End of year seems a good time to look at how the District of Columbia is progressing — or not — toward becoming One City. So I turned to the indicators that the Half in Ten campaign published a couple of weeks ago.
We do see progress, especially if we look back to the first set, which, for the most part, shows where we were in 2010. But it’s a fragmentary picture — even more so if we focus only on the indicators Half in Ten could update, as I will here.
About the Indicators
Half in Ten chose the indicators in 2011, when it reset the clock for its original goal — cutting poverty in half in 10 years.
As I wrote at the time, they reflect a broader vision — not only less poverty, but more broadly-shared prosperity. For the latter, Half in Ten defined three priorities — creating good jobs, promoting family economic security and strengthening families and communities.
It picked 10 indicators for states and the District, presumably based in part on data it could directly access or secure from other organizations.
Even so, some of the data in latest set aren’t as current as one would wish. And the good job indicators are largely indicators of people who’d qualify for good jobs, rather than the extent to which such jobs are available.
The online report is still, so far as I know, the only single source of so many figures that allow us to measure progress toward social and economic justice.
The report also provides two bases for assessing each state-level figure — a best-to-worst numerical ranking and a better-or-worse figure, based on what Half in Ten calls the “U.S. average.” This is apparently another term for the nationwide rate.
I’m a bit queasy about comparing the District’s rates to the averages. (See note below.) But I’ll use the averages because they may provide a useful perspective. The rankings, as I’ve said before, are an apples-to-oranges comparison, so far as the District is concerned.
As you may already know, the poverty rate in the District was 18.2% last year. This was about 3.1% higher than the U.S. average, according to Half in Ten.* But it was 2% lower than in 2010.
The child poverty rate shows more progress. It was 26.5% in 2012, as compared to 30.4% in 2010. But it was 5.5% higher than the U.S. average. And that, obviously, was alarmingly high too.
Access to Good Jobs
The unemployment rate in the District 8.9% last year — 0.8% higher than the U.S. average. The rate in 2010 was 9.9%.
How much of the dip indicates more residents working is an open question, since the rate doesn’t include jobless workers who’ve given up looking or potential workers who decided not to start. We know that they’ve been a major reason the national unemployment rate has dropped.
The disconnected youth rate, i.e., the percent of teens and young adults who were neither in school nor working, dropped from 17% in 2010 to 14% last year. This is 2% lower than the U.S. average, but the same as in 2011.
Health insurance coverage is one of the District’s strongest points. Only 9.14% of residents under 65 and below 138% of the federal poverty line (the cut-off for Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act) had no health insurance during 2012.
This is 8.6% lower than the U.S. average and 3.92% lower than the District’s own rate in 2011, the earliest year Half in Ten could report.
The District also does fairly well on food insecurity — at least in light of the poverty rate and the high costs of housing here. During 2010-12, 12% of D.C. households didn’t always have the resources to provide enough food for all members.
This is about 1.9% lower than the U.S. average and 1% lower than the District’s initial two-year rate.
On the other hand, only 17% of District residents who were jobless and looking for work in 2012 received unemployment benefits. This is nearly 11.7% lower than the U.S. average, though about 1.5% higher than in 2010.
It’s hard to know what accounts for such a low rate. One factor probably is that many laid-off workers in our thriving restaurant, hotel and home services sectors couldn’t meet the minimum earnings requirements for unemployment benefits.
Stronger Families and Communities
Just two updated indicators in this category — and neither altogether current. One is the teen birth rate, i.e., the number of births to women between the ages of 15 and 19 for every 1,000 in this age group. In 2011, it was 41.8 — about 10.4% more than the U.S. average. But it was 45.5 in 2010.
The other indicator is the number of children per 1,000 who were in foster care. In 2011, there were 16 — about 10.3% more than the U.S. average. But the rate was 20 per 1,000 only the year before.
These are not only indicators of family and community strength. The teen birth rate is linked to child and maternal health, to high school completion and thus to employment — and to poverty, though perhaps less as cause than effect.
Similarly, growing up in foster care has been linked to a host of later problems, including some flagged by the indicators here, e.g., poverty, disconnection from both school and work.
What’s true for these indicators is true for others as well. Each gives us a measure of individual and community well-being, but the measures are inter-connected in a variety of ways.
Which, I suppose, merely reaffirms the need for a holistic approach to both poverty reduction and a more equitable sharing of the prosperity in this very wealthy country.
* The source for the District’s poverty rate is the American Community Survey’s one-year estimate. However, the one-year estimate for the nation as a whole produces a smaller “worse than” difference than the Half in Ten figure I’ve replicated. By my calculations, the figure should be about 2.3%.