- Cut poverty in half
- Create shared prosperity by increasing opportunities and supports for low-income individuals and families
For both goals, the timeframe is 10 years — less actually, since the report starts the clock running in 2010. That’s because many of the baseline indicators it uses come from the latest Census Bureau reports.
One of the most ambitious aspects of the project are the state-level indicators for both poverty reduction and progress toward the three big priorities the campaign advocates — more good jobs, stronger families and greater economic security.
The state-level indicators are online and include not only the most current figures, but rankings relative to other states. Links let us see the actual figures for all states.
So what do we learn about poverty, opportunity and shared prosperity in the District of Columbia? Here’s a sample.
About poverty, most of us already know. The District has a higher poverty rate than all but two states — 19.2% in 2010.*
No news about food insecurity either. As I previously wrote, the District’s food insecurity rate last year was 13%. This puts the District above a majority of states, with a ranking of 20.
Creating Good Jobs
The indicators for creating good jobs are a mixed bag indeed.
On the one hand, the District tops all states for wage equity between men and women — an average of only 8.6 cents on the dollar separating them, as compared to 21.4 cents nationwide.
It also ranks first in the percent of young adults (25-34 year olds) with an associates degree or higher. Close to two-thirds — 63.6% — of residents in this age group have a college degree of some sort.
But only one state — Nevada — ranks lower in the percent of high school freshmen who graduate four years later. Barely more than half — 56% — of District students graduated on time in 2008.
Huge variations in the indicators for this priority as well.
Only one state — Massachusetts — has a lower percent of residents without health insurance. For D.C., the figure is 7.6% — just 3.2% higher than for Massachusetts.
But no state has as high a rate of children under 18 in foster care. No state, in fact, even comes close.
For every 100,000 children in the District, 2,058 have been taken away from their families. In the highest ranking state — Nebraska — the ratio is 1,188 per 100,000. Nationwide, the ratio is 533 per 100,000.
Promoting Economic Security
No big point spreads here, alas.
Last year, only 36.3% of jobless workers in the District received unemployment insurance benefits, putting the District below all but two states — South Dakota and Virginia.
The District also ranks below all but two states in the percent of residents (adults presumably) who don’t have bank accounts — a somewhat primitive, but useful measure for asset building.
Finally — no surprise — the District ranks lower than all but six states for affordable housing, which is here measured as the number of affordable, available rental units per 100 tenants with incomes at or below 50% of the state median.
Only 53% of lower-income tenants here have a chance at an affordable unit.
Why the Indicators?
Half in Ten provides these indicators — and plans updates — so that we can advocate for legislation that “moves … [them] in the right direction” and hold our elected officials accountable for progress.
The campaign focuses mainly on federal policies. Yet when we look at the District’s indicators, we can see that some of them have solutions close to home.
Many, I think, speak to the yawning gulf between the haves and have-nots in our city.
New evidence of this — and another indicator — from the Census Bureau, which reports greater income inequality in the District than in all but two other major cities.
That’s something our local government can address, though we need radical shifts in federal priorities too.
As at the federal level, the core issue is political will. Creating and sustaining it is our business.
Think what could happen if we all asked our policymakers — and aspiring policymakers — what they intended to do about the deplorable numbers here.
* This figure comes from the American Community Survey. As I earlier wrote, it is more reliable than the much-reported one-year figure from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.