education and child care. Demographic information for all focus group

participants were collected at the time of recruitment and were self-reported.

Key Demographics:

The majority of participants were women and in each of the three groups there was one male.

The majority of participants were either married or common-law and living with their partner.

39% were working full-time (at least 35 hrs per week), 44% stayed at home without their partner working.

22% had some high school education, 22% had graduated high school, 39% graduated college or university.

67% rented their current residence whereas 33% owned their home.

Average number of children: 1.7 (ranged from one to three) and age ranges as follows: 0-3 years (49%), 4-6 years (32%) and 6-12 years (19%).


6

RESULTS

Below is a summary of themes across neighbourhoods as presented from each focus group and

as provided by key informants. The summary includes both the a priori and emerging themes

(in bold).

Table 1: Summary of Themes across Focus Groups by Neighbourhood

BALACLAVA COURTHOUSE SOUTH EDGEWARE

THEME

ASSETS

Library Proximity to downtown Great neighbours Everything within

walking distance Sports and recreation

(YMCA) P.A. Day program

Drop in playgroup at Merrymount

Friendly, quite, safe neighbourhood

Safe Historic character Frisbee/Tobogganing area Grocery store/Fresh food Teen centre on Talbot Proximity to Pinafore

Park Churches Pediatrician (Wal-Mart) Quiet traffic volume

Parks Walk to Waterworks OEYC summer program Fire Department Tim Horton's Jumpstart at Locke's school Playgroup at Valleyview Boys and Girls Club Complex in neighbourhood:

good neighbours, childcare and socializing


7


THEME

NEEDS

More crossing guards Indoor playground for

children Activities for different

aged children including tweens and teens

Speed bumps Enforced safety school

zones Neighbourhood

surveillance Walk-in clinics Sidewalk maintenance OEYC Neighbourhood clean up Needle disposal Cigarette butt disposal More information about

services Block Parents Community support for

alternative lifestyles Education for teens re:

pregnancy/counselling

Bike paths More activities for free

and more affordable programs and activities

Changing areas for babies specifically for Dads

More garbage cans to keep neighbourhood clean

Outdoor play space Footpaths/Running and

Bike paths Community Centre Indoor pool Outdoor skating Community gardens Splash pads Street lighting Centre/Programs for

young children Yearly survey by council

of citizens to find out what they want in their neighbourhoods

Block parents Affordable groceries Walk-in clinics and more

doctors Safer play areas Library

New playground equipment Community Centre (like

Tillsonburg) More programs/ playgroups More than just seasonal

programs for children Support groups: Adults and

children Improved bus schedule Block Parents and more

safety for children Affordable childcare

including before and after school

More information about what is available

More supervision at Locke's school

Home alone sessions at affordable cost for children

Crosswalks and crosswalk buttons

Walk-in clinic and pharmacy OEYC type centre cooking clubs Need more community

activities like in past Clean up neighbourhood More patrols from St.

Thomas police


8


THEME

BARRIERS

Drug paraphernalia "Junkies/crack-heads" Personal theft Destructive children in

neighbourhood Amalgamation of

schools has resulted in no friends close by for child

Speeding cars People not cleaning

their properties Path to Athletic Park

littered with needles, garbage and broken glass

No sidewalks-poor accessibility

Inability to take strollers on public transit as most do not fold up adequately or too difficult

Poor, unreliable bus service

Cost of transportation, both bus and cab

Cost of programs for children

Park very difficult to access with strollers and walking pedestrians, especially toddlers

Closed down buildings not safe and look bad

Park area very wooded so not good to use

Can't take strollers on buses

Poor, unreliable bus service

Pedestrian safety No walk-in clinics Lack of communication

and information to public from officials investing in neighbourhoods - how can people have more input?

Sidewalks are not cleared enough

Children destroying stuff in complex

Cost of programs e.g., Home Alone program $53~too expensive

Poor, unreliable bus service and cost when traveling with children

Wait lists for counseling services too long

Housing concerns, mold Cabs very expensive ($20 to

go get groceries at Wal-Mart)

Knowing how and where to access information

Before and After school care non-existent or too expensive, not flexible e.g. shift-work and part time options

Having to travel out of city for certain services e.g. Drivers license

Needles, broken glass in neighbourhood

No walk-in clinics for health services that can access

Pedestrian safety for children walking to and from school

Cost of programs Sidewalk maintenance Under-employment, no

benefits Unleashed dogs


9


THEME

SOCIAL COHESION

Most important thing is children

Need connection with other Moms

Informal groups identified as important in neighbourhood

Landlord and neighbour indicated as safe and reliable people

Feelings of inequality in neighbourhood

People know and care about each other in neighbourhood

Need to come together as community

Landlord and “neighbours” named as safe and reliable people

Trust some people in neighbourhood

Too much drama sometimes in social networks

Important to have a voice to see what's going on in your community

Focus Group Key Findings:

Parents identified and shared their perspective on the positive aspects of their neighbourhood.

o Balaclava: the ability to walk everywhere and its proximity to downtown St. Thomas

o Courthouse: the neighbourhoods’ unique historic character and quiet friendly nature.

o South Edgeware: proximity to parks, and wealth of programs such as the OEYC summer

program, playgroup at Valleyview and Jumpstart at Locke’s school.

Regardless of where they lived, parents stated their neighbourhood required a community

centre or some type of location for affordable and accessible programs and activities for their

children.

o “Where is the spot in our community?” (Courthouse parent).

o Many parents shared that in some cases there were no areas for their children to play

outdoors in their neighbourhood, while others shared that they had a playground in

their neighbourhood but the equipment was in such disrepair it was unsafe. “If the

playground equipment is taken away [versus being repaired] what will the children have

then” (South Edgeware parent).

An emerging theme from the focus groups was neighbourhood safety, which includes both the

physical space; better lighting, clearer sidewalks, better foot and bike paths and also a

pervasive emphasis on pedestrian safety.


10

o More specifically in regards to pedestrian safety, is the need for having more cross-

walks, bike paths and enforced/monitored road safety of vehicle traffic in residential

and school zones.

o In particular, the residents of Balaclava have discussed purchasing a speed sign and

members of the community are willing to pay for it themselves.

o Each neighbourhood indicated the need for Block Parents or similar program to

promote safety.

o Many parents indicated their neighbourhood needed to be cleaned up and required

needle disposals, cigarette waste receptacles along with more garbage cans. Parents

indicated this was a safety issue for their children as drug paraphernalia, broken glass

and garbage were common in public spaces across neighbourhoods. One parent

reported having a “neighbour *who+ smokes drugs *and the smell+ goes right into their

child’s room” furthermore another parent stated “St. Thomas is a bad town for drugs”.

The need for information sharing was discussed at each focus group; both the need for

information about available programs/services for families and the need for residents to

provide information to council about what they want in their neighbourhood. Families want to

know how to share their input; they want to be heard!

Transportation was stated as an overwhelming barrier for many parents, many of whom

among the focus group participants did not have access to a vehicle. The bus schedule, types of

buses, shelter waiting areas and the cost of bus fare were raised by many parents as

problematic.

o Also discussed was the cost of cabs in the city, which are unaffordable to many parents.

o Transportation costs and the complexity of travel within the city of St. Thomas is a

considerable barrier for families who need service and want to participate in their

community.

o One parent empathetically stated: “Being stuck sucks”.

Inaccessible medical services, particularly walk-in clinics and doctors were cited by all three

neighbourhoods.

Regarding social cohesion, the majority of parents had someone in their neighbourhood whom

they could rely on and in a number of cases a landlord or neighbour were specifically referred

to; however, many parents still expressed the need to come together as a community.


11

o Most parents expressed a keen interest in participating in a neighbourhood advisory

group for their particular neighbourhood and one parent stated “*Community+ is

possible but you have to build it”, whereas another parent shared that “everyone

should be interested in their community”.

B. COMMUNITY SURVEY

DESIGN

The Survey was self-report and included seventeen questions that focused on asking what

places, supports and programs parents in St. Thomas felt were important in their

neighbourhoods and whether or not they had access to the same. Additionally, the Survey

asked a number of demographic questions about each respondent and assessed parents level

of interest in participating/volunteering for a neighbourhood advisory committee. Sampling

techniques included non-random sampling, a convenience sample and the snowball technique.

A targeted social marketing strategy was developed by the Committee and is available for

review in Appendix G. The social marketing material provided the project website address for

parents to visit and complete the Survey online. The recruitment flyer is available for review in

Appendix H. Paper copies of the Survey were also made available at select locations and with

select service providers. Both formats were accessible from November 18th through December

16th 2011. The survey is available for review in Appendix I.

Study population – Survey Inclusion Criteria

Over age 18

Parent of at least one child 0-12 years old or expecting a baby

Reside in the City of St. Thomas, as confirmed by postal code provided

All qualified participants leaving contact information on the Survey were eligible to win one of

three one-hundred dollar gift certificates by random draw on December 20th, 2011.


12

Survey Objectives

As the survey was designed to be a follow-up mode of data collection to the qualitative

data collected in the focus groups, early and preliminary data informed the development

of the Survey. The Survey objectives remain consistent with the focus group themes:

Assets, Needs, Barriers and Social Capital/Social Cohesion.

The online version of the Survey had an active link that remained live and monitored for 27

days, November 18th through December 16th 2011. In total, 281 parents across the City of St.

Thomas participated by either completing the online or paper copy of the Survey.

ANALYSIS

The analysis of the quantitative data from the parent survey was completed using SPSS and

includes coded summary frequencies and descriptive statistics of all survey items from the full

sample. Although it is cautioned to make any conclusions with the data as aggregated to a

neighbourhood level, the committee did explore where some particular responses originated.

Please see Appendix J for a map illustrating the location of all Early Years neighbourhoods for

the City of St. Thomas.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Key Demographics:

Of the 281 parents that participated in the survey, an overwhelming majority were female (89%).

69% of respondents report having children 6 years of age or younger.

81% lived with their spouse/partner.

44% of parents indicated they worked full-time.

The majority of parents had graduated college or university (61%) and 22% either had some or graduated high school.

The majority of parents (65%) stated they owned their current residence compared to 32% who rented.


13

RESULTS

The results of the survey are presented in summary below.

Table 2: Survey Question 1: Do you have access to the following PLACES in your

neighbourhood?

Number of

Parents Who

Rated Item

Important

n (%)

Total

Overall

Sample Size

n (%)

Number of

Parents

From

Overall

Sample

Without

Access to

Item

n (%)

Number of

Parents,

Without

Access Who

Rated Item

Important

n (%)

Percentage of

Parents from

Overall Sample

Without Access

& Who Rated

Item Important

%

PLACES

Public Park/ Athletic

Field n=238 (87%) 274 n=18 (7%) n=14 (78%) 5%

Library n=190 (71%) 268 n=66 (25%) n=42 (64%) 16%

Shopping Mall/ Plaza n=168 (62%) 273 n=52 (19%) n=24 (46%) 9%

Community

Recreation Centre n=180 (67%) 270 n=87 (32%) n=54 (62%) 20%

School n=254 (93%) 273 n=45 (16%) n=40 (89%) 15%

Grocery Store n=245 (91%) 270 n=44 (16%) n=35 (80%) 13%

Child Care n=142 (54%) 262 n=86 (33%) n=26 (30%) 10%

City Bus Stop n=79 (31%) 259 n=61 (24%) n=11 (18%) 4%

Medical Centre/

Clinic n=214 (80%) 267 n=60 (22%) n=44 (73%) 16%

Family Resource

Centre n=125 (48%) 262 n=98 (37%) n=42 (43%) 16%


14

Parents surveyed stated the following places were important in their neighbourhood:

School (93%)

Grocery Store (91%)

Public Park/Athletic Field (87%)

Important to note, 20% (54 of 270) of the overall sample of parents rated a Community

Recreation Centre (indoor public facility) as important and they do not have access in their

neighbourhood. Based on the postal code provided, it can be determined the greatest

percentage of those parents live in the Courthouse neighbourhood (22%, n=12).

Other places mentioned in the “other” text field and rated as important, included: Bike/walking

trails (n=10), Churches (n=7) and the Ontario Early Years Centre (n=4).

The place in the neighbourhood where the least amount of parents rated it as important was

'city bus stop'.


15

Table 3: Survey Question 2: Do you have access to the following SUPPORTS in your

neighbourhood?

Number of

Parents Who

Rated Item

Important

n (%)

Total Overall

Sample Size

n (%)

Number of

Parents

From Overall

Sample

Without

Access to

Item

n (%)

Number of

Parents,

Without

Access Who

Rated Item

Important

n (%)

Percentage of

Parents from

Overall Sample

Without Access

& Who Rated

Item Important

%

SUPPORTS

Housing Authority n=45 (18%) 244 n=154 (63%) n=10 (7%) 4%

Medical Clinics n=212 (79%)

269 n=65 (24%) n=46 (71%) 17%

Addiction Services n=37 (15%) 243 n=171 (70%) n=23 (14%) 9%

Ontario Works

Services n=70 (28%) 253 n=128 (51%) n=18 (14%) 7%

Counselling Service n=84 (34%) 246 n=135 (55%) n=22 (24%) 9%

Dental Services n=208 (77%) 268 n=60 (22%) n=40 (67%) 15%

Food and Other

Necessities n=217 (83%) 261 n=39 (15%) n=20 (51%) 8%

Parenting Support n=118 (48%) 248 n=110 (44%) n=31 (28%) 13%

School Support n=247 (92%) 269 n=40 (15%) n=33 (83%) 12%

Childcare n=154 (59%) 260 n=80 (31%) n=22 (28%) 8%

Sexual Health

Clinics

n=52 (22%) 240 n=149 (62%) n=25 (17%) 10%

Dental Clinics n=153 (61%) 253 n=101 (40%) n=46 (46%) 18%

Prenatal Support n=94 (38%) 245 n=123 (50%) n=26 (21%) 11%

Children and

Family Services

n=83 (34%) 243 n=123 (51%) n=27 (22%) 11%


16

Parents surveyed stated the following supports were important in their neighbourhood:

School Support (92%)

Food & Other Necessities (83%)

Medical Clinics (79%)

Dental Services (77%)

Important to note, 18% (46 of 253) and 15% (40 of 268) of the overall sample of parents rated

Dental Clinics and Dental Services as important and they do not have access in their

neighbourhood. Based on the postal code provided, it can be determined the greatest

percentage of those parents live in the Park & Elm neighbourhood (20%, n=17) and the

Courthouse neighbourhood (16%, n=14). Also, 18% of the overall sample of parents rated

Medical Clinics as important and they do not have access to this support in their

neighbourhood. The greatest percentage of those parents live in the Courthouse

neighbourhood (17%, n=8) and Northwest Talbot neighbourhood (13%, n=6). Further, 13% of

the overall sample of parents rated Parenting Support as important and they do not have

access in their neighbourhood. The greatest percentage of those parents live in the South Gate

neighbourhood (16%, n=5) and South Edgeware neighbourhood (13%, n=4).

Other supports mentioned in the “other” text field and rated as important, included: Special

Needs Supports (n=5), Family & Friends (n=5) and Healthy Babies Healthy Children/Public

Health supports (n=4).

The support in the neighbourhood where the least amount of parents rated it as important was

'’Addiction Services’.


17

Table 4: Survey Question 3: Do you have access to the following PROGRAMS in your

neighbourhood?

Number of

Parents Who

Rated Item

Important

n (%)

Total

Overall

Sample Size

n (%)

Number of

Parents

From

Overall

Sample

Without

Access to

Item

n (%)

Number of

Parents,

Without

Access Who

Rated Item

Important

n (%)

Percentage

of Parents

from Overall

Sample

Without

Access &

Who Rated

Item

Important

%

PROGRAMS

Parenting Programs n=114 (45%) n=253 n=116 (46%) n=36 (31%) 14%

Prenatal Classes n=80 (32%) n=249 n=127 (51%) n=25 (20%) 10%

Playgroups n=154 (60%) n=256 n=87 (35%) n=37 (43%) 14%

Literacy Programs n=127 (51%) n=247 n=120 (49%) n=48 (40%) 19%

Recreational Programs n=202 (77%) n=262 n=60 (23%) n=42 (70%) 16%

Parents surveyed stated the following programs were important in their neighbourhood:

Recreational programs (77%)

Playgroups (60%)

Interestingly, parents who did not have access to Literacy programs yet rated as important

were parents with children 6 years of age or younger.

Important to note, 19% (48 of 247) of the overall sample of parents rated Literacy programs as

important and they do not have access in their neighbourhood. Based on the postal code

provided, it can be determined the greatest percentage of those parents live in the Courthouse

neighbourhood (21%, n=10) and South Edgeware neighbourhood (13%, n=6).

Other programs mentioned in the “other” text field and rated as important, included: [various]

recreational programs (n=12) and [various] parenting programs (n=9).


18

Table 5: Survey Question 4: How important is each of the following in CHOOSING a

program or service for your family?

Number of Parents Who

Rated Item Important

n (%)

Total Overall Sample Size

n (%)

PROGRAMS

Location n=227 (82%) n=276

Centre Reputation n=232 (86%) n=271

Hours of Operation n=251 (91%) n=275

Knowing Other Families

There

n=102 (37%) n=274

Cost n=227 (82%) n=276

Quality of Program n=259 (96%) n=270

Child Knows Staff n=129 (47%) n=274

Staff Qualified to Work with

Children and Families

n=266 (97%) n=274

The following was rated by parents surveyed as important when choosing a program or service

for their family:

Staff qualified to work with Children and Families (97%)

Quality of the program (96%)

Hours of Operation (91%)

The next survey question asked parents about the importance of support services in the City of

St. Thomas as a whole, as opposed to the importance of the service only in their

neighbourhood.


19

Table 6: Survey Question 5: How important is the following support services to you and your

family concerning YOUR CITY of ST.THOMAS in general?

Number of Parents Who Rated Item Important

n (%)

Total Overall

Sample Size

n (%)

Number of Parents

From Overall Sample Without Access to

Item

n (%)

Number of Parents, Without

Access Who Rated Item Important

n (%)

Percentage of

Parents from

Overall

Sample

Without

Access & Who

Rated Item

Important

%

PROGRAMS

Walk-in Clinics n=238 (87%) n=274 n=18 (7%) n=14 (78%) 5%

Accessible Green Space

n=190 (71%) n=268 n=66 (25%) n=42 (64%) 16%

Safe, Clean Parks n=168 (62%) n=270 n=52 (19%) n=24 (46%) 9%

Bike Paths n=180 (67%) n=270 n=87 (32%) n=54 (62%) 20%

Recreational Fields n=254 (93%) n=273 n=45 (16%) n=40 (89%) 15%

Accessible Trails n=245 (91%) n=270 n=44 (16%) n=35 (80%) 13%

Clear Sidewalks n=142 (94%) n=262 n=86 (33%) n=26 (30%) 10%

Community

Gardens

n=79 (35%) n=259 n=61 (24%) n=11 (18%) 4%

Mobile Clinics n=214 (80%) n=267 n=60 (22%) n=44 (73%) 16%

Family Centred

Community Hub

n=125 (43%) n=262 n=98 (37%) n=42 (43%) 16%

Affordable,

Accessible

Childcare

Programs

n=125 (63%) n=262 n=98 (37%) n=42 (43%) 16%


20

Parents surveyed stated the following support services were important in their city:

Clear Sidewalks (94%)

Recreational Fields (93%)

Accessible Trails (91%)

Walk-in Clinics (87%)

Mobile Clinics (80%)

Interestingly, parents who did not have access to clear sidewalks yet continued to rate as

important were parents with children 6 years of age or younger.

Important to note, 20% (54 of 270) of the overall sample of parents rated Bike Paths as

important to have in their city and they do not have access.

The next survey questions asked parents about relationships and trust in their neighbourhood.


21

Table 7: Survey Question 6: Statements below regarding RELATIONSHIPS and TRUST were

rated agree/disagree by parents. Table shows most frequent response by item.

Most Frequently

Occurring Response

Agree/Disagree

n (%)

Total Overall

Sample Size

n (%)

STATEMENT –

RELATIONSHIPS & TRUST

If there is a problem, the neighbours get together and deal

with it

Disagree n=112 (40%) n=277

There are adults in my neighbourhood that children can

look up to

Agree n=171 (61%) n=279

People around here are willing to help their neighbours

Agree n=179 (64%) n=278

You can count on adults in my neighbourhood to watch out that

children are safe

Agree n=161 (58%) n=279

I know neighbours on my block Agree n=164 (59%) n=278

My neighbourhood is child-friendly

Agree n=159 (57%) n=279


22

Table 8: Survey Question 7: Statements below regarding SAFETY were rated agree/disagree by

parents. Table shows most frequent response by item.

Most Frequently

Occurring Response

Agree/Disagree

n (%)

Total Overall

Sample Size

n (%)

STATEMENT - SAFETY

Pedestrians can walk safely in my neighbourhood

Agree n=194 (70%) n=279

Bike/ Strollers can travel safely in my neighbourhood

Agree n=189 (68%) n=278

People drive the speed limit in my neighbourhood

Disagree n=132 (48%) n=278

My neighbourhood has a drug problem

Disagree n=191 (69%) n=276

All services and programs in my neighbourhood are

accessible

Agree n=109 (39%) n=277

It is safe to walk alone in my neighbourhood after dark

Agree n=166 (60%) n=277

It is safe for children to play outside during the day in my

neighbourhood

Agree n=200 (71%) n=280

There are safe parks, playgrounds and play spaces

in my neighbourhood

Agree n=171 (62%) n=277

Concerning Safety, 48% of those who answered the question stated they disagreed with

the statement: ‘People drive the speed limit in my neighbourhood’.


23

Community Survey Key Findings:

PLACES: The majority of answers about places of particular importance were suggesting

recreation as a key asset in neighbourhoods. Both indoor and outdoor public

recreational facilities and spaces were rated as highly important to families, as well as

schools and grocery stores.

SUPPORTS: Health supports, including medical clinics and dental services, were rated by

parents as highly important to have in their neighbourhood. School supports and

food/other necessities were also rated as very important. Parenting supports, including

special needs and Healthy Babies Healthy Children were rated as important by parents.

PROGRAMS: Recreational programs and parenting programs, including family

playgroups and literacy programs were cited by surveyed parents as important to have

in their neighbourhoods.

Overall, the majority of respondents indicated access to most support services in the

City of St. Thomas. Parental access to these services was indicated in 63-93% of cases.

Three areas were rated as highly important to families: Medical services (walk-in clinics

and mobile clinics), recreational facilities (indoor and outdoor), and accessibility in

moving about the city (clear sidewalks and accessible trails).

The majority of parents who rated statements about social cohesion and safety in their

neighbourhood, answered in an expected trend.

o Interesting to note, 40% of parents stated they disagreed with ‘If there is a problem, the neighbours get together and deal with it’.

o Similarly, half of all parents also disagree with ‘People drive the speed limit in my neighbourhood’.

Most parents (73%, 204) across the survey sample expressed a keen interest in

participating in some type of neighbourhood advisory committee. The committee has

means to follow up with those parents, as contact information was voluntarily

submitted by interested participants.


24

Project Findings and Suggested Priorities

While assessing future needs for families in the City of St. Thomas and particularly those living in the

three priority neighbourhoods of South Edgeware, Balaclava and Courthouse, here are the project

findings and suggested priorities:

1. Parents want a voice.

We heard from both focus group parents and survey parents that they want to be involved in

planning for service in their neighbourhood. Focus group parents were unsure of how to share

their input. Survey parents were asked specifically if they would be interested in participating

in some type of neighbourhood advisory committee and 73% of the sample indicated an

interest.

Suggestion: Neighbourhood Parent Advisory groups are created for each of the three priority

neighbourhoods. Parents and service providers will have the opportunity to work on solutions

for change in their neighbourhood. The Gaps Committee will be the lead on establishing these

groups.

Purpose of the groups:

A. To empower families to share their vision for better family-centred service delivery in St. Thomas

B. To establish workgroups of parents who wish to make their neighbourhoods better places to raise families and who will act in an advisory capacity to service providers.

C. To connect parents in each neighbourhood to build social capital

Partners on the Advisory groups will take a ‘system navigator’ role in connecting families to the services they need and build an understanding of processes to help the groups advocate for positive change in their neighbourhood.

2. There is a need for safety awareness in our community.

We heard that transportation is a pervasive barrier in St. Thomas. As such, parents with

children get around by walking or biking. Not only does safety education need to be addressed

(i.e. block parent, safe pedestrian and cyclist practices) but road safety needs to be enforced

(i.e. police support) and physical environment needs to be addressed (i.e. clear sidewalks, bike

path accessibility).


25

Suggestion: Work with community partners on prioritizing community safety awareness for

families in St. Thomas.

Seek information about what safety programs exist in St. Thomas.

Share project findings with partners including: the City of St. Thomas, City of St. Thomas Police Service, Healthy Communities Partnership, R-Safe, Safe Communities, etc.

Investigate this theme further with parent advisory groups.

3. There is a need for affordable recreation programs and services in our community.

We heard that parents want affordable recreation activities and most importantly, for the

activities to be accessible. Activities were reported by participants as inaccessible as

transportation was cited as a pervasive barrier for families in St. Thomas. As such, new models

of service delivery should be considered.

Suggestion: Aim to connect more families to recreation in their neighbourhood.

Seek information about what recreation activities already exist in each neighbourhood.

Learn from the successes of grassroots community organizations such as Locke’s Morrison Community Association.

Connect families with existing programs happening in their neighbourhood (i.e. Jumpstart, Locke’s Morrison Community Association and Active Elgin).

We heard that parents want access to a community centre. Indoor and outdoor play spaces were

cited as important to parents. We also heard that parents value schools. Investigate the

opportunity for schools to become neighbourhood ‘spots’ or hubs.

Further explore this theme with parent advisory groups. Look at better utilization of

resources and assets in our community. Also look at reducing barriers for families to

access recreation.

4. Parents want more information. Parents reported the need for information about available

programs and services for families and children.

Suggestion: Aim to connect more parents with information on available programs and

services for families and children in St. Thomas.

Further explore this idea with parent advisory groups to better understand what kind of

information would be helpful and what medium would be best.


26

SUMMARY OF LIMITATIONS

Demographics

Concerning the demographic profile of the full project sample (i.e. both the focus group and survey

participants) the majority were female, lived with their partners, had post secondary education and

worked full-time. The sample differed by those parents who attended the focus groups most often

rented versus those who participated in the Survey, most often owned their home. This is an expected

finding given the snowball sampling technique used first for the focus group recruitment strategy and

then for the survey. It suggests for parents in close knit social networks, likely where they lived

influenced participant enrolment in both phases of the Project.

Design

The interpretative definition of one’s ‘neighbourhood’ for the Survey (questions one through three) is

of concern, as the guiding parameters for access included “walking, driving your car a short distance or

taking the bus a short distance”. Participants were not shown a map of neighbourhood boundaries, as

referenced by the Project team. As such, he importance of an item, place or support, may have been

biased by the participants’ interpreted boundaries of proximity.

Similarly, the design of the survey asked participants about access and importance of items, places and

supports, in their neighbourhood and then switched to asking about access and importance of items in

their community. If participants had not noticed the change of proximity reference, the results would

be confounded in error. Establishing clear comparisons about how participants felt about places and

supports in their neighbourhood versus community was not explored as a result of this design

limitation.

Note: Some programs and services may be higher profile in reference by the participants as a result of

the recruitment strategy engaged by partners on the Service Gaps Committee.


27

The objectives of this community research are exploratory and therefore the preliminary analysis

should be viewed as indicative rather than projective. The Committee has considered all project

information to date including that shared by participants, existing community literature and

background documents such as Pascal’s report and the professional knowledge held by the committee

regarding the assets, needs and barriers across neighbourhoods to create the aforementioned

suggested priorities.

FUTURE PROJECT GOALS

The Project is expected to continue as the Committee moves forward in addressing the needs of other

neighbourhoods in the City of St. Thomas, as well as communities throughout Elgin County. When

structuring further phases of the Family Involvement Project, the Committee will proceed more skilled

with the confidence, knowledge and experience gained from the pilot phase of the Project.

Reference List

Pascal, Charles (2009). With our best future in mind: Implementing early learning in Ontario. Report to

the Premier by the Special Advisor on Early Learning. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer of Ontario.

Ontario Early Years Elgin-Middlesex-London (2008). Identifying EDI districts for Elgin County.

Ontario Early Years Elgin-Middlesex-London (2010). Early Years Community Profile for St. Thomas.


28

APPENDIX A – Location of three identified neighbourhoods in St. Thomas


29

APPENDIX B: Map of South Edgeware Neighbourhood in St. Thomas


30

APPENDIX C – Map of Balaclava South Neighbourhood in St. Thomas


31

APPENDIX D – Map of Courthouse Neighbourhood in St. Thomas


32

APPENDIX E – Focus Groups: Targeted Social Marketing Strategy


33

APPENDIX F – Focus Group: Recruitment Flyer


34

APPENDIX G – Survey: Targeted Social Marketing Strategy


35

APPENDIX H – Survey: Recruitment Flyer


36

APPENDIX I- Survey Sample


37


38


39


40


41


42


43


44


45


46


47


48


49


50


51

APPENDIX J – Map of all Early Years Neighbourhoods for the City of St. Thomas

family involvement project - southwestern public health · family involvement project 2012 2 hired...

Documents