No result found
2018-02-26
Cato Institute;
This brief uses Texas Department of Public Safety data to measure the conviction and arrest rates of illegal immigrants by crime. In Texas in 2015, the criminal conviction and arrest rates for immigrants were well below those of native-born Americans. Moreover, the conviction and arrest rates for illegal immigrants were lower than those for native-born Americans. This result holds for most crimes.
2018-09-01
Children At Risk;
The Texas Child Care Desert Map is an interactive tool to explore the local availability of child care across the state of Texas. Does the supply of child care in your area meet the demand for services among children of working parents? The map shows four different types of child care deserts, including: Child care deserts, Subsidized child care deserts, Texas Rising Star (TRS) deserts, and TRS Level 4 deserts.
2018-11-01
Children At Risk;
Texas is beginning to fall behind when it comes to student success and job-readiness. Quality child care can improveboth outcomes, yet our state is currently lacking in access to quality child care. This can put the Texas economic miraclein peril. Building on current efforts across the state, Texas can pave the way for success in the 21st century by making strategic investments to:Increase the number of child care providers certified quality throughTexas Rising Star.Build a path toward school-readiness.Ensure that child care teachers are adequately trained andcompensated.Know the cost for quality child care and reimburse accordingly.Make child care businesses more sustainable.
2018-01-01
Children At Risk;
In recent years, Texas advocates, researchers, child care providers, public officials, and other stakeholders have been working to improve the quality of child care and access to quality child care, especially for low-income families. While there is no silver bullet, using a Shared Sefvices framework to strengthen systems at the provider level is a promising concept. A Shared Services approach focuses on sharing skilled staff and resources to provide business and pedagogical leadership among a network of center- and/or home-based providers. In at least 28 states, and more than two dozen communities, early care and education leaders are using a Shared Services approach to help tackle long-standing challenges such as raising and sustaining program quality, increasing teacher compensation, and implementing sound business practices. This preliminary brief explores various models of Shared Services and special considerations for the state of Texas.
2018-08-21
Heartland Alliance National Initiatives on Poverty & Economic Opportunity;
Implementing the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model boosts employment outcomes for transition-age youth facing barriers to employment. LifeWorks, a non-profit organization serving transition-age youth and their families in Austin, TX, realized that workforce models popular within the youth development field may not address the significant and complex challenges faced by their participants. LifeWorks staff began to look toward behavioral health approaches to employment and discovered the Individual Placement & Support model. This case study discusses how IPS offered LifeWorks a new approach to workforce support for youth that might better address the types of challenges their participants faced.
2017-03-14
Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice;
In 2014, the University of Minnesota's Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice began a multi-state study that was tasked with exploring nationwide variations in the practices and policies of probation violations and revocations. A distinctive finding that grew out of the Robina Institute's work in two Texas counties was that probation supervision fees play a major role throughout the state. Probationers are required as one of 25 standard conditions to pay supervision fees, and—depending on the case— they may have to pay additional program fees, fines, and restitution. Texas probation departments depend on supervision fees for a large share of their operating budgets, and they are responsible for collecting those fees. Because payment of fees is a formal condition of probation, probationers may be sanctioned if they fall delinquent. Additionally, their probation terms may be extended to allow more time to pay, or early termination may be denied. In interviews, some probationers believed they could be revoked to jail or prison for failure to pay supervision fees. However, we heard from probation officers that probationers were not revoked solely for fees. The officers told us that nonpayment may be one reason probationers are revoked, but only when combined with other violations.The Robina Institute was encouraged by other probation chiefs in Texas to add additional counties to our study. To understand the interaction between probation and criminal justice fees in greater depth, the Robina Institute conducted a mixed methods study with 4 probation jurisdictions in Texas. Quantitative data was analyzed to examine the average amount of fees ordered, the breakdown of the fees ordered, and the percent of probationers who were current and delinquent on their fees. The quantitative analysis also examined the outcomes for those who were delinquent on their fees. Qualitative interviews were conducted with probationers to understand how fees impacted them and their experience of probation, as well as how they handled paying their fees. Probation officers were also interviewed to examine how fees were utilized and how officers collected fees.This report highlights some of the findings from qualitative interviews with over 50 probation officers and 46 probationers in 4 probation jurisdictions. A separate report highlights our quantitative findings; future Robina Institute publications will explore the quantitative and qualitative data in greater depth, as well as legal issues associated with the imposition and collection of supervision fees.The first section of this report presents findings from the focus groups with the probation officers. The second section focuses on findings from the probationer focus groups.
2017-09-01
FSG;
Raising Blended Learners is a statewide initiative to seed and scale personalized learning across Texas in an effort to improve student achievement across diverse demographics, particularly among schools and districts with persistent achievement gaps.As part of this initiative, Raise Your Hand Texas commissioned FSG to conduct a 4-year evaluation of the program's impact on students and schools and the success of the initiative as a whole. Last year, FSG wrote about the 2015-2016 planning and selection year of Raising Blended Learners, how the program was designed, and how the planning process was experienced by participants.In Year 1 Evaluation Report, we share our developmental evaluation of the 5 demonstration sites to understand the early stages of how models are being implemented, how sites are defining success, and how early success and challenges are being experienced.
2020-08-01
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy;
In light of the national uprising sparked by the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor (and building on other recent tragic movement moments going back to the 2014 murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri), NCRP is analyzing grantmaking by community foundations across the country to find out exactly how much they are – or are not – investing in Black communities.We started by looking at the latest available grantmaking data (2016-2018) of 25 community foundations (CFs) – from Los Angeles to New Orleans to New York City to St. Paul. These foundations represent a cross section of some of the country's largest community foundations as well as foundations in communities where NCRP has Black-led nonprofit allies.
2010-02-01
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies served by The Capital Area Food Bank. The information is drawn from a national study, Hunger in America 2010, conducted in 2009 for Feeding America (FA) (formerly America's Second Harvest), the nation's largest organization of emergency food providers. The national study is based on completed inperson interviews with more than 62,000 clients served by the FA national network, as well as on completed questionnaires from more than 37,000 FA agencies. The study summarized below focuses on emergency food providers and their clients who are supplied with food by food banks in the FA network. Key Findings: The FA system served by The Capital Area Food Bank provides emergency food for an estimated 478,100 different people annually.46% of the members of households served by The Capital Area Food Bank are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).56% of households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).Among households with children, 75% are food insecure and 32% are food insecure with very low food security (Table 6.1.1.1).42% of clients served by The Capital Area Food Bank report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).46% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1).24% of households served by The Capital Area Food Bank report having at least one household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1)The Capital Area Food Bank included approximately 361 agencies at the administration of this survey, of which 330 have responded to the agency survey. Of the responding agencies, 256 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter.76% of pantries, 65% of kitchens, and 66% of shelters are run by faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations (Table 10.6.1).Among programs that existed in 2006, 84% of pantries, 80% of kitchens, and 49% of shelters of The Capital Area Food Bank reported that there had been an increase since 2006 in the number of clients who come to their emergency food program sites (Table 10.8.1).Food banks are by far the single most important source of food for agencies with emergency food providers, accounting for 74% of the food distributed by pantries, 52% of the food distributed by kitchens, and 42% of the food distributed by shelters (Table 13.1.1).As many as 92% of pantries, 86% of kitchens, and 77% of shelters in The Capital Area Food Bank use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
2006-02-01
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies served by the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas. The information is drawn from a national study, Hunger in America 2006, conducted for America's Second Harvest (A2H), the nation's largest organization of emergency food providers. The national study is based on completed in-person interviews with more than 52,000 clients served by the A2H food bank network, as well as on completed questionnaires from more than 30,000 A2H agencies. The study summarized below focuses mainly on emergency food providers and their clients who are supplied with food by food banks in the A2H network. Key Findings: The A2H system served by the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas provides food for an estimated 174,900 different people annually. 35% of the members of households served by the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2). 43% of client households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1). Among client households with children, 76% are food insecure and 44% are experiencing hunger (Table 6.1.1). 49% of clients served by the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1). 34% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1). 29% of households served by the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas report having at least one household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1)The Capital Area Food Bank of Texas included approximately 260 agencies at the administration of this survey, of which 204 have responded to the agency survey. Of the responding agencies, 173 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter. 71% of pantries, 37% of kitchens, and 39% of shelters are run by faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations (Table 10.6.1). 76% of pantries, 53% of kitchens, and 59% of shelters of the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas reported that there had been an increase since 2001 in the number of clients who come to their emergency food program sites (Table 10.8.1). Food banks are by far the single most important source of food for the agencies, accounting for 76% of the food used by pantries, 38% of kitchens' food, and 36% of shelters' food (Table 13.1.1). For the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas, 90% of pantries, 65% of kitchens, and 80% of shelters use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
2002-09-18
Human Rights Watch;
Programs teaching teenagers to "just say no" to sex before marriage are threatening adolescent health by censoring basic information about how to prevent HIV/AIDS, Human Rights Watch charged in a new report released today. The forty-seven page report focuses on federally funded "abstinence-only-until-marriage" programs in Texas, where advertising campaigns convey the message that teenagers should not use condoms because they don't work. Some school-based programs in Texas do not mention condoms at all. Federal health agencies share the broad scientific consensus that condoms, when used correctly, are highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV. Yet the U.S. government currently spends more than $100 million each year on "abstinence-only-until-marriage" programs, which cannot by law "promote or endorse" condoms or provide instruction regarding their use. The Bush administration is advocating a 33 percent increase in funding for these programs.
2010-02-01
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies in the state of Texas. The information is drawn from a national study, Hunger in America 2010, conducted in 2009 for Feeding America (FA) (formerly America's Second Harvest), the nation's largest organization of emergency food providers. The national study is based on completed in-person interviews with more than 62,000 clients served by the FA national network, as well as on completed questionnaires from more than 37,000 FA agencies. The study summarized below focuses on emergency food providers and their clients who are supplied with food by food banks in the FA network. Key Findings:The FA system in Texas provides emergency food for an estimated 2,992,800 different people annually.42% of the members of client households in Texas are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).43% of client households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).Among client households with children, 78% are food insecure and 30% are food insecure with very low food security (Table 6.1.1.1).53% of clients in Texas report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).37% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1).29% of client households in Texas report having at least one household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1)At the administration of this survey, 18 food banks or FROs affiliated with FA operated in Texas. Of the agencies that were served by those organizations, 2,704 agencies that had their operation within the state responded to the agency survey. Of the responding agencies, 2,101 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter.73% of pantries, 49% of kitchens, and 41% of shelters are run by faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations (Table 10.6.1).Among programs that existed in 2006, 76% of pantries, 62% of kitchens, and 56% of shelters in Texas reported that there had been an increase since 2006 in the number of clients who come to their emergency food program sites (Table 10.8.1).Food banks are by far the single most important source of food for agencies with emergency food providers, accounting for 83% of the food distributed by pantries, 52% of the food distributed by kitchens, and 46% of the food distributed by shelters (Table 13.1.1).As many as 92% of pantries, 77% of kitchens, and 75% of shelters in Texas use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
