Valley CARES Quality of Life Report

8/7/2019 Valley CARES Quality of Life Report

1/96

Valley CARESQuality of Life Report

2010Full Report

A Community Initiative of the Valley Council for Health & Human Services

Tracking quality of life in the Valleyto build a better future for all our residents


2/962.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Valley Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Quality o Lie IndicatorsCreating a Community Context that Allows Residents to Thrive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Providing Education & Training or Lie Long Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Conserving the Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Ensuring Resident Saety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Promoting Emotional & Social Wellbeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Advancing Community Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Oering Arts, Culture, and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Fostering Community Relations and Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Appendix A: List o Indicators by Topical Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Appendix B: Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

ACkNOwLEdgEmENTS

The Valley Council or Health & Human Services grateully acknowledges generous support or the ValleyCARES initiative in the orm o grants, in-kind donations, dues, and sta time rom the ollowing:

The Valley Community Foundation

The Community Foundation or Greater New Haven

The Valley United Way

The Katharine Matthies Foundation, Bank o America, N.A., Trustee

Naugatuck Valley Health District

Yale-Grin Prevention Research Center

Birmingham Group Health Services, Inc.

Grin Hospital

The WorkPlace, Inc.

Valley Council or Health & Human Services Member Agencies

In addition, we would like to thank the many individuals who assisted in the creation o this report by

gathering and sharing inormation, photographs, and ideas, including Yasemin Kavak (Research Assistant, Yale-Grin Prevention Research Center) and representatives rom:

Valley Council Taskorces, Committees, and Member Agencies

Valley Town Governments, Regional Councils o Governments, and Valley Service Providers

State o Connecticut Departments and Agencies


3/963.

For ore inoration about Valley CARES or toshare your eebac rearin the report, please

contact:

Beth Patton [email protected]

203-732-1265 .224

mary S. [email protected]

203-736-2601 .390

INTROdUCTIONThe Valley Council or Health & Huan Services is a partnership network o non-prot health and humanservice agencies serving the residents o the Lower Naugatuck River Valley. Our mission is to improve qualityo lie by working collaboratively to identiy and respond to community needs. In order to better ulll ourmission, in 2007 the Council began planning an initiative to track key indicators o community wellbeing, nownamed Valley CARES (Counity Assessent Research & Eucation or Solutions).

The word cares has several dierent meanings. Frequently, we use it to describe how we nurture or look aterthe things we value. We also may use the word cares to reer to our concerns or worries in lie. The ValleyCARES initiative is about each o these meanings ocares.

What do Valley residents value as important contributors to their wellbeing and quality o lie? What are they

already doing to nurture the things they value? What are the cares or concerns that need to be addressed inorder to build an even better quality o lie or all Valley residents?

The Valley Council is delighted to oer the rst Valley CARES Quality o Lie Report to the Valley community. Wehope it will serve as a resource to help make our Valley an even better place to work and live than it already is.

The Valley CARES Taskorce, with the input o Council members and community partners, guided the creationo this report and all aspects o the Valley CARES initiative. We invite you to become involved by reading thereport, celebrating the Valleys strengths, and joining us in the search or solutions to community challenges.

The ValleyCaReS TaSkfoRCe

Current and past Taskorce members include:

Beth Patton Comerord, MS, Yale-Grin Prevention Research Center (Taskorce Co-Chair) Mary S. Nescott, MPH, Birmingham Group Health Services, Inc. (Taskorce Co-Chair)

Heidi Zavatone-Veth, PhD, Valley Council or Health & Human Services (Valley Council Coordinator)

Karen N. Spargo, MA, MPH, Naugatuck Valley Health District

Jesse Reynolds, MS, Yale-Grin Prevention Research Center

Tara Rizzo, MPH, Grin Hospital

Susan Nappi, MPH, Grin Hospital (currently Yale University)

Ann Harrison, The WorkPlace, Inc. (currently Workorce Alliance)

The Valley Council for Health & Human ServicesBuilding PartnershiPsto strengthen CommunityserviCes


4/964.

I you cant measure something,

you cant understand it; i you cant

understand it, you cant control it; i you

cant control it, you cant improve it.

~ H. J. Harrington

Valley CaReS GoalS

Valley CARES draws on lessons learned rom past Valley community assessment eorts and the manysuccessul community indicator projects throughout the United States and world. Its main goals are:

1. To track inormation about quality o lie so that the Valley community can see what aspects ocommunity lie have gotten better over time and what areas may need improvement.

2. To share inormation about Valley quality o lie with community service providers, leaders andresidents so that they can become involved in guring out how to build an even better uture or ourresidents.

The long-term goal is not to compare the Valley to other communities but to serve as a yardstick ormeasuring progress within the Valley over time. We hope that this inormation will become a resource or allwho care about the Valley and its residents.

The challenge or us as a Valley community will be to nd ways to connect what we know about peoplescares with a vision or how to improve the community and a roadmap or getting there. We imagine an on-going process o eedback between community inormation, refection, and action.

Counity Inoration

Update inormation aboutValley quality o lie to

assess progress

Counity Refection

Engage communityresidents, leaders & service

providers in analyzinginormation and designing

action plans

Counity Action

Inormation helps inormcommunity planning,philanthropic giving,

volunteerism, advocacy &

other action

The Valley CARES project provides current inormation about the state o our well being in the Valley.

This vital inormation will encourage community involvement and help us address our priority needs.

~ James E. CohenPresident/CEO

Valley Community Foundation


5/965.

The QualiTyoflife indiCaToRSand RepoRT

Community indicators are one way to measure the quality o lie in a community. For this rst Valley CARESReport, we have included indicators or 8 areas that contribute to community wellbeing. The suaryversiono the report provides an overview o the key ndings or each quality o lie area. The ull report providesgreater detail or each o the indicators as well as sources or additional inormation and areas in which wewould like to improve our understanding.

This rst Quality o Lie report is a starting point in an on-going eort to create an indicators report that providesa useul snapshot o lie conditions in the Valley. The Taskorce selected the indicators based on several actorsincluding: the current availability o reliable inormation, the likelihood that the inormation can be tracked overtime, and the relevance o the inormation or community action.

Many o the indicators in this report come rom inormation gathered and analyzed by public and private

agencies in the region and state. Sta rom the Yale-Grin Prevention Research Center compiled the secondary-source indicators data. In order to ll gaps in existing inormation, the Valley CARES Taskorce also commissioneda community survey o 400 randomly selected residents o the 6 Valley towns. (Appendix B o the ull reportgives urther inormation about the indicators data collection process and its limitations.)

paRTiCipaTeinThe SeaRChfoR SoluTionSTo CommuniTyneedS

Indicators on their own cannot ully explain why a community changes or what should be done to makeimprovements. The next step will be community involvement in analyzing the indicators and designingpotential solutions to identied challenges. We invite you to visit the Valley Council website or updates onways to share your ideas, input, and energy or building an even better Valley.

go to .valleycouncil.or or lins to:

Summary report (electronic)

Full report (electronic)

Community survey results

Ways to get more inormation aboutValley quality o lie & share your ideasor community improvement

Collecting local data to inorm the community about issues o concern and opportunities is vitally important to

The Community Foundation or Greater New Haven. Its one o the reasons why we are proud to support

the Valley CARES project, which is a model that we hope will be replicated or the beneft o other towns in

our service area. The data produced can be used to not only guide community leaders in their planning and

civic engagement eorts but also to help our donors make wise philanthropic decisions.~ Priscilla Canny

Senior Vice President, Grantmaking & StrategyThe Community Foundation or Greater New Haven, and President, DataHaven

Indicators alone probably m

little dierence but [...] when

combined with eective plannadvocacy and action, all bason a community vision, they make a major dierence.

~ David S


6/966.

Source: CERC

THE VALLEY COmmUNITY

GeoGRaphy

The towns located in the Lower Naugatuck River Valley have been shaped by a common geographic locationalong key waterways and transportation routes in south central Connecticut. They share a history rooted inthe waves o immigrants who settled in the region to work in its manuacturing centers. While there is nouniversal agreement on a denition o the Valley,

this report ollows a common local understanding byincluding 6 municipalities in its denition: Ansonia,Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxord, Seymour, and Shelton.

Although the Valleys residents oten describe a senseo common identity, governmental agencies and non-governmental service providers carve up the Valleyregion in dierent ways. These many understandingso the Valley community make it more dicult togather inormation about the Valley and to coordinatecommunity planning or the region.

The ValleypopulaTion

Between 2000 and 2009, the Valley populationincreased by almost ve percent, reaching anestimated 103,754 residents (Sources: US Census2000; CERC 2010-2009). According to a recentDemographic Snapshot Report, the populationgrowth rate is expected to slow in the upcomingyears (Claritas 2009).

Valley Population by Ae group2009

Valley Ansonia Beacon Falls derby Oor Seyour Shelton

Age Group # Residents (%) # Residents # Residents # Residents # Residents # Residents # Residents

< 18 23,689 (23%) 4,170 1,345 2,583 3,173 3,596 8,822

18-64 65,517 (63%) 11,496 3,788 7,954 8,226 10,137 23,916

65+ 14,548 (14%) 2,742 572 1,995 1,160 2,224 5,855

Total 103,754 18,408 5,705 12,532 12,559 15,957 38,593


7/967.

Valley Population by Ethnicity/Race2009

Valley Ansonia BeaconFalls derby Oor Seyour Shelton CT

Ethnicity/ Race % % % % % % % %

White/European American 90% 83% 93% 86% 94% 91% 92% 79%

Black/Arican American 4% 9% 3% 5% 2% 3% 2% 9%

Asian Pacic 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Native American


8/968.

Creating a Community Context thatAllows Residents to Thrive

Vision for the ValleyA community that provides all residents with access tothe housing, transportation, and economic opportunities

that will enable them to create a good quality o lie

How Are We Doing? An Overview

QUALITY OF LIFE

The vast majority o Valley residents describe their quality o lie in a positive way, but some communitymembers do not share in this sense o overall wellbeing.

93% o Valley residents surveyed view their quality o lie as good or very good, while about8%--close to 1 out o every 10 residents--said that their lie quality is poor or very poor.

Ho is your overall quality o lie?

HOUSINg

Housing aordability has become an increasing concern in the Valley, although the economic recession hasled to a recent drop in home prices.

Between 2000 and 2007, hoe prices in the Valley rose at a aster pace than household incomesputting home ownership out o reach or more people; the recent drop in housing prices may not beenough to make homes more aordable in the current economic climate.

There are 853 governmentally-assisted aorable housin units or the elderly and 1,300 unitsor amilies in the Valley. A 2004 study o housing aordability in the Valley ound a substantial gapbetween the availability and the need or aordable housing options or residents.

60%

70%

60%

40%

50%

60%

70%

33%

60%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

33%

60%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

33%

60%

6% 2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Very good Good Poor Very poor

33%

60%

6% 2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


33%

60%

6% 2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Source: Valley CARES Community Survey


9/969.

Source: CT Dept. o Labor

TRANSPORTATIONTransportation needs continue to have a signicant impact on quality o lie in the Valley. Long commutes andlimited public transportation options shape many peoples daily lives and their access to work and services.

When asked about their coutin patterns, a quarter or more o residents in Valley towns said in2000 that they commuted 30 minutes or more to work; a minority o workers (11--15%) reportedriding to work in a non-single occupancy vehicle such as mass transit or a car pool.

Recent studies highlight the need to improve public transportation options in the Valley. The number oass transit rides provided by the Valley Transit District (VTD) dropped between 2008 and 2009, duein part to reductions in state unding. Fixed route bus service in the Valley towns continues to be limited.

ECONOmIC OPPORTUNITY

Even though Valley income levels rose over the past decade, increasing numbers o residents do not haveaccess to the economic opportunities needed to build a strong quality o lie.

meian househol incoe levels increased since 2000, but Valley towns diered considerably inwhether their income levels ell above or below Connecticuts median o $68,055 in 2009.

The uneployent rate in the Valley has risen substantially since 2005, reaching an annual averageo 8.0% in 2009 and almost 9% through September o 2010, with even higher levels in some towns.

Uneployent Rates in the Valley

Although the current ederal denition o poverty underestimates the percentage o residents acingeconomic hardship, the Valleys poverty rate in 2000 was 4.7% o the overall population. At thattime, 10% or more o children were living in poverty in several Valley towns. It is likely that the povertyrate has risen sharply in recent years, as is true in the state.

The percentage oailies qualiyin or ree or reuce price lunch in Valley school districtsincreased in the past decade, an indication o growing economic hardship. In 2007-2008, about 2 outo 10 Valley public school children (19%) met the income requirement or ree/reduced price lunch.In some districts, the level reached 40% or more o students.

4.8%

4.3% 4.4%

5.6%

8.0%

8.9%

4.9%

4.4%4.6%

5.6%

8.2%

8.8%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

Valley

CT4.8%

4.3% 4.4%

5.6%

8.0%

8.9%

4.9%

4.4%4.6%

5.6%

8.2%

8.8%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*

Valley

CT

For our community to be truhealthy, we must all work togto assure that every resident hequal access to the basic builblocks that construct a goodquality o lie.

~ Karen N. SpDirector o Health, Naug

Valley Health D


10/9610.

Community Context Indicators

QUALITY OF LIFE

QualiTyoflifeReSidenT ViewS

why is this inicator iportant?Peoples perceptions o their own quality o lie serves as an important measure o community well being.

what oes it easure?The views o residents surveyed regarding their overall quality o lie in the Valley (Source: Valley CARESCommunity Survey, 2009-2010).

Ho are e oin?More than 90% o Valley residents surveyed described their quality o lie as good (60%) or very good(33%). Close to 8% reported that they had poor (6%) or very poor (2%) lie quality.

When respondents were asked to identiy the current issues or problems aecting their quality o lie in theValley, the most common answers were: none/nothing (58%), health care (8%), economy/nances (5%),unemployment (4%), current health (4%), and dont know (8%).

Ho is your overall quality o lie?

2009

60%

70%

60%

40%

50%

60%

70%

33%

60%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

33%

60%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

33%

60%

6% 2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


33%

60%

6% 2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


33%

60%

6% 2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%




11/9611.

HOUSINg

home pRiCeS

why is this inicator iportant?When home prices are high relative to a communitys income levels, owning a home requires a largerpercentage o peoples annual income and may be out o reach or many residents. Falling home prices,however, can be a sign o economic challenges.

what oes it easure?The median price o homes sold in 2007 (Source: CERC Town Proles 2010) and in 2009 (Source: www.realtytrac.com, as o 9/3/2009).

Ho are e oin?In 2004, a study on housing the Valleys workorce concluded that home ownership was growing out othe reach o many Valley households, including those traditionally considered middle class (Housing theWorkorce, 2004). A report released this year shows that between 2000 and 2007 median home pricesin Valley towns grew at a aster pace than household incomes, which contributed to a drop in home sales(Naugatuck Valley Corridor Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy or the 21st Century Report,2010). In this way, the Valley mirrors the trend in the state as a whole between 2000 and 2008 when homeprices grew 62% while personal income grew only 39% (Housing in Connecticut 2010: The Latest Measureso Aordability).

In 2007, Valley towns varied considerably in how their median home prices compared to that o Connecticutoverall. Current inormation rom RealtyTrac suggests that home prices have dropped at least 10% in Valleytowns over the past year, but this drop may not be enough to make home ownership more aordable in thecontext o the economic recession.

meian Hoe Price

2007 2009*

Ansonia $239,000 $194,324

Beacon Falls $312,000 $229,927

Derby $270,000 $191,581

Oxord $400,000 $318,000

Seymour $268,000 $223,641

Shelton $380,000 $305,407

Connecticut $295,000 na

Sources: 2009 data rom RealtyTrac; 2007 data rom CERC


12/9612.

affoRdable houSinG uniTS

why is this inicator iportant?Stable, quality housing is critical to the wellbeing o all residents, including amilies and elderly people livingon xed or low incomes. Without sucient aordable housing options, people may be orced to live inovercrowded conditions, relocate requently, reduce expenditures on other basic needs, or risk homelessness.

what oes it easure?

The number o governmentally assisted housing units available or amilies and elderly, the total numbero assisted units (which can include CHFA mortgages), and the percent o the total housing units that aredesignated to be aordable (Source: Connecticut Department o Economic and Community Development,Aordable Housing Appeals List, 2008).

Ho are e oin?The number o governmentally assisted amily and elderly housing units has increased since the mid-1990s(Healthy Valley Indicators Data Book, 1996), reaching a Valley-wide total o 1,300 amily units and 853elderly units. However, the distribution o governmentally assisted units varies signicantly across the Valleytowns. According to the 2008 Aordable Housing Appeals List, the percentage o housing units designated asaordable units in Valley towns ranged rom 1.4% o all units in Oxord to 14.5% o units in Ansonia.

A 2004 study on Housing the Workorce ound that Valley rental rates had become increasingly unaordable or

many workers and elderly residents in the region. With the current recession, this situation has likely worsened,increasing the gap between the number o aordable housing options and the level o community need.

Aorable Housin Units

2008

Ton# governentally

Assiste FailyUnits

# governentallyAssiste Elerly

Units

# AllgovernentallyAssiste Units

Total AssisteUnits

% Housin UnitsdesinateAorable

Ansonia 841 192 1,033 1,147 14.5%

Beacon Falls 5 0 5 31 1.5%

Derby 267 259 526 587 10.5%

Oxord 1 34 35 47 1.4%

Seymour 163 120 283 365 5.7%

Shelton 23 248 271 431 2.9%

Valley 1300 853 2,153 2,608 6.5%

Source: CT Dept. Economic & Community Developmen


13/9613.

TRANSPORTATION

CommuTinG paTTeRnS

why is this inicator iportant?Long commuting distances increase the time and money required or residents to obtain and maintain their

jobs. Longer commutes, especially or individuals driving alone, also aect a communitys environment andhealth by increasing uel use and air pollution.

what oes it easure?The percentage o residents who reported that they commute 30 minutes or more to work and whocommuted in something other than a single-occupancy vehicle (Source: 2000 US Census; *inormation notavailable or Beacon Falls).

Ho are e oin?According to the 2000 Census, about a quarter or more o Valley workers commuted at least 30 minutes totheir workplaces. In the case o Oxord, nearly hal o all workers reported having commutes o 30 minutesor more. The vast majority o Valley workers did not commute in a non-single occupancy vehicle such as acarpool or mass transit.

Coutin to wor2000

28%

24%

46%

37%

30%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

28%

24%

46%

37%

30%

14%15%

14%

11%13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Ansonia Beacon Falls* Derby Oxford Seymour Shelton

Workers commuting 30+ minutes Workers commuting in a non-single occupancy vehicle

Source: Valley CARES Community Survey; *Beacon Falls data not available


14/9614.

maSS TRanSiT

why is this inicator iportant?Many residents require accessible, aordable public transportation in order to get to work and utilizecommunity services. A strong mass transit system also improves a regions physical environment andcommunity health by reducing uel use and air pollution.

what oes it easure?

The number o xed routes provided by the transportation agencies that provide bus service in Valley towns(Source: Valley Transit District, Greater Bridgeport Transit, CT TRANSITNew Haven, 2009-2010) and the totalnumber o one-way passenger trips provided by the Valley Transit District bus services, as reported to theFederal Transportation Association (Source: Valley Transit District, 2008-2009; this does not include rides onother transit districts that have routes into the Valley region.)

Ho are e oin?In addition to the mass transit service provided by the Waterbury-Bridgeport rail line, several transit servicesprovided bus transportation within the Valley towns. The range o providers makes it more dicult to obtainconsistent Valley-wide inormation about the regions mass transit capacity and transportation needs.

Several studies have highlighted the need to improve mass transit service availability and public knowledgeabout public transportation options in the Valley (Naugatuck Valley Corridor Comprehensive Economic

Development Strategy or the 21st CenturyCEDS--Report, 2010; Linking Low Income workers withTransportation in the Lower Naugatuck ValleySummary Report, 2006). In the 2006 study, some residentsreported that lack o adequate transit options had led them to turn down employment opportunities or to leavetheir jobs. Employers also identied transportation as a challenge in their ability to hire and retain employees.

According to inormation provided by the mass transit providers in 2010, xed bus route service remains verylimited in Valley towns, with only 4 existing xed routes. Although the Valley Transit District is exploring thecreation o xed route service, it does not currently provide any xed routes in the Valley. Between 2008 and2009, the number o rides provided by the Valley Transit District also dropped. In part, this reduction was dueto the loss o state unding or the Valley Connections commuter service.

Fie Bus Route Service

Transit Service# Fie Routes within Valley Tons

2009-2010

Valley Transit District 0

Greater Bridgeport Transit 3

CT TRANSIT- New Haven 1

Total 4

Valley Transit district Riership

2008 2009

# One Way Passenger Trips Provided bythe Valley Transit District (VTD)

88,776 82,776

Sources: Valley Transit District, Greater Bridgeport Transit, CT TRANSIT

Source: Valley Transit District


15/9615.

ECONOmIC OPPORTUNITY

median houSeholdinCome

why is this inicator iportant?Annual household income is a common measure o the economic resources available to individuals andamilies to meet their basic needs and create a strong quality o lie.

what oes it easure?The median (middle number) in the range o annual incomes among households in each town (Source:CERC Town Proles). This annual income measure does not take into account assets that people may havesuch as property and savings.

Ho are e oin?Over the past decade, median household income levels increased in all Valley towns (Naugatuck ValleyCorridor Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy or the 21st Century Report, 2010). However,even as household incomes have risen, individual towns dier considerably in how their median income levelcompares to the state level. In 2009, Ansonia and Derbys median incomes were at least $10,000 lowerthan the state median, while the remaining towns were close to or above the state level, an indication o theeconomic disparities within the Valley.

meian Househol Incoe2009

Ansonia $53,603

Beacon Falls $70,453

Derby $57,258

Oxord $97,148

Seymour $65,646

Shelton $84,155

Connecticut $68,055

Source: CERC


16/9616.

unemploymenT RaTe

why is this inicator iportant?Lack o employment has a major impact on residents ability to provide or their basic needs. In addition,unemployment creates psychological stresses that can contribute to increases in mental health problems,amily violence, poor school perormance, and other health or social challenges.

what oes it easure?

The annual average o the monthly unemployment rate, which is the percentage o those persons activelylooking or work who remain unemployed (Source: Connecticut Department o Labor;*2010 data is throughSeptember, 2010).

Ho are e oin?As in the United States and Connecticut, the Valleys unemployment rate has increased substantially in recentyears. In 2009, the Valley-wide annual average unemployment was over 40% higher than it had been theprevious year and over 60% higher than it had been in 2005.

Although the overall 2009 Valley rate was close to the statewide unemployment rate, some Valley townshad 2009 rates that were considerably higher than Connecticuts rate. The disparities among towns continueto hold true this year, even as all communities have experienced urther jumps in unemployment throughSeptember 2010.

Uneployent Rates in the Valley

2005-2010

4.8%

4.3% 4.4%

5.6%

8.0%

8.9%

4.9%

4.4%4.6%

5.6%

8.2%

8.8%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

Valley

CT4.8%

4.3% 4.4%

5.6%

8.0%

8.9%

4.9%

4.4%4.6%

5.6%

8.2%

8.8%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*

Valley

CT

Source: CT Dept. o Labor: 2010 data is through September, 2010

Source: CT Dept. o Labor

TonAnnual Uneployent Rate

2009

Ansonia 9.7%

Beacon Falls 8.8%

Derby 9.3%

Oxord 6.6%

Seymour 8.1%

Shelton 7.3%

Valley 8.0%


17/9617.

poVeRTyRaTe

why is this inicator iportant?Poverty intereres with the ability o individuals and amilies to meet their basic needs, including adequatehousing, ood, and health care. Poverty in childhood can have a long-term impact on quality o lie, reducingthe chances or optimal development, school perormance, economic sel-suciency, and overall health intoadulthood.

what oes it easure?The percentage o all individuals and the percentage o children (under 18) who all below the ederal povertylevel (Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census; Annie E. Casey Kids Count Data Center). The DecennialCensus is the only survey that provides an estimated poverty rate or smaller communities such as the Valleytowns. The poverty rate is based on ederal poverty guidelines that take into account amily size and income.(For example, a amily o our earning $22,000 or less is considered poor.)

Ho are e oin?According to the 2000 Census, the percentage o people living in poverty in the Valley was less than that inthe state overall. However, town poverty rates varied quite dramatically, with the highest rate (8.2%) beingalmost 4 times as high as the lowest rate (2.1%). In all the Valley towns, the percentage o children living inpoverty was higher than the overall poverty rate. The child poverty rate was close to or above the statewide

rate in three Valley towns but considerably lower in the remaining three communities.With the recent economic recession, poverty levels in Connecticut have increased, reaching 9.3% overall and12.5% or children in 2008. Although recent Census Bureau surveys do not provide updated inormation orValley towns, it is likely that the number o Valley children and residents living in poverty has also risen in thepast decade.

In addition to needing updated inormation on the poverty rate in the Valley, local and state agencies arelooking or ways to improve the measurement o poverty so that the denition takes into account the cost oliving in a region. New measures may give a better indication o the percentage o individuals and amilieswho are acing economic hardship within the community.

Overall Poverty Rate2000 Chil Poverty Rate2000

Valley 4.7% na

Connecticut 7.9% 10.4%

Ansonia 7.5% 12.6%

Beacon Falls 5.9% 9.8%

Derby 8.2% 10.1%

Oxord 2.1% 3.0%

Seymour 3.7% 5.6%

Shelton 3.2% 3.4%

Source: US Census


18/9618.

familieS QualifyinGfoR fRee/ReduCed pRiCe lunCh

why is this inicator iportant?The current ederal denition o poverty may underestimate the income required to meet a amilys essentialneeds. Since amilies eligible or ree and reduced price school lunches can have incomes that are higher thanthe strict ederal denition, this percentage may provide a more accurate indicator o the number o amiliesacing economic hardship in a community.

what oes it easure?The percentage o children in public schools who are eligible to receive ree or reduced price lunches basedon their household income, which can be up to 130% o the ederal poverty guideline or ree lunch andup to 185% o the ederal poverty level or reduced price lunch. For example, to receive the reduced schoollunch price a child rom a amily o three would earn $34,000 or less. (Source: Strategic School Proles, CTDepartment o Education; numbers rounded to nearest whole number; note: *Beacon Falls is part o RegionalSchool District 16, which also includes the town o Prospect.)

Ho are e oin?In the 2007-2008 school year, about 2 in every 10 Valley public school children (19%) met the eligibilityrequirement or ree or reduced price lunch. The percentage or all Valley towns combined was lower thanConnecticuts rate o 29% but masks large dierences among the Valley towns. The percentage o eligible

students in Ansonia and Derbys schools was several times as high as the percentage o eligible schoolchildren in Oxord and Shelton.

The proportion o children eligible or ree/reduced school lunches has risen in most Valley towns since2000, suggesting that the percentage o amilies experiencing economic hardship has increased since the2000 Census. Derbys rate rose by 70% so that by 2007-2008 about 4 out o every 10 Derby public schoolchildren came rom amilies meeting the eligibility guidelines. In the Ansonia school district, the percentageincreased by over 30%. Nearly hal o its school population came rom amilies with incomes low enough tomake them eligible or the ree or reduced price lunches.

Percentae o Stuents Eliible or Free/Reuce Price Lunch

2007-2008

48%41%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

48%

8%

41%

7%14%

11%

19%

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ansonia BeaconFalls

Derby Oxford Seymour Shelton Valley CT

Source: CT Dept. o Education; *Beacon Falls in Reg ional District 16


19/9619.

SOURCES OF INFORmATION

Valley CARES Community Survey, 2009-2010; Naugatuck Valley Corridor Comprehensive EconomicDevelopment Strategy or the 21st Century Report, 2010; Housing the Workorce, 2004; Linking LowIncome Workers with Transportation in the Lower Naugatuck ValleySummary Report, 2006; U.S. CensusBureau; CERC Town Proles; Connecticut Department o Economic & Community Development; ConnecticutDepartment o Labor; Connecticut Department o Education; Valley Council o Governments; Annie E. CaseyKids Count Data Center; Valley Transit District; Greater Bridgeport Transit; CT TRANSIT-New Haven

ROOm TO gROw

In order to better understand how the Valleys community context aects the ability o residents to build agood quality o lie, it would be helpul to have more inormation about:

Current poverty rates and improved measures o poverty & economic hardship

Existing aordable housing options and community perspectives on housing aordability

Homelessness in the Valley (The current point in time count does not provide sucient inormation.)

Anticipated areas or job creation and overall economic growth in the Valley

Resident views regarding transportation options and the obstacles to use o current services

Resident views on the key elements to building a good quality o lie


20/9620.

Providing Education & Training forLife Long Success


EARLY CHILdHOOd EdUCATION

Many Valley children benet rom early childhood education opportunities, yet some amilies may acechallenges in accessing these resources.

When asked i there is sucient chilcare an preschool availabilityin the Valley, 59% o parentswith children under 18 living at home who participated in the Valley CARES survey reported that thereare enough services. However, 32% o those parents indicated that they did not know i there areenough childcare and preschool resources.

In 2007, the number o Valley children enrolled in the Care 4 kis chilcare assistance program(703) was higher than in previous years. However, we do not know enough about the gap betweencurrent enrollment levels and the need or childcare assistance within the community.

The percentage o kindergartners with preschool eperience has been increasing in some Valleytowns. Yet, in the 2007-2008 school year most o the Valley school districts had not reached the stategoal o 90% preschool experience. In 4 out o the 6 districts, the percentage o kindergartners withpreschool experience was at or above the state level.

Percentae o Chilren Enterin kinerarten ith Preschool Eperience

Vision for the ValleyA community that provides access to high qualityeducation and training opportunities or its residents

rom early childhood throughout adulthood

62%

79%

69%

100%

86%89%

79%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

62%

79%

69%

100%

86%89%

79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ansonia BeaconFalls*

Derby Oxford Seymour Shelton CT

Source: CT Dept. o Education; *Beacon Falls in Regional District 16


21/9621.

PUBLIC SCHOOL PERFORmANCE

While school perormance is close to the state level in many Valley districts, a sizeable number o students donot meet Connecticuts targets or elementary learning and high school graduation.

The percentage o 4th graders meeting the state goal in reain perorance, a strong indicator oschool readiness and success, ranged between 40% and 60% in Valley school districts in the 2007-2008 school year compared to a state level o 56%.

While the state is currently working to improve the measurement ohih school rauation anrop out rates, 2007-2008 data show that 4-year high school graduation rates in most Valley schooldistricts reached or exceeded the state rate. Nevertheless, between 3% and 9% o students in theClass o 2007 dropped out o school.

Cuulative 4-Year Hih School grauation & drop Out Rates

POST-SECONdARY ANd AdULT EdUCATION

While many Valley adults continue education and training ater high school, access to college education, adulteducation, and job training continues to be dicult or some in the Valley community.

When asked about their post-seconary eucation plans, between 73% and 89% o Valley highschool graduates said they planned to pursue urther education, which is increasingly important inimproving peoples opportunities or obtaining employment.

According to 2009 statistics about ault eucational attainent, the percentage o adults 25 andover who have Bachelors degrees was lower in the Valley than in the state, ranging between 20%and 35% or the Valley towns compared to 36% or Connecticut.

When asked about ault eucation & ob trainin availabilityin the Valley, 42% o residentssurveyed stated that there are enough adult education services while 46% said they did not know.28% o respondents said existing job training services are sucient but 51% did not know.

9%3% 3% 7% 7% 6%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

88% 97% 96% 92% 93% 93%

9%3% 3% 7% 7% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ansonia Beacon Falls Derby Seymour Shelton CT

Graduation Rate Drop Out Rate

Source: CT Dept. o Education; Oxord data not available

Education is or improving th

lives o others and or leaving

your community and world b

than you ound it.

~ Marian Wright Ede


22/9622.

Education & Training Indicators

EARLY CHILdHOOd EdUCATION

ChildCaRe & pReSChool aVailabiliTy

why is this inicator iportant?

In order or residents to provide preschool experience or their children, enough preschool and childcareopportunities must exist within a reasonable distance rom where they live. While cost and other actors mayalso aect utilization, residents need to be aware o the existing resources. Preschool and childcare availabilityin a community can infuence the school readiness o children and the employment options available to theirparents and caretakers.

what oes it easure?The responses o Valley residents surveyed when asked whether there are enough childcare and preschoolservices in the Valley. This indicator reports the percentage or those respondents who had children under 18living at home (Source: Valley CARES Community Survey, 2009-2010).

Ho are e oin?When asked i there is sucient childcare and preschool availability in the Valley, 59% o survey respondents

with children under 18 living at home reported that there are enough services. However, about a third othose respondents stated that they do not know whether existing childcare and preschool resources aresucient. It is possible that survey respondents may have had older children and thereore not had a needor inormation about childcare & preschool, but the survey results raise questions about possible gaps incommunity awareness about existing resources.

A 2006 study o early childcare capacity in the Valley ound that the capacity o existing providers was greaterthan the actual enrollment, suggesting that availability may not be as much o an obstacle to access as otheractors (Early Childcare Capacity Study: Lower Naugatuck Valley, United Way Community Results Center,2006). Since then, the Valley Council or Health & Human Services Early Childhood Taskorce has developedmaterials on community resources to improve awareness o existing services in the Valley.

Is there sucient chilcare & preschool availability in the Valley?Responses o Parents with Children < 18 at Home

2009

32%

Yes

No

59%

8%

32%

Yes

No

Dont Know



23/9623.

CaRe 4 kidS ChildCaRe aSSiSTanCe

why is this inicator iportant?Childcare subsidies make it possible or more amilies to access childcare options. Quality childcare enablesamily caretakers to nd and maintain employment and osters the school preparedness o young children.

what oes it easure?The annual total o the unduplicated number o children enrolled in the Care 4 Kids, a state program that

provides childcare subsidies or low to moderate income amilies (Source: Connecticut Department o SocialServices, Bureau o Assistance Programs, reported in Annie E. Casey Kids Count Data Center, 2007).

Ho are e oin?According to the Kids Count Data Center, the 2007 Care 4 Kids enrollment was higher than in previous years.In 2007, 703 children in Valley towns were enrolled in this childcare assistance program. More recent datarom the Care 4 Kids website show that 731 children were enrolled in August 2010.

Since there is no easy way to measure how many amilies need nancial assistance to be able to aordchildcare, we do not know enough about the gap between current Care 4 Kids enrollment levels and the needor childcare assistance within the Valley community. In recent years, the Care 4 Kids program has aced stateunding cuts and other administrative issues that can make it more dicult or amilies to access this assistance.In November 2010, the state instituted new income eligibility requirements, which means that amilies applying

or the program will not be eligible i their incomes are at or above 50% o the state median income.

# Chilren Enrolle in Care 4 kisChilcare Assistance Prora

2007

Valley 703

Ansonia 304

Beacon Falls 29

Derby 149Oxord 17

Seymour 77

Shelton 127

Source: CT Dept. o Social Services


24/9624.

pReSChool expeRienCe

why is this inicator iportant?Preschool experience helps to prepare children or kindergarten, thereby improving their chances oeducational success in elementary school and beyond.

what oes it easure?The percentage o children entering kindergarten in Valley public schools in the 2007-2008 school year who

reported preschool, nursery school, or Head Start experience (Source: Strategic School Proles, ConnecticutDepartment o Education; note: * Beacon Falls is part o Regional School District 16, which also includesProspect).

Ho are e oin?In January 2005, the State Department o Education set a goal that at least 90% o children would enterkindergarten having attended preschool. Preschool attendance rates in the Valley have improved since the2004-2005 school year but not all Valley towns have reached the state goal.

In the 2007-2008 school year, one o the 6 Valley school districts met the 90% preschool attendance goal(Oxord) and two more were close to meeting it (Seymour & Shelton). In the remaining school districts (Ansonia,Beacon Falls, & Derby), the percentage o students entering kindergarten with preschool experience was below thestate goal. In two o the districts, the percentage ell considerably below the statewide average o 79%.

Percentae o Chilren Enterin kinerarten ith Preschool Eperience

2007-2008

62%

79%

69%

100%

86%89%

79%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

62%

79%

69%

100%

86%89%

79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





25/9625.

SCHOOL PERFORmANCE

ReadinG peRfoRmanCe

why is this inicator iportant?Since early reading skills are so important to overall learning, education experts consider ourth grade reading scoresto be a strong indicator o school readiness and perormance throughout elementary school and high school.

what oes it easure?The percentage o students taking the Connecticut Mastery Tests (CMT) in ourth grade who met thestate goal in reading (Source: 2007-2008 Strategic School Proles, Connecticut Department o Education;*Beacon Falls is part o Regional School District 16, which also includes Prospect). This number refects theperormance o students with scoreable tests enrolled in the district at the time o testing. The state goal ishigher than procient but not as high as the advanced level o the No Child Let Behind report cards.

Ho are e oin?In most Valley towns, the percentage o ourth graders meeting the state goal in reading was close to orhigher than the state average in the 2007-2008 school year. Despite this avorable comparison with the state,over 30% o students in all o the Valley towns ailed to meet the 4th grade reading goal.

In the school districts that ell below the state average in 2007-2009 (Ansonia & Derby), the rates had

improved compared to the 2004-2005 school year. Other studies have ound disparities in schoolperormance not only by town but also by economic status and other demographic dierences(Community Audit & Needs Assessment Report, 2006, The WorkPlace, Inc.).

Percentae o 4th graers meetin CmT Reain goal

2007-2008

54%57%

40%

64%58% 60% 56%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

54%57%

40%

64%58% 60% 56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Source: CT Dept. o Education: *Beacon Falls in Regional District 16


26/9626.

hiGh SChool GRaduaTionand dRop ouT RaTeS

why is this inicator iportant?High school graduates typically have higher earnings, increased job stability, and a longer lie expectancycompared to those who do not graduate. Thus, successully completing high school can have an importanteect on quality o lie or individuals and the communities o which they are a part.

what oes it easure?

The percentage o students within the high school graduating class who graduated in the given year. Thecurrent calculation is based on the number o graduates or the year divided by number o graduates plusthe number o students who dropped out each year as the class progress through grades 9,10, 11, and 12(Source; 2007-2008 Strategic School Proles, Connecticut Department o Education; *Beacon Falls is parto Regional School District 16, which also includes Prospect; inormation is not available or Oxord). Thegraduation and drop out rates do not always add up to 100% because some students may graduate in morethan 4 years or may not be included in the drop out rate.

Ho are e oin?The state o Connecticut and local school districts are currently working to improve the measurement o highschool graduation and drop out rates. According to Connecticut Department o Education data rom the 2007-2008 school year, the 4-year high school graduation rates in most Valley school districts reached or exceeded

the state level. Nevertheless, between 3% and 9% o students in the Class o 2007 dropped out. Thesemeasures may underestimate the 4-year drop out rate, but they also do not indicate how many studentsgraduated rom high school in more than 4 years or received a high school diploma through alternate routes.

Connecticut is trying to update its system or tracking public school students as they progress through highschool, even as they change school districts or move on to alternative education programs. Modicationsin how students are tracked and how drop out and graduation measures are dened may create newunderstandings o how successully Valley students are able to complete their secondary school education.The long-term goal or the state is to achieve graduation rates close to 100% o all students.


27/9627.

9%3% 3% 7% 7% 6%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

88% 97% 96% 92% 93% 93%

9%3% 3% 7% 7% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ansonia Beacon Falls Derby Seymour Shelton CT

Graduation Rate Drop Out Rate

Source: CT Dept. o Education; Oxord data not available

Cuulative 4-Year Hih School grauation & drop Out Rates

2007-2008


28/9628.

POST-SECONdARY & AdULT EdUCATION

poST-SeCondaRy eduCaTion planS

why is this inicator iportant?Post-secondary education (including junior college, college, and technical training programs) improves youngpeoples chances or employment opportunities and improved earnings potential.

what oes it easure?The percentage o high school graduates rom public schools who reported that they plan to obtain urthereducation, including both degree and non-degree programs (Source: 2007-2008 Strategic School Proles,Connecticut Department o Education; note: *Beacon Falls is part o Regional School District 16, which alsoincludes Prospect; inormation is not available or Oxord)

Ho are e oin?In the 2007-2008 school year, between 73% and 89% o Valley high school graduates reported that theyplanned to pursue urther education. In three Valley towns, the percentage o graduating students with plansor urther education was lower than that or the state overall.

Since between 10% and 25% o graduates rom these Valley districts did not plan to pursue additionaleducation, a sizeable proportion o Valley young people may ace greater challenges in obtaining employment

that can provide them with a good standard o living.

% Hih School grauates PursuinFurther Eucation

2007-2008

Ansonia 73%

Beacon Falls * 86%

Derby 76%

Oxord na

Seymour 80%

Shelton 89%

Connecticut 83%



29/9629.

adulT eduCaTional aTTainmenT

why is this inicator iportant?Increasing levels o educational attainment are associated with higher earning potential or adults as well asdierent patterns o access to inormation and resources, which can aect peoples behaviors and overallquality o lie.

what oes it easure?

The percentage o the adult population 25 years and older who have a high school degree, some collegeeducation, and a bachelors degree or more as their highest level o education (Source: CERC Town Proles,2009 data in 2010 proles).

Ho are e oin?According to 2009 statistics, the percentage o adults 25 and over who have Bachelors degrees was lowerin the Valley than in the state, ranging between 20% and 35% or the Valley towns compared to 36% orConnecticut. The Connecticut Department o Labor estimated that between 2002 and 2012 almost hal o allnew jobs in the Southwest region o the state would require a Bachelors degree or higher (cited in Community

Audit & Needs Assessment Report, 2006, The WorkPlace, Inc.). As a result, Valley adults whose highesteducational level does not include a college degree may nd it more dicult to qualiy or such new jobs.

Hihest Eucational Level Coplete Aon Valley Aults 25 & Over

2009

% w/ Bachelors Degree orMore

% w/Some College % w/High School Degree

Ansonia 20 24 42

Beacon Falls 31 28 31

Derby 23 25 36

Oxord 35 26 32

Seymour 24 29 35

Shelton 35 25 30

Connecticut 36 23 29

Source: CERC


30/9630.

adulT eduCaTion & Job TRaininG aVailabiliTy

why is this inicator iportant?Adult education and job training services allow adults to develop skills that increase their employability and liesatisaction. Community awareness o the available services can infuence how well they are utilized.

what oes it easure?The perspective o residents surveyed regarding whether there are enough adult education and job training

services in the Valley region to meet their needs (Source: Valley CARES Survey, 2009-2010).Ho are e oin?Forty-two percent o residents surveyed stated that there are enough adult education services in the Valley, yet46% said that they did not know i sucient services exist. An even higher percentage o residents surveyed(51%) reported that they did not know i there are enough job training services in the community. Just over aquarter o respondents (28%) said that enough job training services exist to meet the need.

These ndings suggest that residents may not be ully aware o existing services and/or that the availability oservices does not does not match the perceived need or such services, particularly in the case o job training.

Are enouh ault eucation & ob trainin services available in the Valley?

2009

42%

28%

46%

51%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes

No

Don't Know

42%

28%

13%

22%

46%

51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Adult Education Job Training

Yes

No

Don't Know



31/9631.


Community Audit & Needs Assessment Report,Southern Connecticuts Regional Workorce DevelopmentBoard, The WorkPlace, Inc., August 2006; Early Childcare Capacity Study, Lower Naugatuck Valley, UnitedWay Community Results Center, March 24, 2006; Valley CARES Community Survey, 2009-2010; ConnecticutDepartment o Education; Connecticut Department o Labor; Connecticut Department o Social Services;Early Childhood Taskorce o the Valley Council or Health & Human Services; Annie E. Casey Kids Count DataCenter

ROOm TO gROw

In order to better understand education and training in the Valley, it would be helpul to have urtherinormation about:

Residents views regarding the actors that aect access to childcare & preschool programs

Parents roles as early childhood educators and the training/support programs available or parents

School attendance data and improved high school drop out & graduation measures or Valley districts

Adult education program enrollment and outcomes (It is currently more dicult to access this data byValley town as the 6 municipalities are covered by dierent adult education programs.)

Job mentoring and job training programs or youth & adults (There currently is no database oinormation regarding these programs.)


32/9632.

Conserving the Natural Environment

Vision for the ValleyA community that conserves its natural resources sothat the environment is sae, clean, and available or

the enjoyment o residents or generations to come


LANd USE & QUALITY

The Valleys natural environment and its residents benet rom land that has been dedicated as openspace within the 6-town region. Due to the Valleys manuacturing history, some o its land may requireenvironmental remediation in order to make it sae or new development.

The Valley region has an estimated 5,594 acres oopen space; this accounts or close to 8% o the

Valleys total acreage but land dedicated to open space is not evenly distributed across the Valley towns.

A 2004 State o Connecticut inventory identied 21 Bronel sites, land that may be contaminatedwith hazardous substances, within the Valley. Additional sites are included in the Department oEnvironmental Protections list o potentially contaminated sites.

AgRICULTURAL RESOURCES

The Valleys agricultural resources infuence quality o lie or residents through their impact on the local oodsupply and the physical environment.

According to the 2007 Agricultural Census, there were 55 ar operations located in the Valley zipcodes. The Connecticut Department o Agriculture Farmland Preservation program lists 3 arm sitesin the Valley that participate in this state program to slow the loss o Connecticut armland; additionalarm conversation eorts are sponsored by towns and other organizations.

The Valley currently has 3 arers arets (Derby, Seymour, & Shelton) and one counityaren.

ENERgY USE

Valley residents and businesses rely to a large extent on non-renewable energy sources that contribute toenvironmental pollution, but there are some eorts to change these energy use patterns.

As was true or the state o Connecticut, the most commonly used hoe heatin uel source among

Valley households in 2000 was uel oil, ollowed by natural gas, electricity, and liquid petroleum gases. Each o the three transit services that provide bus service in the Valley has plans to purchase lo

eissions public transit vehicles in the upcoming years in order to reduce diesel emissions andthereby improve air quality and public health.


33/9633.

ENVIRONmENTAL CONSERVATION mEASURES

Many Valley residents are taking measures to conserve resources and the natural environment, yet localtowns, businesses, and organizations can urther improve their conservation eorts.

When asked about househol conservation easures, Valley survey respondents most commonlyreported recycling (87%), ollowed by reducing home energy consumption (54%) and growing orpurchasing ood locally (21%). Additional residents stated they drove less or purchased a more uelecient vehicle (15%), reduced use o harmul chemicals (11%), and enrolled in a clean energyprogram or purchased alternative energy products (5%).

In 2009, Valley towns recycled less than a quarter o the solid waste they generated, with most townsalling considerably below that level. Thus, the Valleys unicipal recyclin rates ell well below thestates goal o a 40% rate and below the 25% statewide rate.

Percentae o municipal Soli waste Recycle

2009

17%

23%

10%

12%10%

15%

20%

25%

8%

17%

23%

10%

12%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Ansonia Beacon Falls Derby Oxford Seymour* Shelton

Source: CT Dept. Environmental Protection; *data not reported or Seymour

Be good to the land and the

will be good to you.

~ Phillip James JFounder o Jones Family F


34/9634.

Natural Environment Indicators

LANd USE & QUALITY

open SpaCe


Protecting and preserving open space is critical to maintaining healthy ecosystems, including the qualityo a regions air, water, and land. Dedicated open space provides a source o recreation and psychologicalwellbeing or a communitys residents.

what oes it easure?The estimated number o acres o dedicated open space or the towns o Beacon Falls and Oxord (Source:Central Naugatuck Valley Council o Governments, 2010) and the Valley Council o Governments Region,which includes Ansonia, Derby, Shelton and Seymour (Source: Valley Council o Governments, 2010).

Ho are e oin?The Valley region has an estimated 5,594 acres o open space; this accounts or almost 8% o the Valleystotal acreage but land dedicated to open space is not evenly distributed across the Valley towns. According toinormation provided by the Central Naugatuck Valley Council o Governments, Beacon Falls and Oxord have

a much higher percentage o their acreage devoted to open space compared to the VCOG towns.

Estiate # Acres Open Space2010

VCOG Region(Ansonia, Derby, Seymour & Shelton)

996

Beacon Falls & Oxord(part o Central Naugatuck Valley COG)

4,598

Combined or Valley 5,594

Sources: VCOG, Central Naugatuck Valley COG


35/9635.

bRownfield SiTeS

why is this inicator iportant?Contaminated land poses a hazard to the natural environment and human health. With proper remediation,the land can be made available or new uses to benet the community. Browneld redevelopment alsoreduces the pressure to use undeveloped land, thus helping to preserve open space.

what oes this easure?

The number o sites identied as o September, 2004 in the state inventory o Brownelds, dened as realproperty, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse o which may be complicated by the presence or potentialpresence o a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant (Source: Oce o Browneld Remediation andDevelopment, Connecticut Department o Environmental Protection).

Ho are e oin?As o September 2004, the Connecticut Brownelds Inventory identied 21 sites in Valley towns asBrownelds. The States 2009 List o Contaminated or Potentially Contaminated Sites includes numerousadditional sites in the Valley that may be contaminated. Although this 2009 list identies several Valley sitesthat have begun remediation eorts, the inormation is not suciently updated or complete to show howmany new Browneld sites have been conrmed since 2004 or how many sites have initiated or completedremediation projects during this period.

# State-Ientie Bronel Sites2004

Valley 21

AgRICULTURAL RESOURCES

faRm opeRaTionS


Connecticut armland is disappearing at a very rapid rate. Preserving local arms supports the regionseconomy and ensures the local availability o produce and other agricultural products.

what oes it easure?The number o arm operations in the Valley as reported by the 2007 Agricultural Census or the Valley townzip codes (Source: Census o Agriculture, United States Department o Agriculture, 2007), and the number oarms participating in the State o Connecticut Farmland Preservation Program (Source: Farmland PreservationProgram, Connecticut Department o Agriculture, 2010).

Ho are e oin?According to the 2007 US Agriculture Census, there were 55 arm operations located within Valley zip codes.O these, about hal were small arms with ewer than 50 acres.

Thus ar, three o the arms located in the Valley have decided to participate in the states FarmlandPreservation Program. Through this state Department o Agriculture program, arms remain in privateownership but their development or nonagricultural purposes is restricted on a permanent basis. Additionalarms may be preserved through town and other conversation programs.

# Far Operationsin US Ariculture Census

2007

# Far Sites Participatin in CTFarlan Preservation Prora

2010

Valley 55 3

Source: CT Dept. Environmental Protection

Sources: US. Dept. Agriculture, CT Dept. Agriculture


36/9636.

faRmeRS maRkeTS & CommuniTyGaRdenS

why is this inicator iportant?Farmers markets and community gardens increase access to locally produced ood, thereby reducingresidents need to rely on products that are transported greater distances. In addition to the environmentaland economic benets o local ood production, access to gardens and markets can also benet residentshealth and community connections.

what oes it easure?The number o armers markets and community gardens located in Valley towns (Source: Valley Town Clerks,2009).

Ho are e oin?The Valley currently has three armers markets, one each in the towns o Derby, Seymour, and Shelton. Themarkets in Seymour and Shelton are state-certied markets.

According to 2009 inormation, there was one community garden in the Valley, located at Ansonia NatureCenter. More recently, Shelton initiated a new community garden and the town is considering adding anadditional site.

# Farers marets2009

# Counity garens2009

Valley 3 1

Source: Valley Towns


37/9637.

ENERgY USE

home heaTinG fuel SouRCeS

why is this inicator iportant?Home heating uel sources vary in their environmental impact, with substances such as coal and uel oilassociated with higher levels o contaminants that can aect air quality and climate.

what oes it easure?The number o households utilizing each home heating uel type (Source: Connecticut Department oEconomic & Community Development, US Census, 2000).

Ho are e oin?As was true or the state o Connecticut, the most commonly used home heating uel among Valleyhouseholds in 2000 was uel oil, ollowed by natural gas, electricity, and liquid petroleum gases. At that time,nine households reported utilizing solar energy or heating, while 27 reported using no heating uel. Resultsrom the 2010 Census will give updated inormation about home heating patterns.

Fuel Source Use# Valley Househols

20001. Fuel Oil, Kerosene, etc. 23,344

2. Natural Gas 10,618

3. Electricity 3,406

4. Bottled, Tank, Liquid Petroleum Gases 732

5. Wood 233

6. Other Fuel 103

7. No Fuel 27

8. Solar Energy 9

9. Coal or Coke 7Source: CT Dept. Economic & Community Development


38/9638.

low-emiSSionS publiC TRanSiT VehiCleS

why is this inicator iportant?Diesel emissions rom a variety o sources including mass transit buses can hurt local air quality and pose ahealth threat, particularly or children, the elderly, and individuals with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

what oes it easure?The responses o transit districts that serve the Valley region regarding whether they currently have low

emissions transit buses or plan to add such vehicles to their feet in the coming 1-5 years (Source: ValleyTransit District, Greater Bridgeport Transit, CTTRANSIT, New Haven 2010).

Ho are e oin?In 2005, the Connecticut legislature approved a special act aimed at reducing the harm rom diesel emissionsin the state. In order to substantially reduce diesel emissions rom public transit buses, the Department oEnvironmental Protection recommended the turnover o transit buses to lower emissions vehicles.

All o the transit districts that currently provide service in Valley towns have buses that meet existing state andederal emissions standards. According to CTTRANSIT, their existing buses burn low sulur bio-diesel, whichemits ewer pollutants than traditional diesel uel. Other transit districts also utilize low sulur diesel and/or ueadditives to decrease emissions in their current busses. In addition, the three transit services all have plans topurchase low or near zero emissions vehicles in the upcoming years.

Transit districtCurrently Have LoEissions Vehicles?

2010

Plan to A or Replace Vehiclesith Loer/No Eissions Buses

in 1-5 Years?

Valley Transit District Not currently Yes

Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority Not currently Yes

CT TRANSIT, New Haven Yes Yes

Sources: Valley Transit District, Greater Bridgeport Transit, CT TRANSIT


39/9639.

ENVIRONmENTAL CONSERVATION mEASURES

houSehold ConSeRVaTion meaSuReS

why is it iportant?Resident conservation measures can make an important dierence in helping to preserve the naturalenvironment. In order or residents to participate in environmental conservation, they need inormation aboutconservation alternatives as well as supports and incentives to change their practices.

what oes this easure?The responses o residents surveyed regarding environmental conservation measures used in the past year(Source: Valley CARES Community Survey, 2009-2010; more than one answer was possible).

Ho are e oin?A large majority o Valley residents surveyed reported doing at least one thing in the past year to conserveenergy and help the environment. O the possible actions, the most commonly reported measure wasrecycling (87%), ollowing by reducing energy consumption in the home (54%). About 1 in 5 residents alsoreported either growing their own ood or purchasing ood rom local armers.

Smaller proportions o residents said they made changes in their driving or their use o chemicals or homeand yard care. About 5% o those surveyed reported reducing their reliance on ossil uels in their home by

enrolling in a clean energy program or purchasing alternative energy products.

In the past year, hat have you one in your householto reuce enery consuption an help the environent?

% Valley Survey Responents2009

Recycling 87%

Reducing energy consumption in home (reducing usage or replacingappliances)

54%

Growing your own ood/purchasing ood rom local armers 21%

Driving less or purchasing a more uel ecient vehicle 15%

Reducing use o harmul chemicals in yard/garden/home 11%

Enrolling in a clean energy program or purchasing alternative energyproducts

5%



40/9640.

muniCipal ReCyClinG RaTeS

why is this inicator iportant?Recycling the waste produced by households and businesses conserves natural resources by saving energy,reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing the need or virgin materials. In addition, it reduces thevolume o waste that needs to be incinerated or put in landlls.

what oes it easure?

The percentage o municipal solid waste, both rom residential and non-residential sources, that is recycledin each town (Source: Connecticut Department o Environmental Protection, Bureau o Materials andManagement, 2009; note: inormation or Town o Seymour not reported.).

Ho are e oin?In 2009, Valley towns recycled less than a quarter o the solid waste they generated, with most towns allingconsiderably under that level. The statewide municipal recycling rate has held steady at about 25% o solidwaste or more than a decade. Although the Connecticut Municipal Recycling Honor Roll includes townswith recycling rates approaching 50%, the state has yet to achieve a statutory 40% recycling goal, which wasestablished in the mid-1990s. Valley towns are likewise ar rom that recycling rate target.

Percentae o municipal Soli waste Recycle2009

Source: CT Dept. Environmental Protection; *data not reported or Seymour

17%

23%

10%

12%10%

15%

20%

25%

8%

17%

23%

10%

12%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Ansonia Beacon Falls Derby Oxford Seymour* Shelton


41/9641.


Valley CARES Community Survey, 2009-2010; US Census; Connecticut Department o Agriculture;Connecticut Department o Environmental Protection; Connecticut Department o Economic & CommunityDevelopment; Central Naugatuck Valley Council o Governments; Valley Council o Governments; ValleyTransit District; CTTRANSIT, New Haven; Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority; US 2007 Agriculture Census;Valley Town Clerks

ROOm TO gROw

In order to better understand environmental conservation in the Valley, it would be helpul to have urtherinormation about:

The regions water and air quality (The state Department o Environmental Protection does notcurrently test air quality in the area.)

Participation in clean energy programs and energy conservation programs among Valley residents,municipalities, and businesses

What actors aect the environmental conservation interests and practices o community residents,businesses, municipalities, and other community groups

Updated inormation on the number o Browneld sites in the Valley and the number o sites thathave been remediated and redeveloped


42/9642.

Keeping Residents Safe

Vision for the ValleyA community that ensures that residents eel sae withintheir homes and their neighborhoods and that provides

them with knowledge, tools, and services to protectthemselves rom violent and accidental injury


SAFETY IN THE COmmUNITY

Crime is less common in the Valley region than in the state as a whole, but not all residents eel sae in theirneighborhoods.

In 2006, the Valleys total crie rate o 1,621 crimes per 100,000 ell considerably below the statecrime rate, however there are substantial dierences in crime rates across the Valley towns.

When asked about neihborhoo saety, 88% o residents surveyed reported eeling somewhat orvery sae walking in their neighborhood in the evening, but nearly 1 in 10 residents elt somewhat orvery unsae.

Ho sae o you eel alin in your neihborhoo in the evenin?

70%

80%

67%

50%

60%

70%

80%

67%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

67%

21%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

67%

21%

6% 3%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe

67%

21%

6% 3%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


67%

21%

6% 3%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


SAFETY IN THE FAmILY ANd HOUSEHOLd

Although rates o violence against community members like women, children, and the elderly are not higherin the Valley than in the state, some residents still suer rom violence caused by people they know and withwhom they live.

Although cases o amily and domestic violence are typically underreported, 519 aily violenceincients were reported in the Valley in 2008. Close to 900 Valley residents used oestic violenceservices provided by a local program (The Umbrella).

In 2008, the state reported 164 cases o substantiated chil abuse & nelect and 15 cases oelerabuse & nelect in the Valley; the actual requency o such abuse may be higher.



43/9643.

ACCIdENTAL INjURYValley residents take measures to prevent accidental injury, but more can be done to avoid injuries related tothe use o motor vehicles, bicycles, and rearms.

In 2007, there were over 700 otor vehicle accients with a reported injury or atality that occurredin Valley towns, showing that motor vehicle accidents continue to be an important preventable causeo injury and death in the region.

When asked about their inury prevention practices, 96% o residents surveyed indicated that theyalways wear a seatbelt. O those who provided valid responses to questions about helmet use andrearms saety, 63% said they always wear a helmet when riding a bicycle or motorcycle and 71%said they always lock rearms in a secure location.

Reporte Inury Prevention Practices

96%

63%

71%

37%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

96%

63%

71%

4%

37%

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Always wear seat belt Always wear helmet Always lock firearms

Yes No


The saety o the people is the

supreme law.~ Cicero


44/9644.

Resident Safety Indicators

SAFETY IN THE COmmUNITY

CRime RaTe


The crime rate has a direct impact on peoples sense o saety within their community, which infuences theiremotional wellbeing, physical health, and ability to move reely to exercise, work, and attend school.

what oes it easure?The total number o crimes, not including arson, per 100,000 people (Source: Connecticut Department oPublic Saety, 2009 Report--based on 2006 statistics; rate calculated using 2006 population data; 2006 staterate rom Connecticut Summary Statistics, 2007). This includes murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery,larceny and motor vehicle thet.

Ho are e oin?Over the past 10 years, the crime rate in Connecticut has decreased, a trend that applies to the Valley.According to 2006 data, the total number o crimes per 100,000 people was considerably lower in the Valleyoverall than it was in the state. Likewise, the crime rate or each type o crime such as murder, rape, and

robbery was also lower. The vast majority o crimes committed in the Valley in 2006 were non-violent crimesrelated to thet such as larceny and burglary.

The Valleys overall crime rate, however, masks substantial variation in crime rates by town. Crime rates insome Valley towns are closer to the states rate while others all considerably below that rate.

Total Ine CriesPer 100,000 People

2006

Valley 1,621/100,000

Connecticut 2,886/100,000

Ansonia 2,168/100,000

Beacon Falls 1,130/100,000

Derby 2,776/100,000

Oxord 821/100,000

Seymour 1,666/100,000

Shelton 1,231/100,000

Source: CT Dept. o Public Saety


45/9645.

neiGhboRhood SafeTy

why is this inicator iportant?Residents perceptions o saety in their neighborhoods can infuence their levels o mobility and interactionwith their neighbors, aecting their quality o lie. Resident perceptions may or may not match statistics onneighborhood crime levels.

what oes it easure?

The perceptions o Valley CARES survey respondents regarding neighborhood saety (Source: Valley CARESCommunity Survey, 2009-2010).

Ho are e oin?A majority o Valley residents (88%) surveyed reported that they eel sae walking in their neighborhoods inthe evening. However, nearly 9%almost 1 in 10 residentssaid that they eel somewhat or very unsae.

Ho sae o you eel alin in your neihborhoo in the evenin?

2009

70%

80%

67%

50%

60%

70%

80%

67%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

67%

21%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

67%

21%

6% 3%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


67%

21%

6% 3%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


67%

21%

6% 3%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%




46/9646.

SAFETY IN THE FAmILY ANd HOUSEHOLd

familyViolenCe inCidenTS

why is this inicator iportant?Elderly persons, women, and children continue to be vulnerable to physical and sexual assaults, which areoten committed by individuals they know. Exposure to amily violence has ar reaching eects on the physicalsaety and emotional wellbeing o children and adults, whether they are direct victims or witnesses. Research

has demonstrated that witnessing violence between ones parents or caretakers is the strongest risk actor ortransmitting violent behavior to the next generation.

what oes it easure?The rate and number o amily violence incidents, including homicides, assaults, sexual assaults, risk o injury,breaches o peace, disorderly conduct and other categories, reported by town police departments and/orState police rom 1/1/2008-12/31/2008 (Source: State o Connecticut Family Violence Detailed Report2008, Connecticut Department o Public Saety; rate calculated using 2008 population data). Only a portiono these cases resulted in arrests. The number o incidents does not refect the number o individuals as oneindividual can contribute to several incidents in a year.

Ho are e oin?According to 2008 data, the rate o amily violence incidents per 100,000 people was lower in the Valleycompared to the state overall. Nevertheless, there were over 500 reported incidents during that time period.Since each incident generally aects multiple individuals, the number o people aected by amily violence inthe Valley is certainly even higher.

Valley2008

Connecticut2008

# Family Violence Incidents 519 20,079

Rate o Family Violence Incidents per 100,000 People 499/100,000 630/100,000

domeSTiC ViolenCe SeRViCeS

why is this inicator iportant?Domestic violence is the single greatest cause o injury to women. Because most cases o domestic violenceare never reported to the police, the number o individuals requesting domestic violence services maymore accurately refect the magnitude o the issue. There are signicant physical, emotional and nancialconsequences or individuals aected by domestic violence.

what oes it easure?The number o unduplicated individuals (women and men) residing in Valley towns who utilized localdomestic violence services oered by The Umbrella in 2009 (Source: The Umbrella). These services includedcourt advocacy, walk-in clients, crisis hotline calls, and provision o shelter.

Ho are e oin?The nature o intimate partner violence and sexual violence makes these issues dicult to research, due toprivacy and security concerns o those involved. In 2009, there were 896 Valley residents who sought and useddomestic violence services at The Umbrella program. While this number does not include all those aected bydomestic violence, it provides another indication o the reality o such violence within the Valley community.

Valley2009

# Individuals (Unduplicated) Receiving Domestic Violence Servicesin Valley-Based Program

896

Source: CT Dept. o Public Saety

Source: The Umbrella


47/9647.

Child abuSe & neGleCT

why is this inicator iportant?Abuse and neglect during childhood aects the wellbeing o children with long-term consequences or theirphysical and emotional health, education, employment, and uture relationships. In addition, child abuse andneglect is oten a sign o stresses within amilies and communities, including economic challenges, substanceuse, discrimination and other concerns.

what oes it easure?The number o cases o substantiated child abuse and neglect and the rate per 1,000 children. (Source:Connecticut Department o Children & Families, 2008)

Ho are e oin?In 2008, the Valleys rate o substantiated child abuse & neglect cases per 100,000 people was lowerthan the state rate. Yet, in that year there were 164 cases o documented child abuse or neglect in Valleyhouseholds.

Valley2008

Connecticut2008

# Cases o Substantiated Child Abuse/Neglect 164 8,544Rate o Child Abuse/Neglect per 1000 Children 1.6/1,000 2.4/1,000

eldeR abuSe & neGleCT

why is this inicator iportant?As with children, elderly residents may be vulnerable to abuse or neglect which is oten dicult to detect.

what oes it easure?The number o cases o substantiated

Valley CARES Quality of Life Report

Documents

Transcript of Valley CARES Quality of Life Report