2000 Census Numbers Reveal Higher Poverty Numbers in the District by Ward and Neighborhood Cluster

Transcription

1 A DC Agenda Neighborhood Information Services Research Paper 2000 Census Numbers Reveal Higher Poverty Numbers in the District by Ward and Neighborhood Cluster By Mark Rubin Director of Research October 2002

2 Foreword This report uses 1980, 1990 and 2000 Census data 1 to show where high concentrations of poverty exist, and which populations are most affected in Washington, DC. This analysis is part of the DC Agenda Neighborhood Information Service s (NIS) mission to provide neighborhood level data to the general public. NIS plans future studies of the District of Columbia that examines youth services, employment opportunities, access to financial capital and health care services. These analyses will explore conditions at the city s Ward and Neighborhood Cluster levels to help support efforts to improve conditions in our most distressed communities and among our poorest residents. About DC Agenda DC Agenda is a nonprofit civic organization that brings together diverse groups of leaders to address urban problems in Washington, DC. It focuses on improving the lives of youth and families in underserved neighborhoods. Since 1994, DC Agenda has worked to improve the quality of life for all in the District. DC Agenda is a leadership organization that influences city leaders and community groups on key issues, and is therefore helping to shape a community agenda. In so doing, DC Agenda acts as convener, fair broker, and facilitator, in other words a community intermediary. About the Neighborhood Information Service (NIS) The Neighborhood Information Service (NIS) was formed in 1999 by DC Agenda to provide an information resource for neighbors and neighborhoods in the District of Columbia. The Neighborhood Information Service (NIS) works in partnership with the Urban Institute s Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center to operate the DC Data Warehouse, a repository of local and national data sets that provide neighborhood level information to the general public. NIS provides current and reliable neighborhood-level data and analysis to improve strategic decision-making by government and community organizations. 1 Comparison data were taken from the Urban Institute s Neighborhood Change Data Base which has Census data at the tract level for 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 and adjusts for changes in Census tract boundaries that occurred over this time period

3 Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the following for their comments and support: Herb Bixhorn, State Data Office, Office of Planning Carmen Lane, Eugene and Agnes Meyer Foundation Deborah Lyons, University of the District of Columbia Gladys Mack, United Planning Organization Janice Hamilton Outtz, Annie E. Casey Foundation Martha Ross, Brookings Institution Margie Ruiz, Director of Multicultural Affairs and Civil Rights Compliance (DC Public Schools) Mona Sanders, Director of Policy Development (DC Public Schools) Marian Urquilla, Columbia Heights Shaw Family Strengthening Collaborative Howard Ways, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Sarah Woodhead, Director of Facilities Planning, Design and Construction (DC Public Schools) Special thanks to Peter Tatian and Noah Sawyer with the Urban Institute s DC Data Warehouse. The DC Data Warehouse partners with DC Agenda s Neighborhood Information Service (NIS) to provide neighborhood level data for the District. The DC Data Warehouse has incorporated 1980, 1990 and 2000 US Census data into the Neighborhood Change Database, which has made this report by DC Agenda possible. Credits Author: Mark Rubin Editors: Sandra Walter, Audrey Williams, John McKoy Charts: SLWdesign-Stacey Walter Layout: Kate Fried This report was funded by DC Agenda, thanks to the generosity of grants and contributions received for its annual operations. Special thanks to the Annie E. Casey Foundation for its ongoing support of the Neighborhood Information Service (NIS)

4 Summary of Key Findings The analysis presented in this report yields seven key findings about poverty in Washington, DC: 109,500 District residents live in poverty, or 20.2 percent of the population. Overall, the new figure is an increase of 14%, or more than 13,000 residents from a decade ago. The 2000 poverty rate is also the highest in the District over the last four censuses. The Census 2000 poverty rate for the Washington area suburbs was 5.8%. More than 35,000 children are living in poverty an increase of more than 6,700 in the last decade. More than 30% of the District s children now live in poverty, an increase of 24% since African-Americans had the largest numeric and percentage increase among all racial categories. More than one quarter of the African-American population is now in poverty, representing 77% of all District residents in poverty. The Asian and Latino populations also saw significant increases in poverty. Half of all children living in Ward 8 now live in poverty. Ward 8's poverty rate stands at 38%, increasing by 15% since This is far higher than any other Ward in the city, and the highest poverty rate in the city by nearly 13 percentage points. More than 60% of the population in poverty lives outside Wards 7 and 8. The majority of poor residents live in Wards 1 through 6. Overall, the number of residents in poverty grew in every Ward. Poverty rates by Neighborhood Cluster show 32 out of 39 with increasing poverty rates. Ten clusters have poverty rates above 30% and four clusters have poverty rates over 40%, and one has a rate higher than 50%. High-poverty Neighborhoods today appear to have higher unemployment rates and fewer families on public assistance than in This trend is probably due to the higher number of poor residents leaving the welfare rolls and entering the labor market after the 1996 federal welfare reform act

5 This report presents a portrait of poverty in Washington, DC 2, using the most recent Census data available for the District of Columbia. Poverty totals were aggregated to the city, Ward and Neighborhood Cluster levels using geographic information software and stratified by age, race/ethnicity and family type. This report shows that poverty has increased in the District of Columbia, despite a decade of regional economic expansion, and that African-Americans continue to account for the overwhelming majority of the city s poor residents. This report also illustrates the unique circumstances facing each neighborhood, and that efforts to combat poverty cannot be confined to certain parts of the District of Columbia. Every neighborhood and every jurisdiction in the region is home to a significant number of poor people, and experiences some of the social and economic consequences of poverty. This report does not examine the causes of the increase in poverty. Information was not available at this time to begin such work, but as more data become available, we hope to get a better understanding of these factors. 2 Census data do not tell us what has happened in our region since 1999 and the Census surveys include only a limited number of indicators that measure neighborhood well-being or distress

6 109,500 District residents live in poverty, or 20.2 percent of the population The Washington, DC metropolitan area enjoyed a decade of prosperity between 1990 and 2000 reflected in rising incomes, increasing population and higher home values. But recent Census figures reveal a troubling trend, as poverty rose significantly in the District of Columbia over the last ten years. Recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau regarding work and economic characteristics of District residents show 109,500 residents live in poverty. Overall, the new figure is an increase of 14%, or more than 13,000 residents, from a decade ago [See Table 1]. The new figures also show that the District has a greater share of its population in poverty than in the previous three censuses. The District was ranked eighth out of 102 metro areas for greatest poverty rate increase in a central city. Other major cities geographically close to Washington, DC, such as Baltimore, Wilmington, Richmond and Philadelphia also saw their poverty rates increase over the decade. 3 The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is poor. If a family's total annual income is less than the corresponding threshold, then that family, and every individual in it, is considered poor. The original poverty thresholds were developed in the early 1960s based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture s (USDA) Economy Food Plan (predecessor of the Thrifty Food Plan), which determined how much a family needed to spend on food to meet their minimum food needs. Because food costs were a third of a family s expenses, food costs were multiplied for different family sizes by three. The Census Bureau later adopted these measures as the official poverty thresholds. The poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price 3 A Decade of Mixed Blessings: Urban and Suburban Poverty in Census 2000, by Alan Berube and William Frey, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, August

7 Index (CPI-U). There have been only minor changes to the way the thresholds are calculated since they were adopted. 4 Table 1 Population in Poverty Census District residents below poverty level Percent of District residents below poverty , , , , % (109,500) of District Residents Live in Poverty (633,559) 463,000 (123,109) 17.0% 109, % Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign Poverty Line Year parents/2 children = $16,895 1 parent/1 child = $11,483 4 The Development of the Orshansky Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the Official U.S. Poverty Measure, by Gordon Fisher at Poverty Measurement Working Papers, US Census Bureau, Sept

8 In 1999, the year for which income information was collected on the Census 2000 long form, the poverty threshold for one person under 65 years old was $8,667; for a parent with one child under 18 years old the threshold was $11,483; and for a family of four with two related children the poverty threshold was $16, Poverty in the District grew primarily for individuals below 50% of the poverty threshold, in other words, people in a family of four living at $8,448 or less annually. Individuals below this 50% of poverty level grew by nearly 10,000 to 64,092 people in 2000, up from 54,347 in These individuals represented 73% of the total increase in poverty in the District. Some 40% of the individuals below 50% of the poverty threshold were either children or seniors. Throughout the mid-1990s the poverty rate increased, peaking in 1996 at 21.9% before falling to 18.2% in 1998 [See Table 2]. The rate of children in poverty also increased in the mid-1990s peaking at 36.6% in 1995 before falling to 30.5% in 1998, and rising again to 31.7% in The increasing poverty rate over the last few years may be due, in part, to a slowing economy. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reports that during all recent recessions, poverty has increased, and the poor may be more vulnerable now to the consequences of a rise in unemployment. 6 Given the recent downturn of the economy and the post- September 11 th effects, the poverty rate today late 2002 may indeed be higher than the 20.2% measured in The official poverty definition counts money income before taxes and does not include capital gains and noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). Poverty is not defined for people in military barracks, institutional group quarters, or for unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children). See Joseph Dalaker and Bernadette D. Proctor, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P60-210, Poverty in the United States: 1999, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Poverty Rates Fell In 2000 As Unemployment Reached 31-Year Low, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Sept. 26,

9 Table 2 Year Overall Percentage in Poverty Percentage of Children in poverty (0-18 years) More than 35,000 children are living in poverty an increase of more than 6,700 in the last decade. 31.7% 25.5% 28,610 35, Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign 7 Data from is taken from Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Intercensal Estimates for States, Counties, and School Districts, U.S. Census Bureau

10 While the federal poverty line has traditionally been used to measure whether families have incomes high enough to meet basic needs, many researchers now believe that a "poverty line" income is not sufficient to support most working families. "Basic family budgets," individualized for communities nationwide and for types of family (e.g., one parent/one child, two parents/two children), offer a realistic measure of the income required to have a safe and decent, though basic, standard of living. 8 Under the assumptions made by the Economic Policy Institute s basic family budget calculator [see Table 3], the costs of housing and food alone would be higher than the monthly poverty line threshold for a one parent/one child household, and nearly the same for a two parent/two children household. With the addition of childcare and transportation costs, the poverty line threshold covers roughly half the costs of a one parent/one child family and a two parent/two children family. The annual budget totals are three times higher than the poverty thresholds for each family type. Given these additional costs, many families under the poverty threshold likely live in substandard housing, use informal child care arrangements, potentially cut back on food purchases, and rely on costly emergency room services for non-emergency medical care. 8 See Economic Policy Institute s Basic Family Budget Calculator at or Wider Opportunities for Women s Self-Sufficiency Standard

11 Table Assumptions from the Economic Policy Institute Basic Family Budget Calculator One Parent, One Child Two Parents, Two Children 2 parents/2 children Monthly housing costs $820 $820 Monthly food costs $230 $510 Monthly child care costs $650 $1,042 Monthly transportation costs $157 $221 Total of costs $1,857 $2,593 Monthly poverty line threshold $957 $1,408 Annual Family Budget 9 $37,309 $49,218 Annual poverty line threshold $11,483 $16, Population in Poverty in Washington, DC Children in Poverty (0-18) 32% Men in Poverty % Females in Poverty % Seniors in Poverty (65+) 10% 9 Accounting for all costs in the basic family budget calculator, the budget for a one parent, one child household is $37,309 and for two parents and two children it is $49,218 in Washington DC

12 More than 35,000 children are living in poverty an increase of more than 6,700 in the last decade. When analyzed by population age in the District, the poverty numbers show a distinctive pattern. More than 30% of District s children now live in poverty, an increase of 24% since 1990 [see Table 4]. Table # change %change number percentage number percentage Individuals in poverty 96, % 109, % 13, % Children in poverty (0-18) 28, % 35, % 6, % Seniors in poverty (65+) 12, % 10, % -1, % Men in poverty (18-64) 22, % 26, % 4, % Females in poverty (18-64) 32, % 36, % 3, %

13 2 in 10 people in DC live in poverty. 3 in 10 children in DC live in poverty. 2 in 10 women age live in poverty. 1.5 in 10 seniors 65+ live in poverty. 1.5 in 10 men age live in poverty. Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign The growing number of children in poverty is a major concern for the District. A recent report on poverty in America says, Growing up in poverty is associated with negative outcomes in adolescence that provide a weak foundation for successful adult roles. Poor children are more likely to perform badly in their classes and on tests of cognitive ability. They are more likely to repeat grades or drop out of school; they are less likely to be highly engaged in school or to participate in extracurricular activities; and they experience significantly more serious emotional and behavioral problems, particularly during adolescence. Poor children are more likely to be depressed, have low self-esteem, and exhibit antisocial behaviors. The negative effects of material deprivation on health and development appear to be cumulative; they keep those born into poverty in the ranks of the poor, even into adulthood. Children growing up in poor neighborhoods also tend to have lower educational

14 achievement, poorer health, and more developmental problems than other children. 10 Among central cities 11 with the greatest poverty rate increases between 1990 and 2000, Washington, DC had the highest percentage point increase among children in poverty. Children in poverty are a larger segment of the poverty population today than they were in 1990, and will be the largest share of the population by the next census if trends continue. Children in poverty represented 51% of the change in total poverty between 1990 and Women between the ages of were still the largest percentage of poor residents, constituting roughly 34% of the population in poverty followed by children at 32% [see pie chart, page 11]. The increase in child poverty raises questions about family structure. About 82% of children in poverty live in a female heads of household with no father present [See Table 5]. Moreover, female-heads of households with children in poverty overwhelmingly did not work. Out of the 14,000 female heads of household in poverty with no husband present and with children, 64% did not work, 29% worked less than full-time year round and the remainder (6%) worked full-time. Overall, 46% of the related children in single female-headed households were in poverty, compared to 21% for single male-headed households and 11% for children in married couples. The percentage of related children in female-headed households in poverty has gone up in the District by 23% to 28,113 children in 2000 from 22,816 in Poverty in America: Beyond Welfare Reform, by Daniel T. Lichter and Martha L. Crowley, in Population Bulletin, from Population Reference Bureau, June Available at 11 See Berube and Frey. The Office of Management and Budget designates the city with the largest population in each metropolitan area as a central city. Additional cities qualify for this designation if specified requirements are met. See for more details

15 Table 5 Family structure of children in poverty Related children under 18 years old* In married-couple family: 3,786 4,597 Male householder, no wife present: 1,247 1,640 Female householder, no husband present: 22,816 28,113 *=Income below poverty level: For Every Ten Families With Children in Poverty... 7 are female householder, no husband present 2 are married-couple family 1 is male householder, no wife present Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign African-Americans had the largest numeric and percentage increase among all racial categories Poverty data by race shows African-Americans to have the highest rate in the city [see Table 6]. More than a quarter of African-Americans in the District live below the poverty line, equal to 84,000 residents. The Asian and Latino populations in the city also saw significant increases in poverty, with the Asian poverty rate now over 20%. Approximately 4,000 more Latinos and

16 Asians living in Washington, DC, are now in poverty than in In 2000, the number of foreign-born residents in poverty stood at 12,988, representing 12% of the overall population in poverty. Within the foreign-born population, the overwhelming majority of those in poverty (78.5%) were not U.S. citizens. Interestingly, the foreign-born population was less likely than the native population to be in poverty. Only 18% of the foreign-born population was in poverty compared to 21% for those born in the United States. In fact, foreign-born residents who were not citizens had a lower poverty rate, at 20%, than those born in the U.S. While this figure may be due to the large diplomatic corps and large numbers of foreign students living in the District, it reflects the fact that immigration is not necessarily driving the higher poverty rates in the city. Though their numbers are comparably small, it should be noted that poor Asian and Latino families grew at a faster rate than poor African-American families [see Table 7]. The number of poor Asian families doubled over the last ten years and poor Latino families increased by 39%. While this high percentage increase was due to the relatively small number of poor Asian and Latino families in 1990, it does show the ever-increasing diversity of the poor in the District. Poor African-American families grew by 12%, and while their percentage increase was smaller than Asian and Latino, their overall number increased by nearly 2,000 families

17 Table 6 Poverty totals by Race 12 Number Percent Number Percent African-Americans 84, % 77, % Asian 3, % 1, % White Non-Latino 11, % NA NA Latino 8, % 6, % For Every Ten People in Poverty... 1 is White 8 are Black 3/4 are Latino 1/4 are Asian Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign 12 The Census Bureau asks separate questions about race and ethnicity. We have identified white non- Latino, but we could not distinguish African-American/Black non-latino or Asian Non-Latino in poverty. While there are only 3,152 Black Latinos and 157 Asian Latinos in the District, there is a possibility that the Asian and African-American poverty numbers have Latinos in the totals. The data for Latinos includes all races. We could not get a numeric or percentage total for white non-latinos in poverty in

18 Table 7 Families below the poverty line by ethnicity Percent Change African-American 14,849 16,753 13% Asian % Latino % All families below poverty 16,453 19,365 18% Half of all children living in Ward 8 now live in poverty The data for Wards are complicated by the change in Ward boundaries at the beginning of For this report we used the new Ward boundaries as changed by the District s City Council at the beginning of To allow for a consistent comparison between 1980, 1990 and 2000, census tracts from the last three censuses were assigned to Wards based on their new boundaries. Under the new boundaries, all Wards saw significant increases in poverty over the last decade [see Table 8]. Ward 8's poverty rate stands at 38%, far higher than any other ward in the city, and is the highest poverty rate in the city by nearly 13 percentage points. Moreover, the majority of children in Ward 8 now live in poverty (50.8%). Despite the decline in the overall population in Ward 8, the population in poverty in Ward 8 grew by 3,000 residents, the highest in the city [see Table 9]. The percentage increase across virtually all Wards was the result of significant increases in the population in poverty. Even in the city s wealthiest ward, Ward 3, the number of residents in poverty grew

19 Table 8 Poverty Rates by Wards 2002Ward Poverty Rate (%), 1980 Poverty Rate (%), 1990 Poverty Rate (%), 2000 % Children in poverty (2000) # Children in poverty (2000) % Seniors in Poverty (65+) # Seniors in Poverty (65+) % 20.6% 21.8% 34.4% 4, % 1, % 17.8% 18.7% 25.8% 1, % 1, % 6.9% 7.6% 3.0% % % 8.2% 12.2% 16.4% 2, % 1, % 15.2% 19.9% 28.1% 4, % 1, % 18.8% 21.2% 36.4% 3, % 1, % 19.9% 24.8% 36.9% 7, % 1, % 28.4% 38.0% 50.8% 11, % 1,009 No Ward NA NA 14.5% 7.2% % 0 Table 9 Poverty Population by Ward Ward 1980 Population in Poverty 1990 population in poverty 2000 population in poverty Change between ,241 13,933 14, ,666 10,903 12,053 1, ,838 4,676 5, ,356 6,280 8,985 2, ,554 11,330 13,204 1, ,707 12,104 12, ,353 14,685 17,449 2, ,123 20,961 24,039 3,078 No Ward NA 1,406 1, All Wards also showed a numeric and percentage increase in poverty for households with children under 18 in the District. While Ward 8 had the highest number of households with children in poverty, a majority of households with children in poverty were found

20 outside Wards 7 and 8. Moreover, the geography of poverty in the District shows that over 62% of the poverty population lives outside of Wards 7 and 8 [see Table 10]. Families in poverty by Ward show that the majority of families headed by a female are east of the Anacostia River, whereas married couples in poverty are found throughout the city. Married couples in poverty are more likely to be immigrant families, and previous research has shown that Latino families in the District are not found in high-poverty areas. 13 Nevertheless, African-Americans represented 63% of the married couples in poverty. The poverty distribution by race shows that African-American poverty is concentrated in certain portions of the city, primarily Wards 7 and 8, while White Non-Latino, Asian and Latino poverty are distributed throughout the city [see Table 11]. African-Americans represent over 97% of the population in poverty in Wards 7 and 8. In Wards 2 and 3, African-Americans represent only 37% and 6% of the population in poverty respectively. The majority of poor White Non-Latinos and Asians live in Ward 2; while poor Latinos are primarily found in Ward 1, encompassing the area of Adams Morgan, Mt. Pleasant and Columbia Heights. Poor African-Americans appear to be concentrated in the poorest and most distressed neighborhoods. Many researchers believe that this segregation compounds the effects of poverty, since many poor individuals are hesitant to seek, identify and travel to services, or job opportunities spread across the city outside of their neighborhood. 14 The distribution of foreign-born non-citizens in poverty (i.e. recent immigrants) shows that 60% live in Wards 1 and 2, and only 3% live east of the Anacostia River in Wards 7 or Poor People And Poor Neighborhoods In The Washington Metropolitan Region, by Margery Austin Turner and Chris Hayes, The Urban Institute, March See Turner and Hayes and, The Geography Of Low-Skilled Work And Workers In The Washington Metropolitan Region by Mark Rubin and Margery Austin Turner, The Urban Institute, February Foreign-born Non-citizens may include all races and ethnicities. It is not a mutually exclusive category

21 Table 10 Poverty by Family Type by Ward WARD Families with Income in 1999 below poverty level: Marriedcouple family: Male householder, no wife present: Female householder, no husband present: No Ward

22 District Poverty by Ward Percentage of Ward Residents in Poverty 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Poverty Rate (%), Ward 8 s poverty rate stands at 38%, the highest in the city by more than 15 percentage points. Neighborhood Cluster 2 4 Children in Poverty (%), Seniors (65+) in Poverty (%), Half of all children living in Ward 8 now live in poverty. Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 Ward 8 No Ward Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign Table 11 Ward poverty by race and ethnicity WARD White Non-Latino African-American Asian Latino Foreign-born Non-citizens in Poverty 1 1,246 8, ,985 3, ,251 4,426 1,171 1,755 2, , , , ,752 1, , , , , No ward

23 Neighborhood Poverty in the District by Family Type Neighborhood Cluster Number of Families in Poverty ,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3, Married-couple family: Male householder, no wife present: Female householder, no husband present: Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign Poverty rates by Neighborhood Cluster show 32 out of 39 with increasing poverty rates Neighborhood Clusters were developed by the District Government, in consultation with citizens, to represent areas of two or more neighborhoods. The 39 Neighborhood Clusters are being used by the DC Office of Planning to organize the neighborhood planning process. The recent Census figures show that more District Neighborhood Clusters have become high poverty areas (poverty rates above 30%). In 1990, six Neighborhood Clusters had poverty rates above 30%, with one Cluster over 40%. 16 Today, ten Clusters have poverty rates above 30% and four Clusters have poverty rates over 40%. In the Navy Yard 16 See Appendix 1 for more information by Neighborhood Cluster

24 Cluster (#27), the poverty rate exceeds 50%, and the rate of children in poverty is 67%. Four Clusters have a majority of children in poverty, and three Clusters had poverty rates of over 30% for three consecutive Censuses. Conversely, in 1990, 11 Clusters had poverty rates below ten percent, whereas today only seven clusters have rates less than ten percent. The Cluster totals show that the Columbia Heights/Mt. Pleasant Cluster (#2) has the largest number of residents in poverty (11,328), followed by Congress Heights (#39) with 10,270 residents, and Crestwood/Petworth (#18) with 5,769. Clusters #2 and #18 are found in Northwest DC, just east of 16 th Street, demonstrating that high concentrations of poor District residents are not just found east of the Anacostia River. The Clusters with the highest numbers of children in poverty are Congress Heights (#39) with over 4,800 children in poverty, Columbia Heights (#2) at 3,407 and the Marshall Heights area (#33) with 2,267 children in poverty. Moreover, these three Neighborhood Clusters each have more than 1,000 families in poverty: Congress Heights (#39) at 2,431, Columbia Heights (#2) at 1,944 and Marshall Heights (#33) at 1,046. In these three Clusters the majority of families in poverty are single female-headed households. For seniors in poverty, Columbia Heights (#2) has the highest total at 1,016, followed by Petworth (#18) at 836 and Logan/Shaw (#7) with 729. Many seniors in poverty are living in areas where there is a housing market boom. In the Logan Circle Cluster (#7), for example, the average home sales price rose from $98,500 in 1994 to $144,200 in 2000, an increase of 46%. The number of loans for home purchases increased by over 200%, to 374 loans in 2000 from 118 in This increased housing demand has brought not only increased value to the properties, but increased property taxes and rents that could be creating financial hardships on senior citizens, many of whom are on fixed incomes. 17 Housing in the Nation's Capital 2002, Margery Austin Turner, G. Thomas Kingsley, Kathryn L.S. Pettit, Christopher Snow, Peter A. Tatian, Fannie Mae Foundation, June

25 The distribution of poverty by race shows distinct geographic patterns. Poor African- Americans are ten times more likely than poor Asians and 24 times more likely than poor Latinos to live east of the Anacostia River. Clusters with the highest numbers of poor African-Americans are Congress Heights (#39) at 9,997, Columbia Heights (#2) at 6,654 and Marshall Heights (#33) at 4,866. Clusters with the highest number of Latinos are found in the geographic center of the city along 16 th street: Columbia Heights (#2) at 3,429, Petworth (#18) at 1,309 and Logan/Shaw (#7) at 1,083. The highest concentration of poor Asians are found in Columbia Heights (#2), Chinatown (#8) and Cathedral Heights (#14). 18 The distribution of poor foreign-born residents who are not citizens follows the geographic pattern of poor Latinos. The Columbia Heights/Mt. Pleasant Cluster (#2) has the highest number of poor non-citizens (2,778) followed by Logan/Shaw (#7) at 1,056 and Petworth (#18) at 1,044. These were the only three Clusters with more than one thousand poor non-citizens, and together they represent 48% of the total. 18 Two of the highest concentrations for poor Asians are the George Washington University Cluster (#5) and Georgetown (#4). However, we discounted those numbers due to high number of students

26 - 26 -

27 Neighborhood Poverty in DC, Census 2000 Percentage in Poverty Neighborhood Cluster Cluster 5, 31.8% Cluster 8, 33.4% 10 neighborhood clusters have a poverty rate of over 30% Cluster 23, 30.9% Cluster 33, 32.8% Cluster 39, 34% Cluster 28, 37.7% Cluster 27, 50.3% Cluster 36, 47.3% Cluster 37, 46.1% Cluster 38, 46.2% Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign DC s Neighborhood Children in Poverty, Census 2000 Percentage of Neighborhood Children in Poverty 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Neighborhood Cluster neighborhood clusters 19 have more than 30% of children living in poverty Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign

28 Neighborhood Poverty by Ethnic Group Neighborhood Cluster Number of People in Poverty White Non-Latino African-American Asian Latino Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign High-poverty Neighborhoods today appear to have higher unemployment rates and fewer families on public assistance than in the District. 19 There is widespread belief that when poverty rates exceed 30%, neighborhoods have great difficulty sustaining the economic and civic institutions essential for a healthy community. Washington s high-poverty neighborhoods face dramatically more severe challenges with regard to education, employment, and welfare dependency than most other neighborhoods throughout 19 Poor People And Poor Neighborhoods In The Washington Metropolitan Region, by Margery Austin Turner and Chris Hayes, The Urban Institute, March

29 The nature of high-poverty neighborhoods is also changing compared with Highpoverty areas today appear to have higher unemployment rates and fewer families on public assistance, suggesting that the very poor are more influenced by labor market conditions than ever before. In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) eliminated the federal entitlement program that provided cash aid to low-income families with dependent children (AFDC) and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. This policy shift made benefits temporary and required many family members to move from cash assistance into the labor force. Characteristics of People in Poverty by Neighborhood Poverty Rate Characteristics of People in Poverty by Neighborhood Poverty Rate District 40%+ Cluster Poverty Rate 30%-40% 20%-30% 10%-20% 0-10% High poverty neighborhood clusters today appear to have higher unemployment rates and fewer families on public assistance than in % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percentage Percent With Public Assistance income Unemployment Rate Percent of year olds not in school Percent of Female-Headed Households Percent of Adults with less than a High-School education Data: U.S. Census 2000 Source: Neighborhood Information Services, Graphic: SLWdesign

30 This change puts a premium on educational attainment and outcomes [see Table 12]. While rates of high school graduation have improved in the District, over a third (35.8%) of adults over 24 years of age lack a high school diploma in Washington s high-poverty neighborhoods, compared to 22.0% for the District as a whole. One in four (25.4%) 16- to-19-year-olds are not in school in clusters with over 30 percent poverty, compared to 17.2% for the District. 20 Unemployment is nearly double in high-poverty neighborhoods (20.5%) than in the District (10.7%); and most families who live in high-poverty neighborhoods (64.3%) are headed by single women, compared to 41.0% of families throughout the city. Finally, 15.1% of households in high-poverty areas receive public assistance, nearly three times the rate (5.5%) for the District as a whole. The indicators are even more pronounced for Clusters with poverty rates above 40 percent. Table 12 Neighborhood Cluster Poverty rates indicate other poor outcomes Cluster 21 poverty rate Percent With Public Assistance income Unemployment Rate Percent of year olds not in school Percent of Female-Headed Households Percent of Adults with less than a High-School education 0-10% 0.6% 9.9% 3.9% 14.3% 6.1% 10%-20% 2.7% 6.7% 17.3% 34.5% 17.5% 20%-30% 7.6% 11.0% 22.6% 49.0% 32.5% 30%-40% 11.1% 21.7% 14.7% 59.6% 31.7% 40%+ 21.2% 24.6% 27.5% 71.8% 40.6% District 5.5% 10.7% 17.2% 41.0% 22.2% 20 The West End, Foggy Bottom, George Washington University Cluster (#5) was excluded from this part of the analysis, because its poverty rate of 31.8 percent was influenced by the large number of students living in the area. 21 All Clusters are included in this table

31 Implications No simple remedy exists to the problems found in high poverty neighborhoods. Instead, long-term solutions will require a combination of initiatives that simultaneously promote job growth, improve school quality and strengthen families in the District. Policies that link job seekers to suburban employment opportunities, provide affordable housing opportunities in low-poverty areas, target child care and mental health services and combat the long-standing patterns of discrimination and segregation will help reduce overall poverty. However, such strategies must be fortified soon. Poverty has risen despite a decade of general economic well-being. If nothing is done, highly concentrated inner-city poverty will threaten the future of individual families, undermine the health of individual neighborhoods, drain city finances and polarize the District for decades to come. Among the initial implications from this report are: Poverty is not just an east of the river phenomenon. Most poor people in the District do not live east of the river, and more Neighborhood Clusters have exceptionally high poverty rates. While the number of poor people living in the District declined in the 1980s, the number increased to more than 100,000 residents by 2000, and the percentage of the population in poverty is at a 30-year high. The increase in child poverty will have significant costs to the District. Overall, the number of poor children in the District rose by 6,700 to more than 35,000. Ward 8 child poverty rate is now over 50%. Child poverty has serious and expensive consequences for society as a whole. Child poverty is associated with lower academic achievement, which in turn is associated with lower skills and lifetime earnings. Children who grow up in poverty also tend to spend more time in expensive special education programs; commit more crimes, thereby

32 imposing societal costs of the crime itself; rely more on welfare and other public subsidies; and finally, earn less money and pay fewer taxes as adults. 22 Programs that strengthen families and target poor children must receive continued sufficient support. This report shows children are the fastest group growing in poverty, and that many of these children are in single female-headed households. Programs such as the family-strengthening collaboratives, and outof-school time services must be supported to help these families begin to make the transition from poverty into self-sufficiency. Waiting lists for childcare in the District reflect a growing demand for services that support parent employment and their job productivity, and provide children with safe learning environments. Public schools in the District will continue to educate the children living in poverty, and thus, their performance must be held accountable and their funding maintained. The persistence of geographic segregation in the District continues for poor African-American residents. African-Americans who are poor are far more likely to be concentrated geographically in the poorest and most distressed neighborhoods. As an increasing share of jobs migrate to the suburbs, poor African-American neighborhoods in the District are likely to become increasingly isolated, cut-off from access to and unable to attract social and economic opportunities. The information presented in this report is an initial review of the spatial distribution of poverty in Washington, DC. But in doing so, the report begins to raise additional questions. Since Census data do not tell us what has happened in the District since 2000, and the Census surveys include only a limited number of indicators that measure neighborhood well-being or distress, DC Agenda plans to work with other researchers to build upon the findings presented here to analyze the following: Accessibility of youth services in the District; 22 The Value of Investing in Youth in the Washington Metropolitan Area, Morino Institute, Prepared by the Brookings Institution, February,

33 Location and penetration of family-strengthening services in poor neighborhoods; Spatial patterns and trends of the population facing excessive housing costs; Location and characteristics in the availability of entry-level jobs; Variations in school quality, health care, and crime across neighborhoods. This report provides evidence for placed-based strategies that target specific populations, since individual neighborhoods face their own unique circumstances. Better information at the neighborhood level can help providers and funders geographically target their resources so people in poverty can benefit from the programs and services most likely to address their day-to-day needs, as well as the systemic issues that keep them from getting out of poverty

34 Appendix 1: Cluster poverty rates and totals 23 Cluster Number Cluster Name Poverty Rate (%), 1980 Poverty Rate (%), 1990 Poverty Rate (%), 2000 % Children in poverty (2000) # Children in poverty (2000) % Seniors in Poverty (2000) # Seniors in Poverty (2000) 2000 population in poverty 1 Kalorama Heights, Adams Morgan, Lanier Heights % % 77 1,800 2 Mt. Pleasant, Columbia Heights, Pleasant Plains, Park View % 3, % 1,016 11,328 3 Howard University, Cardozo/Shaw, Le Droit Park % % 340 2,137 4 Burleith, Hillandale, Georgetown % % 94 2,228 5 West End, Foggy Bottom, GWU % % 147 2,049 Dupont Circle, Connecticut 6 Ave/K St % % 78 1,938 7 Logan Circle, Shaw % 1, % 729 5,106 8 Downtown, Penn Quarters, Chinatown, Mount Vernon Square, North Capitol St % % 471 2,672 9 Southwest Employment area, Southwest Waterfront, Buzzard Point, Ft. McNair % % 360 2, Chevy Chase, Barnaby Woods, Hawthorne, Forest Heights % % Friendship Heights, Tenleytown, American University Park % % North Cleveland Park, Van Ness, Forest Hills % % Foxhall Crescent, Foxhall Village, Georgetown Reservoir, Palisades, 13 Spring Valley, Wesley Heights % % Cathedral Heights, McClean Gardens, Glover Park, Massachusetts Ave. Heights % % Cleveland Park, Mass. Ave. Heights, Woodley Park, 15 Woodland-Normanstone Terrace % 6 4.1% North Portal Estates, Colonial Village, Shepherd Park % % Brightwood, Manor Park, Takoma % % Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth, 16th St. Heights % 1, % Source: Neighborhood Information Service analysis from 2000 U.S. Census 34

35 Cluster Number Cluster Name Poverty Rate (%), 1980 Poverty Rate (%), 1990 Poverty Rate (%), 2000 % Children in poverty (2000) # Children in poverty (2000) % Seniors in Poverty (2000) # Seniors in Poverty (2000) 2000 population in poverty 19 Fort Totten, Lamond Riggs, Pleasant Hill, Queens Chapel % % North Michigan Park, Michigan Park, University Heights % % Edgewood, Stronghold, Bloomingdale, Eckington, Truxton Circle % 1, % Brookland, Langdon, Brentwood % % Arboretum, Ivy City, Trinidad, 23 Carver Langston % 1, % Woodridge, Fort Lincoln, South Central, Gateway % % Near Northeast, Stanton Park, Kingman Park % 1, % Capitol Hill, Lincoln Park, Capitol 26 East % % Near Southeast, Arthur Capper, Carrollsburg, Navy Yard % 1, % Historic Anacostia % % Kenilworth, Eastland Gardens % % Mayfair, Central Northeast % % Deanwood, Burrville, NE Boundary, Lincoln Heights, Grant Park % 1, % River Terrace, Benning, Greenway, Fort Dupont % 1, % Capitol View, Marshall Heights, 33 Benning Heights, Benning Ridge % 2, % Twining, Penn Bridge, Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Ft. Davis Park, 34 Ft. Dupont Park % % Hillcrest, Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens % % Woodland, Garfield Heights, Knox Hill/Buena Vista % 1, % Barry Farm, Hillsdale, Sheridan, Fort Stanton % 2, % Skyland, Douglass, Shipley Terrace % 2, % No Cluster Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands % 4, % Census Tracts: 62.02, 18.01,23.02, 73.01, 73.08, NA NA % %

36 Appendix 2: Neighborhood Cluster and Ward map 36

37 Appendix 3: Tract, Cluster and Ward Concordant Table 2000 Tract Neighborhood Cluster Ward 1.0 Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Tract Neighborhood Cluster Ward 27.1 Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster

38 2000 Tract Neighborhood Cluster Ward 58.0 Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Tract Neighborhood Cluster Ward 78.8 Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster