January 16

1 | P a g e

Promise Neighborhoods of

the Lehigh Valley Framework:

2015 Neighborhood Survey Results

Easton Promise Neighborhood

Introduction

Since our inception in 2007, Promise Neighborhoods of the Lehigh Valley has worked to foster vibrant

neighborhoods where every family is strong, every child is born healthy, stays healthy, and every youth succeeds in

school, graduates from college or other continued education and achieves lifelong success. We have come a long

way since then! We started in Allentown, setting up in the 9 square blocks stretching from Turner Street to Liberty

Street and Hall Street to 10th Street. These Promises mark the progress of every child along their journey from

birth to career. Ensuring each child achieves success at each of these goals is the mission of every Promise

Neighborhood.

As Promise Neighborhoods of the Lehigh Valley we wanted to make sure we lived up to our name. Our promises

could not be limited to just Allentown but truly encompass the entire Lehigh Valley. We have grown to include an

Easton Promise Neighborhood located in Census Tract 142, and are currently working on establishing a Bethlehem

Promise Neighborhood.

Each Neighborhood strives to mobilize its unique assets—people, businesses, resources, public policy, programs

and services—within self-governing bodies that practice shared decision-making, shared resources, shared

accountability, and shared outcomes for the children living and learning in the neighborhood. To measure these

outcomes we needed a strong understanding of where our residents are, in regards to our promises, and where

they would like to be. Thus came The Neighborhood Survey.

We want to thank the communities for opening their doors, talking with our Resident Liaisons, and becoming part

of the conversation to help improve our communities. The Neighborhood Survey allowed us to better understand

the demographics of both Promise Neighborhoods. We now have a more complete picture of the issues, hopes, and

culture of our unique communities. We hope this report provides you with greater insight into the neighborhoods.

It will identify areas for improvement, celebrate our diversity, and reveal where our Neighborhoods are already

great and how we can work together to become even better.

Respectfully,

Yamil Sanchez

Yamil Sanchez, Executive Director

January 16

2 | P a g e

Overview & Data Collection

Easton Promise Neighborhood (EPN) is a culturally rich and economically diverse neighborhood that stretches

across census tract 142, which is a part of Easton’s West Ward; bordered by Route 22 on the North, Butler Street

on the South, 10th Street on the East, and 15th Street on the West.

In 2014, the PNLV Measurement & Evaluation Committee developed a survey, entitled The PNLV Neighborhood

Survey, which gathered information on households in the Promise Neighborhood. In the summer of 2014, the first

year of data collection, the focus was the Allentown Promise Neighborhood, with 74% of all households in APN

completing The Neighborhood Survey. This year, the survey was implemented in both Allentown and Easton. This

report presents the first year of data for the Easton Promise Neighborhood; the APN results are reported

separately.

The aim of this project was to obtain reliable community‐level data that pertains specifically to the EPN and

provides information regarding four of the nine Promises, which are bolded in the text box below. The Promises

that were selected to be addressed in this survey were those that are currently lacking data from other sources.

The Head of the Household from each residence was asked to complete the survey, which included questions

regarding all members of the household.

PNLV’s 9 Promises

Promise 1: Children are Ready for Kindergarten

Promise 2: Students and Families are Healthy

Promise 3: Students Feel Safe and Live in Stable Communities

Promise 4: Students Supported in Learning by Family & Community

Promise 5: Students have 21st Century Learning Tools

Promise 6: Students Successfully Transition from Middle School to High School

Promise 7: Students are Proficient in Core Subjects

Promise 8: Students Graduate from High School

Promise 9: Students Prepared for College/Career Success

January 16

3 | P a g e

Similar to last year, the PNLV Measurement & Evaluation Committee decided not to collect individual level data

through this survey until we have built more trust with the community. Based on last year’s experience,

adjustments were made to the 2014 Neighborhood Survey prior to this year’s implementation. Questions that were

ineffective last year were removed and 8 new questions were added. Consistency of questions was maintained

wherever possible.

The survey was available in both English and Spanish so that families could complete the survey in the language of

their choice. Six Resident Liaisons (RLs) were recruited from the EPN and surrounding neighborhoods to

administer the survey. Having lived in the neighborhood, the RLs were familiar with the community and

represented the ethnic makeup of the Neighborhood. Training was provided to the RLs by LVHN’s Department of

Community Health and the PNLV staff to prepare the RLs on how to administer the surveys in the community.

Surveys were then administered by the RLs from July through August of 2015.

Numerous methods of data collections were employed in order to reach the households within the EPN

boundaries. EPN includes a total of 1,717 housing units, from which we selected a stratified sample 800 units to

reach through survey gathering. EPN was divided by streets, and each street was assigned an ID number. RLs

were then assigned to specific street IDs, and they went door‐to‐door at different times of the day to reach

community members. The number of surveys collected on a given street was in direct proportion to the number of

housing units on that street, so that all streets were equally included in the sample. RLs also administered surveys

at the EPN Inaugural Block Party. Each survey was coded with the street ID so that results could be broken down

by block when useful. Individual respondents and households cannot be identified in any way through this

process.

Sample

The RLs were able to have 737 households of the 1,717

total housing units complete the survey for a response

rate of 43.2% in EPN. The survey included some

demographic questions regarding the Head of

Household, including age and highest level of education

completed. The most common age category of the Head

of Household was between the ages of 46‐55 (N = 171,

Figure 1). This was followed by those between the ages

of 26 ‐ 35 (N = 144) and 36 ‐ 45 (N=142), respectively.

Figure 1. Age of Head of Household (%)

Just over 40% of Heads of Household noted that their highest completed level of education was a high school

diploma or GED, followed by 21.7% reporting to have some college experience (Figure 2). However, 11.7% of

Heads of Household have less than a high school degree, and 56.7% of the sample had a high school degree or less.

8.5

19.4

19.223.1

13.6

14.6

1.618-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66 or older

Missing

January 16

4 | P a g e

Figure 2. Education Level of Heads of Household (%)

The 2015 Neighborhood Survey asked respondents to identify the primary language spoken in the home. Eighty-

seven percent (N = 645), the majority, reported that English was the primary language spoken in the home. An

additional 9.7% (N = 72) reported that Spanish was the primary language, while 7 respondents reported both

English and Spanish were predominant. Another 7 respondents identified a language other than English and

Spanish as the primary language; other languages identified were Arabic, American Sign Language, Chinese, Italian,

Mandarin, and Yoruba (only 1 person identified each of these languages).

Respondents were also asked how many children

are living in the home (Figure 3). Just under half

(N = 358) of respondents reported that no children

were in the home. Among the 384 people having at

least one child in the home, the number of children

in the household ranged from 1 to 8 children; the

most common number of children in the home

was 1, 2, or 3 children.

Figure 3. Number of Children in the Home (%)

In addition to the number of children overall in the home,

respondents were asked to report the number of children in each

of three age groups: children birth to age 5, children age 6 to 13,

and children age 14 to 18. Table 1 presents the breakdown of the

number of households with children in the given age ranges. In

age each category, the number of responses decreases down the

columns.

3.8

11.7

41.2

21.7

8.4 7.3 4.3 1.60

20

40

60

80

100Percent

48.3

17.1

15.1

11.9

7.6 No children

1 child

2 children

3 children

4 or more children

200 Respondents reported that

there was at least one child under

the age of 5 in the household.

January 16

5 | P a g e

Table 1. Number of Children in the Home by Age Category Birth – Age 5 Age 6 - 13 Age 14 - 18

No. of Children N % N % N % 1 135 67.5 116 50 108 73 2 51 25.5 82 35.3 32 21.6 3 13 6.5 27 11.6 6 4.1 4+ 1 0.5 7 3.1 2 1.3 Total 200 100 232 100 148 100

Students and Families are Healthy

The questions that pertain to Students and Families are Healthy concern healthcare access and utilization as well as

food access. Respondents were asked whether individuals in their household have health insurance. Fifty-nine

people (8%) reported that no one living in their household has health insurance. Figure 4 shows the percent of

respondents who identified that individuals in their household are covered by that type of health insurance. Just

under half of households in EPN (N = 389) are receiving Medicare or Medicaid. In addition, Eighty-six (11. 5%)

respondents reported that

those in the household were

insured through more than

one mechanism. Residents

were also asked if individuals

in their home have dental

insurance. Two thirds (N =

498) of respondents reported

that individuals in the home

have dental insurance, but

31% of respondents (N =

230) reported individuals in

their household did not have

dental insurance (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Type of Health Insurance in Households (%) 1

Figure 5. Presence of Dental Insurance among EPN

Households (%)

1 Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

47.4

5.3

26.7

15.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Medicaid/Medicare CHIP Employer Private/Self

Percent

Healthy People 2020 targets for

access to care are that 100% of

people are covered by health

insurance and that there is

improved dental insurance

coverage.

67.2

31

1.8

Dental Insurance

No DentalInsurance

Refused/Missing

January 16

6 | P a g e

The Head of Household was asked which preventative services he or she had received in the previous year. As

Figure 6 shows, 72.5% of the survey respondents had a physical exam in the last year. Less than half of

respondents received a dental or eye exam and about a quarter received a cancer screening. Because age plays a

large factor in whether an

individual is recommended to get

particular cancer screening, the

preventative services were cross‐

tabulated with the age of the Head

of Household. Table 2 shows that

the cancer screenings were

dispersed across the age groups,

with 46‐55 year‐olds being the most

common group to report receiving a

cancer screening in the last year.

Figure 6. Percent of Respondents who Obtained Preventative Services in the

Last 12 Months2

Table 2. The Age of Head of Household by Preventative Services

Age, Head of Household

Physical Exam

Dental Exam

Cancer Screening Eye Exam

18-25 37 20 3 23

26-35 100 65 25 58

36-45 92 68 35 64

46-55 133 76 50 65

56-65 80 56 31 54

66 or older 92 50 39 62

Missing 1 0 0 0

Figure 7. Percent of Children who Received Preventive Services in the Last 12 Months

2 Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

43.938.1 35 33.7 35.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Physical Exam Dental Exam Eye Exam Hearing Test Vaccinations

Percent

72.5

45.5

24.8

44

0

20

40

60

80

100

Physical Exam Dental Exam Cancer Screening Eye Exam

Percent

We sought the same preventative health data

for children. Among the 384 households that

reported there was at least one child living in

the home, a physical exam was also the most

common preventative service for children in

the prior year (43.9%; Figure 7). Responses

were split around 35% for those who

reported that their children received a dental

exam, eye exam, hearing test, and

vaccinations.

January 16

7 | P a g e

Another key question was whether families and

households within the EPN have a usual health care

provider that is not located in an emergency

department (ED). Nearly three-quarters of

respondents (N = 547) reported having a primary

care provider (PCP) outside of the ED, but 182

respondents reported that they do not have a

primary care provider outside of the ED (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Presence of a Usual Care Provider (%)

Table 3. Type of Insurance by Presence of a Usual Care Provider (PCP)

Type of Health Insurance PCP No PCP

Medicare/Medicaid 286 93

CHIP 29 8 Employer 187 43

Private 92 20

No Insurance 32 27

Respondents were also asked whether they use the

Emergency Department as their primary source of

care. Regardless of having a usual care provider

outside of the ED, 128 respondents (17.3%)

reported using the ED as their primary source of

health care (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Identification of the Emergency Department (ED) as

Their Primary Source of Healthcare (%)

In addition, respondents were asked to report the number of times individuals in their household have gone to the

ED in the last 12 months. Overall, about 49% (N = 364) went to the ED at least once in the last year, with 26.8%

using the emergency department more than once (Figure 10). Additionally, 40% of households without medical

insurance used the Emergency Department at least once in the past year (Table 4).

73.8

24.6

1.6

PCP

No PCP

Refused/Missing

Table 3 shows the break out of the number

of respondents that have each type of

health insurance within the groups of

those who have and do not have a primary

care provider. In both sub-groups the most

common type of health insurance was

Medicaid and Medicare followed by

insurance from an employer.

17.3

81.9

0.8

ED as Primary Care

Other Primary Care

Refused/Missing

17.3% of respondents reported

they use the Emergency

Department as their primary

source of healthcare

January 16

8 | P a g e

Table 4. ED Use in Households with No Medical

Insurance

ED Use in last 12 months

Uninsured Households N %

No visits 35 59.3

1 time 19 32.2

2+ times 5 8.5

Total 59 100

Figure 10. Respondents Use of the ED use in the Last Year (%)

Respondents were asked if anyone in their household was currently pregnant and if anyone in the household gave

birth in the last 12 months. Twenty‐nine respondents (3.9%) reported that someone in their household is

currently pregnant. An additional 47 households (6.3%) responded that someone in the household gave birth in

the last 12 months.

Head of households were also asked if they felt

that individuals in their household had access to

adequate mental health services. The definition

of "adequate mental health services" was based

on the respondents’ interpretation, meaning

they felt it was adequate to meet their needs.

More than three-quarters of respondents felt

they had access to adequate mental health

services (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Respondents Perceived Access to Mental Health (MH)

services (%)

Food access was measured through access to WIC

services and food insecurity. All households were

asked about their use of WIC services, if eligible, in

the previous year. About half of all eligible

recipients (N=120) received WIC services at some

point in the previous year, while 132 individuals

said no despite being eligible (Figure 12). The

remaining 64.5% (N=478) of households said no

because of ineligibility.

Figure 12. WIC Services Utilization in the Past Year (%)

49.4

26.8

22.3

1.5

No

Yes, 1 time

Yes, more than once

Refused/Missing

76.7

16.7

6.6 Adequate MHAccess

Inadequate MHaccess

Refused/Missing

16.2

17.8

64.5

1.5

Yes

No (eligible)

No (ineligible)

Refused/Missing

January 16

9 | P a g e

Finally, respondents were asked to complete a 2

question screener about their regular access to

food, given their income and ability to purchase

food as needed. The two items are a standardized

screener for food insecurity.3 As can be seen in

Figure 13, 27.5% of respondents screened

positively, meaning they are at-risk for food

insecurity. Table 5 shows the number and percent

of respondents who are at risk for food insecurity

and who are food secure within the group of

respondents who reported someone in their

household received WIC services in the last year. Figure 13. Households Experiencing Food Insecurity (%)

Table 5. Food Insecurity by WIC Service Utilization

Received WIC

N %

At-risk for Food Insecurity 45 38.1

Food Secure 73 61.9

Total 118 100

Students Feel Safe and Live in Stable Communities

To obtain information regarding the third promise, respondents

were asked about the ownership of their current residence, the

number of moves in the last year, and their perceptions of the

neighborhood. Over half of respondents (N = 409) reported that

they

rent their home, while 44.3% respondents (N = 328)

reported that they owned their home (Figure 14). Of

those who rent their home, 45.7% (N = 187) reported

that they had an interest in owning a home. The Head

of Household's age category was also cross-tabulated

with whether or not they rented or owned their home,

which is presented in Table 6. Within each age category

except for those over the age of 55, there were more

renters than owners.

Figure 14. Ownership of Current Residence (%)

3 Hager et al. (2010). Development and validity of a 2-item screener to identify families at risk for food insecurity. Pediatric, 126, e26 – e32.

55.2

44.3

0.5

Rent

Own

Refused/Missing

27.5

72.5

At-risk for FoodInsecurity

Food Secure orMissing

12% of Households are Food Insecure

in Northampton County (County Health

Ranking, 2015)

January 16

10 | P a g e

Table 6. Age of Head of Household by Home Ownership Status

Age of Head of Household

Own Rent

N % N % Total

18-25 22 34.9 40 63.5 63

26-35 46 31.9 98 68.1 144

36-45 56 39.4 86 60.6 142

46-55 74 43.3 97 56.7 171

56-65 54 53.5 44 46.5 101

66 or older 69 63.9 39 36.1 108

In addition, respondents reported how often they have moved in the previous two years. Nearly two-thirds of

respondents (N = 455) reported that they have not moved at all in the last year (Figure 15). One hundred and

ninety-two people (25.8%) moved at least once in

the last year, with only 9.1% of people moving 2 or

more times. Generally, when asked, how long they

have lived in their current residence, respondents

most common answer was 2 or 3 years. Table 7

shows that when broken out by renters and

owners, the renters had been in their home for

nearly five years on average and owners had

owned their homes for over 19 years on average.

Figure 15. Number of Moves in the Previous Year (%)

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Renters and Home Owners

Average Minimum Maximum

Rent 4.89 0.08 60

Own 19.49 0.08 67

Among the 192 who moved at least once, 95

(49.5%) reported they stayed in the same

neighborhood while 87 (45.3%) reported they

moved from a different neighborhood. All

respondents were asked if they would continue to

live in the neighborhood if they had the choice.

Four hundred and twenty‐nine individuals (57.9%)

responded that they would continue to live in the

neighborhood if they were given the choice (Figure

16). Figure 16. Respondents who Desire to Continue Living in

Neighborhood Given a Choice (%)

57.9

40.4

1.7

Yes

No

Refused/Missing

61.416.7

8.6

0.512.7 Have not moved

1 time

2-5 times

6+ times

Refused/Missing

61.4% of respondents have not

moved in the last 2 years; 57.9%

reported they would still want to live

in the neighborhood if given a choice

January 16

11 | P a g e

In order to capture community members’ perceived problematic areas in the neighborhood, respondents were

asked if any of the following six issues were happening in the neighborhood: gang activity, drug selling, alcohol use,

drug use, crime, and violence. Respondents could check as many choices as they felt applied. Four of the issues,

violence, crime, drug use, and

drug selling were selected by

over 50% of the sample (Figure

17). Drug selling was chosen

by the greatest number of

people followed by violence

and then drug use.

Furthermore, 45.6%

respondents selected “Yes” to

three or more of the issues and

37.5% identified all 6 as

community issues.

Figure 17. Respondents that Identified the Presence of Community Issues (%)4

The number of people in the household who are employed ranged from 0 to 5 or more as well. Two hundred and

forty-eight people (33.5%) reported that one person in the home is employed, 296 people (40%) reported 2- 4

people are employed, and 11 people (1.5%) reported that five or more people in the household are employed

(Figure 18). Table 8 shows the number of adults in

the household who have one full-time job.

Table 8. Number of Adults in Households with 1

Full-time Job

No. of Adults N %

0 145 22.7

1 269 42.1

2-4 219 34.3 5+ 6 1.0

Figure 18. Number of Adults Employed in Household (%)

Table 9 presents the categories of the number of people employed in the household broken out by the age of the

Head of Household to account for those who are retired as opposed to unemployed. Looking horizontally across

the lines of the table shows the distribution of employed adults across the age category.

4 Note: Respondents could choose more than one option

44

58

46.7

56.5

55.6

57.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Gang Activity

Drug Selling

Alcohol Use

Drug Use

Crime

Violence

Percent

23.3

33.5

40

1.5 1.7

0

1

2 to 4

5+

Missing

January 16

12 | P a g e

Table 9. Cross-tabulation of Age of Head of Household with the Number Employed Full Time

Age of Head of Household

No one employed full

time

1 person employed full

time

2 -4 people employed full

time

5+ employed full time

N % N % N % N % Total

18-25 12 20 20 33.3 27 45 1 1.7 60

26-35 11 8.1 76 55.9 47 34.6 2 1.5 136

36-45 16 12.2 65 49.6 49 37.4 1 0.8 131

46-55 33 22.4 44 29.9 68 46.3 2 1.4 147

55-65 28 32.9 38 44.7 19 22.4 0 0 85

66 or older 43 61.4 21 30 6 8.6 0 0 70

Despite a large portion of respondents identifying

many community issues as being present in the

EPN, 553 respondents (74.6%) also reported that

they have someone in the neighborhood that they

could turn to in the case of an emergency (Figure

19), while 167 felt they did not.

Figure 19. Respondents who Reported Having Someone in the

Neighborhood to Turn to in an Emergency (%)

Another question that addressed this promise asked whether respondents volunteered with any community group

or organization in the neighborhood in the past

year in order to capture one aspect of community

engagement. Only 170 people (22.9%) reported

volunteering in the last year (Figure 20).

Figure 20. Head of Households who Volunteered with a Community

Group or Organization in the Past Year (%)

74.6

22.5

2.9

Yes

No

Refused/Missing

22.9

75

2.1

Volunteered

Did not volunteer

Refused/Missing

January 16

13 | P a g e

Respondents were also asked if they would feel safe

allowing the children in their home to walk to

school alone. Among the 384 respondents who

have children in the home, 257 people (67.1%)

reported they would not feel safe having their

children walk to school by themselves (Figure 21).

Notably, only 113 people reported they would feel

safe in this scenario.

Figure 21. Respondents who Feel Safe having Children Walk to School Alone (%)

Students Supported in Learning by Family and Community

To gather information that relates to Students are Supported in

Learning by Family and Community, the Neighborhood Survey

included questions regarding computer access, participation in

extracurricular activities, and involvement in school.

One question added to this years’ survey was

whether there was a computer available in the

home. The largest sub-group of households

have a computer with internet access, with

67.3% (N = 499) responding positively to this

question (Figure 22). One hundred and eighty-

seven households reported there was no

computer available in the home and 41

households have a computer that does not have

internet access.

Figure 22. Households with Available Computer in the Home (%)

29.5

67.1

3.3

Feel Safe

Do not feel safe

Refused/Missing

24.8

5.5

67.3

2.3

No computer

Yes, withoutinternet

Yes, with internet

Missing

67.3% of households have a computer

with internet access, yet 24.8% of

households do not have a computer in

the home

January 16

14 | P a g e

Table 10. Education Level of Head of Household education by Computer Access in Home

No computer Computer, no internet Computer, internet

Education Level N % N % N % Total

< High School 15 53.6 3 10.7 10 35.7 28

Some High School 36 41.9 7 8.1 43 0.5 86

High School diploma/GED 95 32 13 4.4 189 63.6 297

Some college 23 14.5 7 4.4 129 81.1 159

Associate’s Degree 7 11.3 8 12.9 47 75.8 62

Bachelor’s Degree 3 5.8 1 1.9 48 92.3 52

Master’s Degree or higher 3 9.3 2 6.3 27 84.4 32

Table 11. Cross-tabulation of Children in the Home with Computer Access

No computer Computer, no internet Computer, internet

N % N % N %

No children 121 65.6 26 64.3 201 40.3

Children 61 34.4 16 35.7 293 59.7

Total 182 100 42 100 494 100

Table 10 shows that those without a computer tend to have less educational attainment but those with a computer

were more evenly dispersed across the education categories. Table 11 shows that a majority of those who do not

have a computer in the home also do not have children, whereas, similar to the educational breakdown, those with

a computer were more balanced across homes with children and without children.

Just under half (N = 179) of respondents reported that the children in the home participate in extracurricular

activity (Figure 23). The other half of respondents reported that the children were not enrolled in an

extracurricular activity (N = 195). Of the 384 households with children, most Heads of Household (N = 224;

58.5%) had not participated in the extracurricular activities in the past year (Table 12).

Table 12. Head of Household Involvement in

Youth Extracurricular Activities

Figure 23. Youth Participation in Extracurricular Activities (%)

N %

Yes 123 32.1

No 224 58.5

No Opportunity 27 7

Missing 9 2.3 Total 383 100

Tables 10 and 11 present

computer access broken out

by the highest level of

education obtained by the

head of household and the

presence of children in the

home.

46.7

50.9

2.4

Extracurriculars

No extracurriculars

Refused/Missing

January 16

15 | P a g e

Another new question on this years’ survey is

whether any of the children in the home have a

learning disability, developmental delay, or

physical disability. Out of the 384 households

with children, 78 respondents (20.4%)

responded that a child in the home had a

learning disability, developmental delay, or

physical disability (Figure 24).

Figure 24. Households with Children who have a Learning

Disability, Developmental Delay, or Physical Disability

(%)

Two-hundred respondents had at least one child

under the age of 5; 83 respondents (41.5%) said

their child(ren) under 5 were enrolled in an early

childcare programs or preschool programs (Figure

25).

Figure 25. Enrollment in Early Childcare or Preschool Program

(%)

Heads of Household were asked which of the following four activities they have participated in at school in the last

year: PTA, Volunteering, Parent-Teacher

conference and other events. This

question was answered only among

families who reported that they have

children age 6 to 13 (N = 232). Figure 26

shows that 64.2% of respondents (N =

149) reported that they do attend

parent‐teacher meetings. The other

types of school involvement were

endorsed by less than 25% of

respondents.

Figure 26. Percent Involvement in School Activities

20.4

76.8

2.9

Yes

No

Refused

17.723.3

64.2

18.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

PTA Volunteering Parent-TeacherConference

Other Events

Percent

41.5% of respondents with

children under the age of 5

reported their young children are

enrolled in an early childcare

programs or preschool programs.

41.5

56

2.5

Enrolled

Not enrolled

Refused/Missing

January 16

16 | P a g e

Students Prepared for College/Career Success

For the 148 respondents that identified having at least one child between the ages of 14 and 18, they were asked

three questions that relate to the promise Students are Prepared for College or Career Success. First, respondents

were asked if the children in that age range had

taken the PSAT, SAT, or ACT tests. Over half of the

148 respondents reported that their child(ren)

had taken one of these tests already (Figure 27).

Just under 20% reported that their child(ren) did

not take one of these tests yet, while another

17.6% reported that they had not yet taken the

test because he or she was still too young. The

remaining 8% reported that the child did not need

to take the tests or they were unsure of whether

the child had taken the tests yet or not.

Figure 27. College Entrance Test Taking among Households

with Children Age 14-18 (%)

In addition, respondents were asked if the child(ren) between the ages of 14 and 18 had access to college

application or career prep resources, in which a majority (85.1%, N = 126) reported that they did have access to

these resources. Finally, respondents were asked which of six paths the adolescents plan to take after high school

graduation. Respondents could select more than one choice. As Figure 28 shows, the most common path selected

was a 4-year college or university, followed by community college. Just over a quarter of respondents were unsure

of the future plans for the adolescent.

Figure 28. Post-High School Plans for Youth (%)

26.4

6.8 10.8

23.6

49.3

4.7 6.1

0102030405060708090

100

Percent

55.418.9

17.6

2

6.1Yes

No

No, still too young

No, not needed

Don't know

January 16

17 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

The purpose of conducting the PNLV Neighborhood Survey of households was to get a baseline, high‐level

understanding of the individuals and families living in the EPN. Based on the data collected and presented here, the

following are some recommendations and additional lines of inquiry for the future:

● Community Engagement: Explore additional and innovative ways to engage a greater number of youth and

adults in organizations in the community.

● Community Safety: Engage the community and Easton Police Department in conversations

○ Provide additional opportunities for community members to have positive and collaborative

experiences with the EPD to build trust and communication between community members and the

police force

● Education & College Opportunities: Explore the barriers to educational attainment and career

opportunities for EPN residents in greater depth.

● Early Childcare Programs: Explore ways to increase access and connect more EPN families to quality early

childcare programs.

● Prenatal care: Gather additional information about prenatal care and where EPN residents access care

among those who are pregnant or who have recently given birth.

● Usual care provider: Inquire about where individuals are accessing care for preventative services when

they do not have a usual care provider or rely on the emergency department as their usual care provider.

● Uninsured Community Members: Gain a better understanding of who the uninsured community members

are in the EPN and provide resources to help them obtain health insurance.

There’s an old adage that says, “Unity is strength, division is weakness.” Our 2015 Neighborhood Survey was highly

successful because of the unity of our community. We spoke to more families about the issues of the neighborhood

than we anticipated and those conversations translated to a wealth of knowledge that can be used to the uplifting

and betterment of our neighborhoods. We recognize our success would not be possible without a unified front. We

at Promise Neighborhoods would like to take this opportunity to thank all the partners that made this survey

season a success.

Special thanks to our fantastic liaisons who braved the heat, sun, and occasional summer rain to speak to residents.

Thank you to all of our generous sponsors, listed below, for their support. Most importantly, Easton Promise

Neighborhood would like to thank all of the residents who took the time to complete this survey and participate in

our outreach efforts. This was the first of many opportunities to have your voice heard and provide your feedback,

letting us know your needs and concerns. We look forward to on‐going efforts to get your opinion and will use this

information to inform our decisions around programming and resource development for our EPN community.

Thank You!

Promise Neighborhoods of the Lehigh Valley Measurement and Evaluation committee

P.S. You are welcome to use the data reported here but please cite our work. If you need additional data or

information please contact Ewuradjoa Dawson-Amoah (ewuradjoad@promiseneighborhoodslv.org) and Ammar

Sharif (ammars@promiseneighborhoodslv.org) and they will be happy to meet with you.

January 16

18 | P a g e

Report written by Samantha Goodrich, PhD, Department of Community Health, Lehigh Valley Health Network

Special thanks to our Board:

Jessica Adams-Skinner, EdD Don M. Bernhard James Bova Paul Brunswick

William Coles Pastor Gregory J. Edwards Jane Ervin Eveily Freeman Elizabeth Garcia

Edward F. Meehan Vivian Robledo-Shorey Marci Ronald Janet E. Roth

Special thanks to our Resident Liaisons:

Allentown: Nancy Arriaga Alissa Blue Yamiris Cruz Kenneth Heffentrejer

Mallory Lundquist Eliud Malpica Carla Ortiz-Belliard Sandra Pisani Anilu Rosario

Easton: Emily Koskey Jackie Lima Kassaundra Millhime Desireé Orta- Quiñones Mark Robinson Sharen Smith

Special thanks to our Measurement and Evaluation Committee:

Jessica Adams-Skinner, EdD Cassaundra Amato Shannon Callouri Christine Carpino, PhD

Ronald Dendas Hollie Gibbons Samantha Goodrich, PhD

Tahereh A. Hojjat, PhD Michele Moser Deegan, PhD Hannah Paxton

Special thanks to our Sponsors:

Barnes & Nobles of Bethlehem Bikes for Bill Daddy’s Place Giant Food Stores Easton Judy Ross Communication Design

La Perla Tapatia Lafayette Ambassador Bank Northampton Community College Noto’s Deli The Nurture Nature Center

Penn State Lehigh Valley Sigal Museum Staples Easton YMCA of Easton, Phillipsburg

Special thanks to the Promise Neighborhood Staff:Yamil Sanchez Rivera, Ed.D.Ammar Sharif

Amanda Raudenbush Cindy Suarez

Ewuradjoa Dawson-AmoahChristian TorresCarmen Morales

RT22 ERT22 W

FERRY ST

LEHIGH DR

BUSHKILL DR

LINCOLN ST

LEHIGH ST

WOOD AVE

WIREBACH ST

SPRUCE ST

CANAL ST

W HOYT ST

BUSHKILL ST

ELM ST

WASHINGTON ST

W BERWICK ST

N 13TH

ST

NORTHAMPTON ST

W LAFAYETTE ST

BUTLER ST

IRON ST

CENTER ST

COAL ST

SPRING GARDEN ST

PEACH ST

ROCK ST

SEITZ AVE

PEARL ST

WALNUT AVE

JACKSON ST

S 10TH STS 15TH ST

S 12TH ST

GLEND

ON AV

E

S 13TH ST

W WILKES BARRE ST

N 9TH ST

N 12TH ST

S 11TH STS 14TH ST

S 7TH ST

S ELDER ST

N 7TH STN 11TH ST

N 10TH ST

PINE ST

JUNIPER ST

N 8TH ST

VALLEY STS 9TH ST

S 5TH ST

N 14TH ST

W GRANT ST

DAVIS ST

BEECH ST

POPLAR ST

REYNOLDS ST

RASPBERRY ST

S 8TH ST

WOLF AVE

N WARREN ST

GEORGE ST

PACKER ST

SPEER ST

W MILTON ST

N LOCUST ST

CHURCH ST

PARDEE ST

MCKEEN ST

YOUNG ST

W BIRD ST

N ELDER ST

W HOLT STLYNN ST

S UNION ST

CANAL PARK

N 6TH ST

OAK ST

SULLIVAN RD

VEILE ST

W COOPER ST

S 6TH STN 5TH ST

MORRISON AVE

S MULBERRY ST

WILLOW ST

MAUCH CHUNK ST

S WARREN ST

W NESQUEHONING ST

FILBERT ST

STAIR STVINE ST

CHERRY ST

BLANCHE STROSEWOOD ST

HOWARD ST

W MADISON ST

WINTER ST

ADAMSON ST

ORLANDO ST

N UNION ST

BEECH ST

W MILTON STW BIRD ST

PINE ST

W COOPER ST

S 6TH ST

ELM ST

W HOLT ST

S WARREN ST

S 9TH ST

W GRANT ST

OAK ST

DAVIS ST

CHURCH ST

WOOD AVE

VINE ST

City of Easton

Wilson

Boro

BuildingsCensus Tract 142

.

1,100 0 1,100550 Feet