UPO's Community Needs Assessment by United Planning Organization

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Letter from the President of the Board

“UPO’S Washington: a city of thriving communities and selfsufficient residents,” is the vision of an organization that celebrates its 50th year of service to the District of Columbia. The 2012 Needs Assessment is but one tool UPO developed to measure the environment and marketplace forming the fabric of the District of Columbia. This study identifies gaps and relevant issues, assesses the success of agency programs and services, and will be used to influence the design of initiatives that ensure stability of customers and communities.

Partnering with residents, service providers, government, John L. Oberdorfer, Esq. businesses, civic groups, and institutions, UPO maintains a unique view and focus fueled by input and involvement of the people and communities it intends to impact. Without this cooperation, programs and strategies would be created in a vacuum and not be reflective of the true nature of a complex environment. Service is our intent, and how better to effect positive change, ensure healthy neighborhoods and prepare for the growth and prosperity of the city than by regular assessments of need. Continued involvement by residents in the study, planning, and development of programs will also aid in empowering individuals, families, and communities in their growth and stability. UPO desires to arm our constituency with an understanding of change and a realization of options for success. Prior needs assessments facilitated preparation of initiatives, provided facts, data, best practices and trends, and identified issues facing the community, that, when coupled with the experience of a wellrounded and highly qualified staff, Board, and management team, prepared UPO to tackle challenges and be ready for opportunities beneficial to the citizenry, community, and the organization. The Board of Directors of UPO, consisting of residents, government, and business sector representatives will continue to work tirelessly to govern an agency that has become an institution in the District of Columbia. We will continue the long tradition of inclusion and maximize participation of low-income residents in decisions for agency development by reserving a minimum of one third of Board seats for members elected by low income communities. Accountability to the community and our constituency has allowed us to stand the test of time in the greatest city in the nation. On behalf of the UPO Board, I repeat a commitment echoed by management, staff, and volunteers that demonstrates our investment to the continued success of this organization for another 50 years … “I am UPO!”

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Letter from the Chief Executive Officer

UPO is nearing the end of its 50th year of service to the residents of the District of Columbia. During this period, service provision has remained relevant and successful, and UPO continues to be a viable and healthy organization. The achievements of UPO have been possible during downturns in the economy that impacted funding, political turmoil that threatened service organizations across the country, and competition heightened by scarce resources and market saturation. UPO thrives because we remain true to our mission and vision, maintaining close connections with the communities we serve. Regular research of issues, projections of changes Dana M. Jones and trends, and innovations proven successful in this and other jurisdictions help to keep us relevant and effective. Tantamount to our success, however, is our resolve to involve the citizens of Washington, D.C. “through maximum feasible participation,” a historical philosophy of the community action movement. Lessons learned from 2006 through 2011 allowed for the completion in 2012 of a dynamic, five-year strategic plan as a roadmap to further our mission of “Uniting People with Opportunities.” A strong agency, intent on growth and stability of the District of Columbia, the United Planning Organization continues to plan for success through development, expansion and revision of relevant programs, and creation of methodologies that produce quality products and services. The 2012 Community Needs Assessment is another tool UPO will use to continue planning, programming, and advocating to add to our legacy of service to the residents of the District of Columbia. Special note should be made of the Healthy Neighborhoods Report section of the study that includes an at-a-glance analysis by ward that considers and quantifies the civic, social, physical, and economic wellbeing of the city based on source data and resident input. This report is a local adaptation of the healthy neighborhood principles concept but has been developed by UPO and is generic to the District of Columbia. It is our hope that politicians, administrators, civic associations, and community leaders will use the Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard to begin discussions on the health of their communities and to strive to achieve excellent evaluations in future assessments. UPO will continue to test itself and assess its response to needs in the District of Columbia in order to continue to be an asset to the citizens of Washington, D.C. December 10, 2013 marks not the end of 50 years of service, but the beginning of a renewed commitment to the vision of the United Planning Organization: UPO’s Washington, a city of thriving communities and self-sufficient residents!

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Board of Directors

*Executive Committee AnaElsa Aviles Clifford E. Barnes, Esq. Michael J. Cobb, MBA, CPA *Ronald R. Collins, Esq. *Elaine A. Crider, DHSc. (Treasurer) Courtney P. Davis, PhD Marlena Edwards * Franklin Garcia Terrance L. Ingram

Lendia S. Johnson Lt. Kishia Mills *John L. Oberdorfer, Esq. (CHAIR) Remi Parker *Monique L. Poydras, JD (Secretary) Andre Nero Randall, PhD Laurent R. Ross * Dontai L. Smalls (VICE CHAIR) Freddie T. Vaughns, D.S.W.

Executive Team Dana M. Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer Andrea Thomas, Executive Vice President Susan Burnett, Vice President of Operations and Chief Operating Officer Monica Scott Beckham, Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel Meseret Degefu, CPA, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer Rosalind Pinkney, Vice President of Human Resources Vanessa Rawls, Director of the Office of Strategic Positioning Gail Govoni, Director of the Office of Early Learning Wendell Smith, Director of the Office of Business Management Deborah McArthur, Assistant General Counsel Rochelle McFarland, Executive Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer

Disclaimer The United Planning Organization (UPO) believes reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the continued accuracy of the information contained in this document. To ensure accuracy the document may be changed or updated without notice. Information contained in this document is intended for discussion and educational purposes only and is provided as is without warranty of any kind. Presentation or reference to information provided is at the user’s own risk. UPO and its contributors hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, and any and all related graphics. Photographic images, contained herein, are strictly for educational purposes and not for profit. Organizations and individuals contributing to this document may have been inadvertently omitted. The listing of organizations or references does not imply any endorsement or partnership with UPO. Tables were prepared using U.S. Census (2010) figures and other indicators to make the projections where indicated. These tables are provided for use as the official numbers on population and selected demographics. Other figures tracked by credible independent sources are provided in the narrative and may be more accurate, though not official. Any opinions and views—actual or perceived—expressed from those sources do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the United Planning Organization. 5

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Table of Contents

Letter from the President of the Board ........................................................................................................ 3 Letter from the Chief Executive Officer ........................................................................................................ 4 Board of Directors ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Team ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Disclaimer.................................................................................................................................................. 5 Report Structure ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 About UPO .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Programs ................................................................................................................................................. 12 UPO Three-Year Trend Analysis .............................................................................................................. 13 Changes Since 2009 Needs Assessment ................................................................................................. 21 Changes in Survey Responses ............................................................................................................. 21 Review of Literature.................................................................................................................................... 27 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 28 City-Wide Needs Assessment ................................................................................................................. 30 Population ........................................................................................................................................... 30 Racial/Ethnic Composition .................................................................................................................. 31 Wealth of Residents ............................................................................................................................ 31 Ex-Offenders ....................................................................................................................................... 32 Income and Employment ........................................................................................................................ 32 Income Disparities .............................................................................................................................. 32 Employment ........................................................................................................................................ 33 Ex-Offenders and Employment Barriers ............................................................................................. 34 Health and Wellness ............................................................................................................................... 35 Health Behaviors: Alcohol Consumption ............................................................................................ 36 HIV/AIDS.............................................................................................................................................. 37 Hunger................................................................................................................................................. 38 Housing and Residential Development ................................................................................................... 40 Renters ................................................................................................................................................ 40 Home Ownership Crisis ....................................................................................................................... 41 6

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Homelessness...................................................................................................................................... 43 Affordable Housing ............................................................................................................................. 44 Economic Development .......................................................................................................................... 45 Office ................................................................................................................................................... 46 Retail ................................................................................................................................................... 46 Residential........................................................................................................................................... 47 Hospitality ........................................................................................................................................... 47 Education ............................................................................................................................................ 47 Safety ...................................................................................................................................................... 47 Violent Crimes and Property Crimes ................................................................................................... 47 Juvenile Crimes ................................................................................................................................... 48 Bias-Related Crimes ............................................................................................................................ 48 Suicides ............................................................................................................................................... 48 Education ................................................................................................................................................ 50 Secondary Education........................................................................................................................... 50 Early Childhood Education/Head Start ............................................................................................... 51 Special Populations ................................................................................................................................. 51 Disabled Residents .............................................................................................................................. 51 Youth ................................................................................................................................................... 51 Seniors................................................................................................................................................. 52 Hispanics/Latinos ................................................................................................................................ 54 Social Impact Indicator Data ................................................................................................................... 56 Needs Assessment Survey Results .............................................................................................................. 61 Demographics of Survey Respondents ................................................................................................... 62 Needs-Based Survey Results ................................................................................................................... 67 Needs-Based Survey Analysis.................................................................................................................. 69 Healthy Neighborhood Survey Results ................................................................................................... 71 Healthy Neighborhood Survey Analysis .................................................................................................. 72 Special Population Survey Reports ......................................................................................................... 74 Hispanic/Latino Special Population Survey Results ............................................................................ 74 Senior Special Population Survey Results ........................................................................................... 78 7

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Healthy Neighborhood Report.................................................................................................................... 85 DC Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard ..................................................................................................... 86 Civic ..................................................................................................................................................... 90 Social ................................................................................................................................................... 90 Physical................................................................................................................................................ 92 Environment........................................................................................................................................ 93 Economic ............................................................................................................................................. 94 DC Healthy Neighborhoods Focus Groups/Interviews ........................................................................... 95 Interviews............................................................................................................................................ 95 Special Population Focus Groups/Interviews ..................................................................................... 97 Education Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 105 Early Childhood Education .................................................................................................................... 106 DC Risk and Reach Summary ................................................................................................................ 106 Subsidy-Receiving Disabled Children in DC........................................................................................... 114 Gauging DC Childcare Capacity ............................................................................................................. 115 UPO Risk and Reach Analysis ................................................................................................................ 116 Assessing UPO Childcare Potential by Neighborhood Risk ................................................................... 123 Childcare Potential in High-Risk Areas .................................................................................................. 124 Future Considerations and Recommendations .................................................................................... 130 Future Considerations:...................................................................................................................... 130 Recommendations: ........................................................................................................................... 130 Secondary Education Performance....................................................................................................... 131 Educational Campus (K-12) ............................................................................................................... 131 Elementary School ............................................................................................................................ 131 Middle School ................................................................................................................................... 132 High School ....................................................................................................................................... 132 Secondary Education Tier Performance ........................................................................................... 132 Special Report: Adult Education Assessment in Ward 8....................................................................... 132 Ward 8 Adult Education Focus Group............................................................................................... 132 Community Focus Group Results ...................................................................................................... 133 Key findings ....................................................................................................................................... 133 8

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Provider Focus Group Results ........................................................................................................... 135 Key Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 135 Adult Education Considerations and Recommendations ..................................................................... 138 Considerations .................................................................................................................................. 138 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 138 Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy ................................................................................ 141 Daily Needs ........................................................................................................................................... 142 Education .............................................................................................................................................. 142 Civics ..................................................................................................................................................... 142 Social ..................................................................................................................................................... 142 Physical ................................................................................................................................................. 142 Economic ............................................................................................................................................... 143 Ward 1 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report ............................................................... 145 Ward 2 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report ............................................................... 162 Ward 3 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report ............................................................... 183 Ward 4 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhoods Report ............................................................. 203 Ward 5 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report ............................................................... 220 Ward 6 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report ............................................................... 240 Ward 7 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report ............................................................... 260 Ward 8 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report ............................................................... 278 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................... 301 Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard......................................................................................................... 302 Sources and Related Information ......................................................................................................... 302 2012 Community Needs Assessment Methodology and Approach ..................................................... 305 Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard Data ................................................................................................ 311

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Report Structure

In formulating the 2012 Community Needs Assessment, the United Planning Organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (UPO) Office of Strategic Positioning sought to produce a community, user-friendly, comprehensive document from which stakeholders can extract free-standing reports and studies. The highlight of this study is the Healthy Neighborhood Report in which each ward is graded in accordance with a metric developed by the Planning and Research Division in a scorecard format. This comprehensive assessment begins with an introduction about UPO that reports on UPO programsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; change over time and a trends analysis. All studies are buttressed with a methodology that explains the rationale that supports certain findings and explains the process by which those studies were conducted. It also discusses some of the limitations associated with studies contained throughout the assessment. The executive summary highlights brief summary points under each study contained within the assessment. The Review of Literature contains several studies and conveys a cross-ward analysis to highlight correlations, similarities, and differences within those respective studies with a keen interest in identifying concerns and offering insights on the needs inherent among residents in the District. It covers topics related to the Social Impact Indicators, city-wide, with some references to ward information. Social impact indicator data are also displayed in this section to give readers a sense of the demographic character of the District. A cross-ward analysis is performed utilizing the UPO Needs Assessment Survey Results that include quantitative data revealing residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; concerns and needs, and four special population reports targeted at collecting information on Hispanics, youth, disabled persons, and seniors. The City-wide Healthy Neighborhood Report conveys both qualitative and quantitative reports that discuss indicators that impact the quality of life among District residents with an emphasis on need-based areas of concern. First, a cross-ward Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard quantitative analysis is conducted that grades the quality of and access to certain indicators that make for healthy neighborhoods. Then, a qualitative Healthy Neighborhood Focus Group report is conducted to convey the sentiments of residents and offers insights into some of their needs relative to the general categories found in the Principles of Healthy Neighborhoods that also includes some of the social impact indicators. An in-depth Education Assessment speaks to the need for and quality of education to residents of the District. Specifically, a UPO Early Childhood Assessment is presented and examines the availability of childcare opportunities at the ward and census tract level and makes recommendations for increasing those opportunities in high-risk and multiple-risk areas throughout the District. A brief summary of secondary school performance is also included in this section. A special report is included comprising a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis of adult education in Ward 8, with an emphasis on the Congress Heights 10

2012 Community Needs Assessment

neighborhood that examines the need for additional adult education opportunities in that ward. Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy are provided covering daily needs, education, civic, social, physical, and economic action items for use by UPO, government agencies and service providers aimed at improving the quality of life for all District of Columbia residents. References by ward may appear, but this section mainly addresses activities related to Washington, D.C., in general. Finally, a comprehensive collection of data is conveyed on a ward-by-ward basis. Each ward is detailed and contained in what can be used as a stand-alone document. Stakeholders may examine the information and use it to formulate plans, activities, and relevant decisions that affect residents within the specific ward.

Overview The United Planning Organization completes a comprehensive community needs assessment every three years. Viewed as a critical element of the strategic planning process, the 2009 Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment (CNA) was completed in 2010 and used as a tool for programming, restructuring, and planning by managers, staff, and the Board of Directors. This 2012 Community Needs Assessment will be utilized to determine the future direction and extent of programs and activities to be undertaken by UPO. The assessment focuses on identifying both needs and assets in D.C. communities as well as to determine the need for reallocation of resources and program replication based on deficiencies to be addressed. Assets may include effective resident led organization, strong social service programs, community based government programs and offices, attractive communities, and other resources that positively impact the city. In conducting the assessment, inventories of resources were examined, gaps in services identified where possible, and methods for leveraging opportunities assessed. The 2012 Community Needs Assessment will: (1) Improve communication between the community and UPO; (2) Achieve UPOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s required tri-annual assessment; and, (3) Advance UPOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals of assisting citizens to be self-sufficient. The assessment was conducted through a structured process that included key stakeholders such as low-income residents of the District of Columbia, the UPO Board of Directors and staff, government officials, UPO partners, other human service organizations, community residents, and interested parties. This structured process ensured community and customer input in identifying critical needs.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The 2012 Community Need Assessment includes data and other pertinent information to determine which services are needed to assist all District residents including low-income residents of the District, organized by target location and group. The Needs Assessment will be updated annually and will be repeated every three years.

About UPO The United Planning Organization, the designated community action agency for Washington, DC, was established December 10, 1962 to plan, coordinate, and implement human services programs for low-income residents in the nation's capital. For over 50 years, UPO has been in the forefront of the war on poverty. As the catalyst for economic security and growth for all Washington, DC, residents, UPO has laid the groundwork for innovative social service programs such as weatherization and energy conservation services, Head Start, workforce development training, and youth development. Today, UPO continues to provide residents with comprehensive resources for early childhood education, youth development, employment and training, family and community services, case management, and referrals to other supportive services. OUR VISION: UPO's Washington: A city of thriving communities and self-sufficient residents. OUR MISSION: Uniting People with Opportunities OUR PROMISE: Community Action changes people's lives, embodies the spirit of hope, improves communities, and makes America a better place to live. We care about the entire community, and we are dedicated to helping people help themselves and each other.

Programs UPO offers the following Programs and Services: Adult Training and Education Programs Child & Adult Care Food Program (Centers and Home Daycare Providers) Community Engagement Services Comprehensive Treatment Center (CTC) DC Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) Early Learning Network (Early Head Start, Head Start and Home Visitor Programs) EBT Service Centers in Anacostia and on H Street, NE 12

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Environmental and Construction Trades Training Academy Freedom School - Summer Youth Program Housing & Emergency Assistance Program Joseph A. Beavers Scholarship Fund OSSE Daycare Services Pre-K Enhancement Program Providing Opportunities with Educational Readiness (P.O.W.E.R) Real Estate & Housing Development Programs Shelter Hotline Shelter-Plus CARE (SPC) Summer Youth Internship Program (SYIP) Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (Sweat Equity Program) The Foster Grandparent Program Volunteer Services Workforce Development

UPO Three-Year Trend Analysis

UPO continues to serve the District of Columbia ensuring that residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; standards of selfsufficiency are met to the highest degree possible. The following analysis demonstrates the continued commitment that UPO has to District residents and charts detailed information on whom we serve over a three-year period from 2010-2012. INCOME The sources of income reported by UPO clients changed dramatically from 2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2012. The number of recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) decreased from 17% (9,655) in 2010, to 16% (8,479) in 2011, and to 15% (7,821) in 2012. There was an increase in employment from 8% (4,806) in 2010 to 14% (7,145) in 2011, to 13% (6,871) in 2012.

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2010 # of Families

% - Served in 2010

2011 # of Families

% - Served in 2011

2012 # of Families

% - Served in 2012

43,687

75%

36,345

76%

31,785

74%

14,347

25%

11,289

24%

11,426

26%

58,034

100%

47,637

100%

43,211

100%

TANF

9,655

17%

8,479

16%

7,821

15%

SSI

5,155

5,811

11%

6,093

12%

Social Security

9,174

16%

4,478

4,235

Pension

3,058

2,905

2,821

SOURCE OF FAMILY INCOME Unduplicated # of Families Reporting One or More Sources of Income Unduplicated # of Families Reporting No Income Total

General Assistance

2,184

1,667

1,691

Unemployment Insurance

3,451

4,241

4,148

Employment + other source

1,747

2,574

4,346

Employment Only

4,806

7,145

14%

6,871

13%

Other

18,804

32%

14,334

28%

13,759

27%

Total

58,034

100%

51,634

100%

51,785

100%

LEVEL OF FAMILY INCOME (% OF HHS Guideline)

Levels

2010 % 2011 % 2012 # % # of Families Served in 2010 # of Families Served in 2011 of Families Served in 2012

Up to 50%

36,304

83%

38,107

80%

34,760

80%

51% to 75%

2,883

3,668

2,679

76% to 100%

1,354

3.10%

1,953

1,944

101% to 125%

1,180

1,572

1,512

126% to 150%

655

1.5%

814

735

151% to 175

481

1.1%

619

1.3%

519

1.2%

176% to 200

175

0.5%

186

0.5%

216

0.5%

201% to over

655

1.5%

715

846

Total

43,687

100%

47,634

100%

43,211

100%

2012 Community Needs Assessment

GENDER The demographic data of UPO clients collected for the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) provides a comprehensive view of the community and existing social barriers that impact the lives of residents. UPO provided services to 47% (45,769) females and 53% (51,406) males in 2010. The data indicated that there was a decrease but a reversal in the number of clients served, 52% (46,602) females and 48% (43,363) males in 2011, which slightly increased in the overall number of clients served in 2012, both nearly the same with 50% (45,929)female and male (46,113). UPO utilizes data to gauge the need in the community it serves and to validate the implementation of new programs and services.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

HOUSING In 2010 and 2011, of the families served by UPO only 5% of the families owned their own homes. In 2012, home ownership slightly increased to 6% of individual and families, while 48% were renters in 2010, 47% in 2011 and 44% in 2012. Furthermore, in 2010 and 2011, 9% of clients were homeless. In 2012, there was a significant increase in homeless clients of 14%. HOUSING Type of Housing

2010 % 2011 % # of Families Served in 2010 # of Families Served in 2011

2012 # of Families

% Served in 2012

Own

2,670

2,382

2,463

Rent

27,682

48%

22,341

47%

18,836

44%

Homeless

5,107

4,430

6,200

14%

Other

22,575

39%

18,841

39%

15,712

36%

Total

58,034

100%

47,994

100%

43,211

100%

2012 Community Needs Assessment

AGE RANGE

Of the 97,175 individuals and families from whom demographics were obtained, in 2010, 58% of the clients served were between 24 and 54 years of age, of which 39% were 24–44 years old, and 19% were 45–54 years old. In 2011, there was a decrease in the total clients served, and of 89,965 individuals and families, 56% of the clients served were between 24–54 years old, of which 34% were 24–44 years old, and 21% were 45-54 years old. The number slightly increased in 2012 to 91,042 from the year before of the clients served including those between 24 -54 years old, of which 37% were 24 – 44 years old, and 21% were 45 – 54 years old. AGE OF CLIENTS Age

2010 # of Persons

% Served in 2010

2011 # of Persons

% 2012 # % Served in 2011 of Persons Served in 2012

0-5

2,469

3,097

3,656

age 6 - 11

972

900

997

age 12 - 17

1,944

2,249

2,669

age 18 -23

17,006

18%

13,187

15%

12,374

14%

age 24 - 44

37,469

39%

30,587

34%

33,758

37%

age 45 - 54

18,852

19%

18,983

21%

19,421

21%

age 55 - 69

11,661

12%

13,945

16%

12,150

13%

age 70 +

6,802

7,017

6,017

Total

97,175

100%

89,965

100%

91,042

100%

EDUCATION Of the 74,784 CSBG clients for whom education data was collected in 2010, 39% had a high school diploma or the equivalency certificate (GED). The data confirms a 3% increase in 2011; of 70,533 clients, 42% had a high school diploma or the equivalency certificate (GED). In 2012, of 71,345 clients, the highest (43%) obtained a high school diploma or the equivalency certificate (GED). There was a dramatic decrease of those completing high school and some postsecondary, from 12% in 2010 to only 7% in 2011 and 2012. However, the percentage of clients obtaining a two- or four-year college degree remained the same during this period. EDUCATION LEVEL OF ADULTS Education Level

2010 # of Persons

% Served in 2010

2011 # of Persons

% Served in 2011

2012 # of Persons

% Served in 2012

0-8

6,082

8,676

12%

9,381

13%

9 - 12/non-graduates

27,743

37%

24,268

34%

24,329

34%

high school grad/GED

28,909

39%

29,904

42%

30,431

43%

12+ some post secordary

9,329

12%

5,218

4,655

2 to 4 year college graduates

2,721

2,467

2,549

Total

74,784

100%

70,533

100%

71,345

100%

2012 Community Needs Assessment

FAMILY TYPE

A sharp increase in the UPO client profile of family types has also occurred from 2010 through 2012 in the District of Columbia. For instance, the percentage of single parent homes was higher in 2010 than in 2011. The percentage of homes headed by females was 19% (10,910) and males 14% (8,009). In 2011, the percentage of single parent homes headed by females increased to 21% (10,098) and decreased in number by males to 14% (6,478). In 2012, the decrease was greater for the females, 20% (8,457) than males, and 12% (5,336).

FAMILY SIZE UPO continues to serve more single individuals; however, the family sizes decreased from 2010 to 2012. It is important that services provided by UPO are equipped to handle all changes in the population so that the needs of our clients can be adequately addressed.

FAMILY SIZE FAMILY SIZE

2010 % % 2011 # of Families Served in 2010 # of Families Served in 2011

2012 # of Families

% Served in 2012

One

31,292

54%

28,256

59%

23,809

55%

Two

16,739

29%

10,670

22%

10,889

25%

Three

4,192

3,811

3,673

Four

2,832

2,286

2,231

Five

1,881

1,429

1,469

Six

656

1.13%

810

778

Seven

273

0.50%

229

211

0.49%

Eight or more

169

143

151

0.35%

Total

58,034

100%

47,634

100%

43,211

100%

HEALTH

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The number of individuals serviced by UPO without health insurance in 2010 was 27,067 out of 97,175 surveyed. In 2011, out of 89,965 served, a total of 17,183 were without health insurance. In addition, a slight decrease occurred for the disabled residents requiring UPO assistance. For instance, 3,840 disabled residents sought UPO assistance in 2010; 3,165 in 2011 and 2,643 in 2012. ETHNICITY & RACE

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS - HEALTH Description

2010 % 2011 % 2012 % # of Persons Served in 2010 # of Persons Served in 2011 # of Persons Served in 2012

Health Insurance

27,067

88%

17,183

84%

71,020

96%

Disabled

3,840

12%

3,165

16%

2,643

Total

30,907

100%

20,348

100%

73,663

100%

Services provided in 2012 to African American residents totaled 80,223, while slightly more were served in 2010, totaling 88,376. In 2012, White residents totaled 928, a slight increase from 2011. Over the three-year period, there was a significant increase in all other racial groups in 2012: Multi-racial, 6,803, and other, 644 (America Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander). Here was a slight decrease of 8,008 in Hispanic/Latino clients served. In 2012, there still remains a disparity in White and African American clients being served by UPO, approximately 1:87. As the District of Columbia continues to become more diverse, it is anticipated that the clients served by UPO will also become more diverse.

2012 Community Needs Assessment ETHNICITY & RACE

2010 # of Persons

% Served in 2010

2011 # of Persons

% Served in 2011

2012 # of Persons

% Served in 2012

10,786

11%

10,886

12%

8,008

86,389

89%

79,079

88%

84,034

91%

Total

97,175

100%

89,965

100%

92,042

100%

RACE

2010 # of Persons

% Served in 2010

2011 # of Persons

% Served in 2011

2012 # of Persons

% Served in 2012

ETHNICITY Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin Not Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin

White

980

1.00%

720

928

Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

88,376

91%

79,571

88%

80,223

87%

0.10%

180

0.20%

194

0.21%

194

0.20%

270

0.30%

283

0.31%

142

0.15%

139

0.15%

177

0.19%

Other Multi-race (any 2 or more of the above)

1,944

2,338

3,434

5,442

6,747

6,803

97,175

100%

89,965

100%

92,042

100%

Total

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Changes Since 2009 Needs Assessment Changes in Survey Responses

The following are comparisons of the percentages of respondents of the 2009 needs assessment survey and the 2012 needs assessment survey. Comparisons are made based on categories that are replicated, or nearly replicated, in each assessment and do not include all of the categories in either; thus, many categories in the 2012 assessment are not included for comparison purposes due to lack of compatibility. Gender of Respondents Gender % 2009 Male 25% Female 75% No Response n/a Total 100%

• • •

• • • •

% Change 11.2% -13.0% n/a 0.0%

In both assessment years, there were more female respondents than male respondents. The percentage of male respondents increased from 2009 to 2012 by 11.2%. The percentage of female respondents decreased from 2009 to 2012 by 13%. Marital Status of Respondents Marital Status % 2009 Single 61% Married 16% Divorced 8% Separated 12% Partner 3% Widowed No Responses Total 100%

•

% 2012 36.2% 62.0% 1.8% 100.0%

% 2012 49.6% 21.3% 10.2% 6.7% 2.6% 6.5% 3.0% 100.0%

% Change -11.4% 5.3% 2.2% -5.3% -0.4% 6.5% 3.0% 0.0%

In 2009, the three highest percentages were single, married, and separated respondents. In 2012, the three highest percentages were single, married, and divorced respondents. From 2009 to 2012 there was a decline in the percentage of single respondents of 11.4%. From 2009 to 2012 there was an increase in the percentage of married respondents of 5.3%. The percentage of divorced respondents increased slightly by 2.2% from 2009 to 2012. 21

• •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

From 2009 to 2012 there was an increase in the percentage of married respondents of 5.3%. The percentage of divorced respondents increased slightly by 2.2% from 2009 to 2012. Employment of Respondents Employed * % 2009

% 2012

% Change

Yes No No Responses Total

51.8% 42.6% 5.6% 100.0%

12.8% -18.4% 5.6% 0.0%

39% 61% 100%

*Note: Yes: Employed full-time, employed part-time, Self-employed No: Unemployed, not looking for work, student, retired, homemaker

• • •

The percentage of unemployed respondents decreased from 2009 to 2012. In the 2009 assessment, there were 22% more unemployed respondents than employed respondents (61% v 39%). In the 2012 assessment, there were 9.2% more employed respondents than unemployed respondents (51.8% v 42.6%). Education Level of Respondents Education Level % 2009 Elementary School 10% Middle School 29% High School 45% College 10% Post-Secondary 6% No Responses Total 100%

• • •

% 2012 3.2% 14.4% 58.3% 17.1% 8.3% 0.0% 100.0%

% Change -7% -15% 13% 7% 2% 0% 0%

In 2009, the three highest percentages of respondents were those who completed high school (45%); those who completed middle school (29%); and those who completed college (10%). In 2012, the three highest percentages of respondents were those who completed high school (58.3%); those who completed college (17.1%); and those who completed middle school (14.4%). From 2009 to 2012 the percentage of residents who completed high school and college increased by 20%; likewise, the number of respondents who completed elementary and middle school decreased by nearly the same, 22%.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

• • • • • •

Needs of Respondents Services Needed Child Care Employment Health Services Housing Job/Employment Readiness Training

% 2009 18% 18% 18% 21% 21%

% 2012 9.5% 30.2% 14.3% 28.3% 13.5%

% Change -8.6% 12.4% -3.3% 7.2% -7.5%

Substance Abuse Services Totals

4% 100.0%

4.1% 100.0%

-0.1% 0%

In 2009, respondents ranked housing and job/employment readiness training as their top need (21% respectively) followed by childcare, employment, and health services (18% respectively) In 2012, respondents ranked employment (30.2%) as their top need followed by housing (28.3%) and health services (14.3%). 12.4% more respondents in 2012 expressed employment as a need than in 2009. 8.6% fewer respondents in 2012 expressed childcare as a need than in 2009. Fewer respondents in 2012 (13.5%) listed job/employment readiness training as a need than in 2009 (21.1%). As the second greatest need in the District, housing services continue to increase with 7.2% more respondents in 2012 expressing it as a need than respondents in 2009.

Changes in Focus Group Responses Focus groups are an integral part of UPO’s qualitative data set in that they are used to determine views and attitudes of District residents by getting information on societal deficiencies or over abundance through candid conversation among members of the community. UPO’s focus groups extract information that is not readily available through the analysis of numerical data. The following conveys changes of focus group responses since the last assessment in 2009. Key Differences by Ward Ward 1 One of the more diverse areas in DC, Ward 1’s focus group highlighted some of the same issues and concerns of an increasingly diverse area. In 2009, Ward 1 focus group participants recognized, or were members of, the growing Spanish-speaking population. There was a call for an increase in bilingual services that has been reiterated in 2012. Another similarity was the concern for the lack of affordable housing that has seemed to persist. One key difference in the 2012 focus group was a description surrounding a lack of political and decision making power in 23

2012 Community Needs Assessment

the community. Focus group members in 2009 described housing units as unkempt, while the 2012 group participants said their buildings were “clean.” Ward 2

In the 2009 focus group, there was a call for an increase in employment opportunities for Ward residents. The 2012 interviews cited the need for increased job training. It is possible that the call for job training arose from residents’ lack of ability to compete in the 2012 job market. The 2009 group brought attention toward an excessive amount of vacant and abandoned properties. The issue did not arise during the 2012 focus groups and interviews. However, some interviewees did speak toward the lack of affordable housing. It was noted that, in the opinion of some interviewees, housing was so expensive that the cost of a home would most likely exceed any kind of assistance that would enable a family with limited income to move into a certain area. Ward 3 As DC continues to develop and grow, there are persistent concerns regarding pedestrian safety. In 2009, focus groups mentioned having issues with residents’ difficulty crossing busy streets. The issue still remains as those interviewed in the 2012 Needs Assessment highlight increased traffic as a result of visitors coming to and going from nearby Rock Creek Park and the National Zoo. A notable difference since 2009 was the increase of recreational activities. In 2009, focus group participants called for the update of the Chevy Chase recreation center. In 2012, the most significant issue seemed to be transportation for the elderly and those utilizing public transportation. Ward 4 In 2009, there were community concerns that arose from an increasing cultural diversity, and the issues have not changed much in 2012. The 2009 group described the situation as an “increased immigrant population”, and in 2012 there was mention of a “lack of bilingual political leaders in the Hispanic community.” It appears that the 2009 call for, “…more bilingual teachers in schools as well as vocational training for youth, bilingual classes, and summer programs,” continues. Ward 5 The 2012 focus group participants continued to voice community concerns around education, literacy, and job training when compared to the 2009 participants. However, the 2012 group did recognize a marked improvement in safety attributed to what they believe is an increased presence of law enforcement. Also, in 2012 many participants expressed a desire to be included in the planning and decision making process as the city undergoes physical and political changes.

Ward 6

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Since 2009, there have been some major changes regarding the views and attitudes of Ward 6 residents according to the focus group findings. The 2009 focus group participants cited psychological health, drug abuse, and childcare as major concerns. In contrast, the 2012 participants acknowledged safety, a lack of a political voice, and the need for mentorship programs as major concerns. Ward 7 The 2009 Ward 7 focus group participants highlighted the need for prenatal care education for the mothers to be, a lack of retail options, and a lack of housing for the mentally ill and elderly. In 2012, focus group participants voiced concerns about safety, their inclusion in the political process, and a lack of adult education for vocational, business, and scholarly pursuits. Ward 8 In 2009, focus group participants in Ward 8 unearthed dissatisfaction with safety citing a lack of law enforcement, health concerns stemming from a lack of providers, education, and job training as major concerns. Unfortunately, all of the aforementioned issues remain concerns in 2012. However, in 2012 there was conversation mentioning an inability to afford housing due to joblessness stemming from insufficient childcare options and job readiness for some participants.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

End PAge

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Review of Literature

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Executive Summary

The Review of Literature includes data and information compiled by a study of data sources and reports from a wide variety of documents and publications regarding national and local trends. Comparisons by year are outlined to provide individuals and organizations with pertinent information upon which to design programs and strategies to improve operations and develop strategies for local use. The following are brief summaries of the content contained throughout those topic headings as outlined in the Social Impact Indicators. They do not include citations as they can be found in the text of this document under the corresponding headings throughout. Population

•

The population in the District of Columbia continues to increase from 601,723 residents in 2010 to 617,405 in 2012 and is expected to further increase to 649,400 by 2017.

•

The fastest growing segment of the District’s population is seniors (65-74), which is expected to increase from 40,331 in 2012 to 50,541 in 2017.

•

In 2012, the intake population, per MPD data, included 14,699 inmates and nearly the same for releases. The re-incarceration rate for 2012 was 77.8 % for first-time offenders, and the majority (91%) was Black.

•

The average household income for 2012 was $89,395 and is expected to rise to over $100,000 by 2017.

•

The population of residents who earn less than $15,000 is expected to decline from 16% in 2012 to 15% in 2017.

•

The racial composition in the District continues to change with the two largest racial groups, Whites and Blacks. In 2012, Whites account for 39.8% of the population in the District, and Blacks account for 48.6% of the population.

Income and Employment

•

The District is among few jurisdictions in the nation with high income inequality.

•

The D.C. metropolitan area, which includes Virginia and Maryland, has a better than average growth in high-wage industries.

•

The unemployment rate was 8.9% in 2012, an improvement from a high of 12% in 2010. African Americans accounted for the majority of the District’s unemployment with a rate of 17.8%. In 2012, Ward 8 had the highest unemployment rate at 24% followed by Ward 7 at 13% unemployment.

•

Ex-offenders have an especially hard time finding work because of some practices by potential employers that attempt to bar ex-offenders. In 2012, legislation to stop employers from asking for criminal histories on job applications was rejected by the D.C. Council. 28

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Health and Wellness

•

Based on a 2013 report by the D.C. Department of Public Health: 93.5% of the District residents have some form of health insurance; life expectancy in the District is 77.5 years, a 10-year gain from the 1990s; and heart disease is the leading cause of death regardless of race or gender accounting for 50% of deaths.

•

2009 experienced historic highs of 7.8% heavy drinkers and 20.1% binge drinkers. In 2010, there were 5.2% more beer, wine, and liquor stores in the District than was needed to meet demand. 2010 rates of heavy and binge drinkers declined; however, the prevalence of binge drinking in the District was 1% higher than the rest of the nation.

•

As of December 2009, there were 16,721 District residents living with HIV/AIDS, which is considered a generalized epidemic by some. By 2011 the number of District residents living with HIV was 14,465.

•

Disabled persons requiring the aid of equipment has reached historic proportions with 11.6% requiring equipment in 2010 when compared to 8.1% in 2009.

•

The average monthly participation for individuals in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) increased from 118,493 in 2010 to 141,147 in 2012.

Housing and Economic Development

•

Rental vacancies have remained relatively stable since 2009.

•

The fair market rent (FMR) has steadily increased from $1,131 in 2009, to $1,318 in 2010 and slightly decreased to $1,289 as of December 2011 for a one bedroom apartment. Reports indicate rents as high as $1,400 in 2012.

•

Delinquency rates for those who hold subprime mortgages in the District were nearly 6% in 2006, which increased more than four times to 26.64% in 2010.

•

Foreclosures hit a high in 2010 with 1,349 and have since decreased from 566 in 2011 to just 89 in 2012.

•

A number of District residents have faced foreclosure because of tax delinquencies that are often less than $2,500.00.

•

Four neighborhoods in the District are undergoing renewal meant to improve the quality of life for families under the New Communities Initiative (NCI); those neighborhoods are located in Wards 1, 6, 7, and 8.

•

Under the NCI, the “new” Barry Farm will offer 1,341 market rate residential units, 432 affordable residential units, will cost $550 million, and is slated for completion by 2020.

Safety

2012 Community Needs Assessment

•

The number of homicides, at 88 in 2012, is the lowest since 1963.

•

The number of sexual assaults increased from 174 in 2011 to 263 in 2012.

•

Property crimes have steadily increased from 27,062 in 2009 to 29,314 in 2012.

•

Although bias-related crimes based on sexual orientation have remained relatively high since 2006, bias-related crimes based on race have experienced the most dramatic increases in 2010 and 2011.

Education

•

Eighth graders in public schools in the District experienced an increase in proficiency in math, representing an 8% increase in test scores from 2010 (50%) to 2011 (58%); they also experienced an increase in reading scores of 2% during the same period.

•

In 2011, fourth-graders who scored below proficient in reading by race ranged from 26% for Whites, to 88% for Blacks, to 81% for Hispanics.

•

In 2011, 90% of fourth-graders receiving free/reduced lunch scored below reading proficiency vs. 55% of those not receiving free/reduced lunch.

City-Wide Needs Assessment Population

Although the District’s population has experienced decline since its height in the 1950s with a population of over 800,000 residents, it has been growing steadily over the past few years. The population has grown from 601,723 residents in 2010 to 617,405 in 2012. 1 Since the 2010 census, the District has added more residents than projected, exceeding the, “1,000-resident-amonth pace that’s been cited many times in the past by Mayor Vincent C. Gray.” 2 The population is expected to further increase to over 649,406 in 2017.3 By 2040 the population is expected to increase approximately 28% to 771,200. 4

U.S., Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Community Profile. DeBonis, M. (2012 December, 20). Census: D.C. added 30,000 residents in 27 months. The Washington Post. Retrieved August 29, 2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2012/12/20/census-dc-added-30000-residents-in-27-months/ 3 U.S., Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Community Profile. 4 Blinder, A. (2013 February, 14). Forecast: 6.9 Million to live in D.C. region by 2040. The Washington Examiner. Retrieved August 29, 2013 from http://washingtonexaminer.com/forecast-6.9-million-to-live-in-d.c.-region-by2040/article/2521497. 2

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The largest segment of the population is between the ages of 25 and 34, with 129,624 residents in that age range. 5 The next largest group is those older than thirty-four years-old. Seniors (65 – 74) represent the fastest growing population in the District. Seniors in this age range are expected to increase from 40,331 in 2012 to 50,541 by 2017 according to Census estimates.6 For the most part, the gender differences remain at 47.3% male and 52.7% female. 7 Racial/Ethnic Composition

The racial composition in the District has been changing with the two largest racial groups, Whites and Blacks. For instance, in 2000, Whites accounted for 30.8% of the District’s population while Blacks accounted for 60%, and by 2010 the disparity became 37.4%, Whites, 51.7% Blacks. The racial demographics continue to change rapidly. Today, Whites account for 39.8% of the District’s population, and Blacks account for 48.6%. 8 Further, the disparity between these racial groups is expected to change by 2017 when the ratio is estimated to be nearly 1:1 with 268,155 Whites (41.3%) and 291,949 Blacks (45%). 9 The increase in population in the District is also represented by other ethnic/racial groups including Asians, 23,096 (3.7%); Hispanics, 61,094 (9.9%); and other races alone 27,009 (4.4 %). 10 Also, according to the Migration Policy Institute, in 2011, the total foreign born population of the District was 13.5% with the largest portion being from Latin America (44.9%) followed by immigrants from Europe (20.3%), Asia (18.8%), and Africa (14.2%). 11 Wealth of Residents

One of the most notable demographic changes that has occurred, and is expected to continue in the District is income disparity between wealthy and low-income residents. In 2010, the average household income in the District was $77,021.00, which represents an increase over the 2000 income of $64,655.00.12 In 2012, the average household income in the District was $89,395.00, and by 2017 that average is expected to increase even further when the average household income is expected to be over $100,000. 13 Conversely, the number of low-income earners in the District is expected to continue to decline. The number of residents earning less than $15,000 in 2012 was about 16%, and in 2017 that number is projected to drop even lower

U.S., Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Demographic and Income Profile. 6 Ibid. 7 U.S., Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Executive Summary. 8 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Executive Summary. 9 U.S., Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Demographic and Income Profile. 10 U.S., Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Executive Summary & Ag by Sex by Race Profile. 11 MPI (Migration Policy Institute) Data Hub. Retrieved August 29, 2013 from http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/state.cfm?ID=DC 12 U.S. Census Bureau, of population and housing. ESRI forecasts for 2010 and 2015. Executive summary. 13 Ibid.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

to 15%. 14 Those earning between 15,000 and 24,999 are also expected to decline from 8% to 6.8% from 2012 to 2017 while the number of residents earning between $100,000 to 149,999 is expected to increase from 13.4% in 2012 to 15% in 2017.15 Although there may be no direct correlation between increased wealth “trickling down” to low-income earners—resulting in their declining numbers, it could be the case that a number of low-income earners are following a trend of relocating to areas outside of the District that potentially offer more affordable housing and job opportunities. Ex-Offenders

The D.C. Department of Corrections issues up-to-date data on its population. The following is a snapshot of their most recent data: 16 Intakes for FY 2011 equaled 17,398 vs. 14,699 in FY 2012; 17 releases for FY 2011 were 17,365 vs. 15,319 in FY 2012; for 2012 recidivism (or reincarceration) rate was 77.8% after one offense; racial makeup is 91% Black, 4.6% Hispanic, and 2.8% White; the male population is 94%; and the female population is 6%.

Income and Employment Income Disparities

While the nation has been experiencing a rather slow and sluggish recovery from the recent recession as a whole, the District has experienced an influx of wealth that has widened the gap between the very wealthy and poor resulting in income inequality among residents. Among the nation’s largest cities, the District has the third highest gap between the rich and poor.18 Daniel H. Weinberg (2011) addresses the issue of income inequality in his study, “U.S. Neighborhood Income Inequality in the 2005-2009 Period.” He posits that income inequality occurs when high densities of residents earning low-incomes co-exist with residents earning high incomes, in some cases, as with the District, the result of “gentrification,” or “urban renewal.” Low income inequality, on the other hand, exists when two populations—one mostly low-income, the other mostly wealthy—live in segregated communities, as in Ward 3 where the average household income was estimated at $257,386 in 2010.19 Further, he points out that Washington, D.C. is among very few states with income inequality higher than the whole of the U.S. For instance, when compared to income earners of the 10th percentile, the index of residents in the 90th percentile of wealth in the District is 21.99%, well above the national index of 11.21% in the same cohort. Likewise, the index of District residents in the 95th percentile of

U.S., Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Demographic and Income Profile. 15 Ibid 16 DC Department of Corrections. (2013, June). Facts and figures 17 Ibid. 18 Biegler, C., D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute (2012, March 8) A Big Gap: Income Inequality In The District Remains One Of The Highest In The Nation. 19 Neighborhood Info DC. (2010). Neighborhood profile.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

wealth is more than 13 times that of the national index of .0110 in the same cohort. 20 In the District, the income of the top fifth is almost 30 times the income of the bottom fifth. 21 Low-income earners may be affected economically and psychologically when areas of growth result in an influx of higher-income earners. When they “see” the wealth of others, their sense of poverty becomes more visible. A recent report on income trends explains that, “a widening gulf between the richest Americans and those at the bottom or middle of the income scale can reduce social cohesion, trust in government institutions, and participation in the democratic process.” 22 The trend of income inequality is projected to continue. Though the percentage of households making less than $24,000.00 per year decreased in 2012, and is expected to decrease further in 2017, the average household income in the District is expected to rise from $89,395 in 2012 to $103,988 in 2017. 23 Employment

One reason for such variance in income inequality is the fact that the number of low-income earners is declining in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area while high-income earners experience increases. Further, wages for the lowest income earners have only increased slightly compared to wages for higher income earners. As explained in a report by the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, since 1979 wages for residents with only a high school diploma, adjusting for inflation, have only increased 1%, whereas wages for the typical college-educated resident are 30 times higher than they were in 1979. 24 Although significant changes have affected the wealth in the District, many residents do not share in the economic prosperity; in fact, the poor are getting poorer and are surviving on fewer resources. In January of 2010, the District reached one of its highest unemployment rates in history at 12%. In 2012, the unemployment rate was 8.9%, a substantial decrease from previous years but still not to the levels prior to the economic down turn in 2007 when the unemployment rate was 5.5%. 25 While employment is increasing across the board, certain segments of D.C. residents have not fully recovered from the recession, namely African American and Hispanic residents, residents 16-24 years old, single parents, and low wage 20

Weinberg, D. H. (2011, October). U.S. Neighborhood income inequality in the 2005-2009 period. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-16.pdf 21 Biegler, C., D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute (2012, March 8) A Big Gap: Income Inequality In The District Remains One Of The Highest In The Nation. 22 McNichol, E, Hall, D. Cooper, D. and Palacios, V. Center on Budget Policy and Priorities & Economic Policy Institute. (2012, November 15) Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends Retrieved September 4, 2013 from http://www.cbpp.org/files/11-15-12sfp.pdf. 23 U.S., Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Demographic and Income Profile. 24 Biegler, C., D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute (2012, March 8) A Big Gap: Income Inequality In The District Remains One Of The Highest In The Nation. 25 Manganaris, M. D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute (2013, March 7) For Some DC Groups of DC Residents, Unemployment Remains High in the Wake of the Recession.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

earners. In 2012, the unemployment rate for African American residents was 17.8% compared to 10% prior to the recession. 26 The Hispanic unemployment rate was 2.9% in 2012, slightly higher than the rate of 2% in 2008. The unemployment rate for residents ages 16-24 was 12% in 2012, a significant improvement from 20% in 2010. Low wage earners have also experienced a decrease in unemployment, from 17.7% in 2011 to 15.7% in 2012, but still not to the levels from 2007 when the rate was approximately 10%. The unemployment rate for single parents, however, has not experienced a decline in unemployment, rising essentially every year since 2007 with a rate of 23.5% for 2012.27 Ward 8 continues to have the highest rate of unemployment in the city with rates as high as 24% from January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; March 2012, dipping to 20% by November of that year. Ward 7 has the next highest unemployment rate, though with a rate of about 13% for much of 2012 it is not nearly as high as Ward 8. Ward 5 also experienced unemployment rates in the double digits for much of 2012 with an average rate of 12%. The unemployment rates in the remaining wards hovered in the single digits for much of 2012, with Ward 3 being the lowest averaging about 2.2% for the year.28 The District is home to many flourishing, and sometimes fluctuating, job industries, but not all sectors of the unemployed will be privy to the opportunities that some of these industries present. For instance, from January to September of 2011, there were job industry increases in financial, professional and business services, and the leisure and hospitality sectors. Likewise, there were decreases in trade, transportation and utilities; education and health; and the government sector.29 The industry trends continued into 2012. 30 Ex-Offenders and Employment Barriers

One particular subset of the unemployed population in the District is experiencing significant difficulty breaching the employment impasse, not because of lack of employment opportunities, but because of profiling on the part of potential employers. A 2011 survey by the Council of Court Excellence found that over 75% of ex-offenders polled stated that they were asked all the time about their criminal records when looking for employment. 31 Formerly incarcerated individuals, or ex-offenders, are often turned away by potential employers once they reveal their incarceration history. At the end of 2012 the D.C. Council voted down a bill that would have prohibited employers from discriminating against a person based on an arrest 26

Ibid. Ibid. 28 Department of Employment Services District of Columbia Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment and Unemployment Rate by Ward Retrieved September 4, 2013 from http://does.dc.gov/page/unemployment-datadc-wards#overlay-context=page/labor-statistics. 29 D.C. DOES. Wage and salary employment by industry and place of work. (2011). Retrieved November 1, 2011 from http://www.does.dc.gov/does/frames.asp?doc=/does/lib/does/CESdc1Sept11.pdf 30 Department of Employment Services (2012, May 18) Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Unemployment Rate Drops to 9.5 Percent. Retrieved May 23, 2012 from http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/does/section/2/release/23389. 31 Council for Court Excellence (2011) Unlocking Employment Opportunity for Previously Incarcerated Persons in the District of Columbia. Retrieved on September 18, 2013 from http://www.courtexcellence.org/uploads/publications/CCE_Reentry.pdf. 27

2012 Community Needs Assessment

or conviction. 32 The legislation, dubbed “ban the box,” on the table in several jurisdictions, would have removed questions pertaining to one’s criminal history from employment applications. Though rejecting the “ban the box” bill, the D.C. Council did adopt alternative legislation that will provide ex-offenders with “certificates of good standing” 33 which would indicate that the individuals completed their sentences and are complying with their conditions of release. In a 2011 survey of 550 ex-offenders in the District, 46% were unemployed. 34 The following is a list of some of the barriers that some ex-offenders face when attempting to become gainfully employed: If they are hired, they earn 10 – 30% less than those who do not have criminal backgrounds; 35 some lack job-seeking experience, a work history, and occupational skills; some have substance abuse histories (in one study 78% alcohol, 61% cocaine and heroin); 36 some lack education (about 70% are high school drop outs); 37 some experience racial discrimination, since a majority are Black; 38 some lack adequate transportation to get to remote suburban locations where some job opportunities may exist; some have mental health problems; and some return to communities with high unemployment, and where support systems are lacking.

Health and Wellness The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide data on many health-related issues that reflect the health status of many District residents. For instance, 14% of District residents 18 years-old and older rate their health status fair or poor, although very few residents aged 18-64 are without health insurance, 7.9%, in comparison to Maryland residents, 12.9%. In fact, District residents typically are better off than others when it comes to having health insurance; 93.5% of District residents have some form of health care coverage. Another trend noted by the CDC is that the number of persons who suffer from disabilities continues to rise. The percent of adults who are limited in activities because of physical, mental, or emotional problems has risen to 19.3% in 2010 from 16.1% in 2009. Further, 32

Rep. Hansen, C. (2012, December 20) Protecting the rights of convicted criminals: Ban the Box Act of 2012, The Washington Post, Retrieved September 5, 2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/protecting-the-rights-of-convicted-criminals-ban-the-boxact-of-2012/2012/12/20/c61f61ba-4aca-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_blog.html. 33 Neibauer, M. (2012, December 18) D.C. Councilman Marion Barry’s ex-offender hiring bill defeated. Washington Business Journal Retrieved September 5, 2013 from http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/2012/12/dccouncilman-marion-barrys.html. 34 Council for Court Excellence (2011) Unlocking Employment Opportunity for Previously Incarcerated Persons in the District of Columbia. Retrieved on September 18, 2013 from http://www.courtexcellence.org/uploads/publications/CCE_Reentry.pdf. 35 Freeman (1996), Kling (1999), et. al. qtd,. in Holzer, H and Raphael Steven, and Stoll M, A. (2003, March 1). Employer demand for ex-offenders: Recent evidence from Los Angeles. Urban Institute. 36 Visher, C and LaVigne, N and Travis, J. (2004, January). Returning home: Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry: Maryland pilot study: Findings from Baltimore. 37 Travis et. al. (2001) and Freeman (1992) qtd. in Visher, C and LaVigne, N and Travis, J. 38 Holzer, H and Raphael Steven, and Stoll M, A. (2003, March 1). Employer demand for ex-offenders: Recent Evidence from Los Angeles. Urban Institute.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

disabled persons requiring the aid of equipment has reached a high of 11.6% requiring equipment in 2010 when compared to 8.1% in 2009. 39 The District of Columbia Department of Health released the first edition of the District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment published in 2013, which provides a comprehensive analysis of the health of District residents. 40 Some notable data from that report include: • • • • •

Life expectancy in the District is 77.5 years, a 10-year gain from the 1990s. Ward 2 has the highest life expectancy at 85.9 years and Ward 8 has the lowest at 70.2 years. Hispanic females have the highest life expectancy at 88.9 years. Heart disease is the leading cause of death regardless of race or gender accounting for 50% of deaths. Among 10-14 year olds, homicide is the leading cause of death, accounting for 55% of death among youth. There is a shortage of providers serving low-income residents and the homeless population.41

Health Behaviors: Alcohol Consumption

Binge drinkers also increased steadily to historic highs with 20.1% in 2009, a 2% increase over the year before, according to CDC data. Binge drinking is defined as men drinking five or more and women drinking four or more alcoholic drinks within a two hour time period. 42 The prevalence of binge drinking is about 1% higher in the District than for the rest of nation.43 A 2012 study by the CDC concluded that the District lead the nation in excessive drinking leading to lower job productivity and in costs associated with binge drinking.44 Ward 6 has the greatest percentage of binge drinkers at 20%, followed by Ward 2 at over 18%, and Ward 7 had the lowest at 6.2%. 45 In the District, binge drinking is also highest among residents making an income of $75,000.00 or more per year.

Ibid D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 1 & Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013. Though the report was revised in 2013, the data was compiled from 2010 date or where available the most recent available data for each indicator. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Kroff, J. D.C. (2013, August 14) Beer Week: D.C. Number one in binge-drinking costs. Retrieved September 6, 2013 from http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/beer-week-d-c-number-one-in-binge-drinking-costs92759.html. 45 D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 1 & Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013. 40

2012 Community Needs Assessment

One resident stated that the drinking rates were so high because, “D.C. is a stressful city and has a lot of stressed out people.” 46 Another reason for the prevalence of binge drinking in the District may be due, in part, to the availability of alcohol in the District. In 2010, there were 192 beer, wine and liquor stores in the District, which accounted for more than 144 million dollars in retail sales. The District of Columbia had a 5.2% surplus of liquor establishments, more than needed to meet demand in 2010. 47 After residents complained to city authorities of the disruptive nature of some patrons who consumed alcohol at area bars and restaurants in Adams Morgan, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board imposed a five-year moratorium on the issuance of liquor licenses in a portion of Adams Morgan in January of 2009. 48 The moratorium is set to expire in 2014. Also, residents in the Deanwood area expressed their dismay at the opening of a seafood restaurant that sought to secure a liquor license. Residents protested at the intersection of Sherriff Road and Eastern Avenue, NE.49 HIV/AIDS

There was a generalized epidemic 50 of HIV/AIDS in the District of Columbia in 2010. According to the 2010 DC HAHSTA Annual Report, “As of December 31, 2009 there were 16,721 residents in the District of Columbia living with HIV/AIDS.” Residents from 40-49 years-old accounted for 7.4% of those living with HIV/AIDS, and a marked increase was among those from 50-59 and 60 years-old and older between 2008 and 2009. Men having sex with men accounted for the leading mode of transmission with 38.8% of those living with HIV/AIDS, in this category; 27.2% contracted HIV/AIDS through heterosexual transmission; and 16.4% contracted HIV/AIDS through drug use. Further, the report reveals that, “While men who have sex with men is the leading mode of transmission among Whites (79.0%) and Hispanics (51.8%), heterosexual contact is the leading mode of transmission among Blacks (32.4%) living with HIV/AIDS.” 51 A 2011 report by the Department of Health reports a significant reduction in the number of infections among District residents finding that 14,465 residents were living with HIV. That

Kroff, J. D.C. (2013, August 14) Beer Week: D.C. Number one in binge-drinking costs. Retrieved September 6, 2013 from http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/beer-week-d-c-number-one-in-binge-drinking-costs92759.html. 47 ESRI. (2010). Retail marketplace profile. 48 Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. [a report] Retrieved December 1, 2011 from http://abra.dc.gov/Board%20Moratorium%20Actions/Moratoriums_AdamsMorgan_041009.pdf DePillis, L. (2011, April 11). Deanwood plays hardball with liquor stores. The Washington City Paper. Retrieved December 1, 2011 from http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2011/04/11/deanwoodplays-hardball-with-liquor-stores/ 49

The WHO (World Health Organization) defines “generalized epidemic” as when the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is greater than 1% of overall population. However, 2010 DC HAHSTA Annual Report establishes a generalized epidemic, based on a prevalence of HIV/AIDS among adults aged 13 and older, as opposed to the “overall” District population. 51 D.C. Department of Health. (2010). District of Columbia HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, STD, and TB (HAHSTA) 2010 annual report. p. 2

2012 Community Needs Assessment

report also noted that no children had been born in the District with HIV since 2009. 52 Notably, Wards 7 and 8 have the highest rates of infection in the District. Also significant is that 1 in 100 youths in the District is HIV positive. 53 Hunger

As the District continues to experience historic highs in economic prosperity for some, many residents continue to live in poverty and are food insecure. According to the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), the total people in the District living in poverty decreased slightly to 109,363 in 2012 from 109,423 in 2010 and over the past five years, participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps) has greatly increased by 57.8%. 54 The average monthly participation for individuals in the SNAP program increased from 118,493 in 2010 to 141,147 in 2012.55 Interestingly, TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), experienced a significant decrease with the average monthly participation decreasing from 19,785 in 2010 to 15,193 in 2012.56 Similarly, the average monthly participation of mothers in the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program decreased slightly from 16,946 in 2010 to 16,474 in 2012. 57 Even with the myriad of programs available to provide food assistance, from 2009-2011, 12.6% of District households experienced food insecurity, meaning that the availability of nutritionally adequate food, or the ability to acquire such food was limited or uncertain. 58 In terms of access to food options, the District has 43 full service grocery stores, 11 are located in Ward 3; whereas Ward 8 has three full service grocery stores, and 2 stores are located in Ward 4.59 Only one of the District’s various farmers markets is located in Ward 8. 60 The Food and Research Action Center (FRAC) also discusses the link between food insecurity and obesity noting that, “a number of research studies in the U.S. and abroad have found positive associations between food insecurity and overweight/obesity.” 61 Trends in the District 52

D.C. Department of Health. Mayor Gray & Health Official Release 2011 Annual Report Showing Progress on Addressing HIV/AIDS, STDs, Hepatitis, and TB in the District. Retrieved September 6, 2013 from http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/doh/section/2/release/23473/year/2012. 53 D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 1 & Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013. 54 Food Research and Action Center. (2010). D.C. Demographics, poverty and food insecurity. Retrieved December 6, 2011 from http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dc.pdf; Food Research Action Center (2012) District of Columbia Demographics, Poverty and Food Insecurity. Retrieved September 9, 2013 from http://frac.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/07/dc.pdf. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 D.C. Hunger Solutions. Facts on Hunger in DC. Retrieved September 9, 2013 from http://dchunger.org/about/facts.html. 59 Ibid. 60 D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 1 Revised March 15, 2013. 61 Food Research and Action Center (Spring 2011) Food Insecurity and Obesity: Understanding the Connections. Retrieved on September 9, 2013 from http://frac.org/pdf/frac_brief_understanding_the_connections.pdf.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

illustrate the connection. Residents with the lowest incomes report the highest levels of obesity. Households with incomes of less than $15,000 have an obesity rate higher than all other income levels at 37%. 62 The correlation between obesity and food insecurity is often attributed to the lack of access to healthy affordable food, restricting food intake to stretch food budgets, and over-eating when food becomes available “resulting in chronic ups and downs in food intake that can contribute to weight gain.” 63 Although there is greater need for food-based support for children in the District, the District boasts having fed more children in its Free Summer Meals Program than any other jurisdiction in the nation, approximately 80% to be exact, feeding more than 28,000 children by July of 2010.64 However, many continue to feel that not enough is done to meet the increasing food security needs of low-income families. For instance, in a 2008 study, “7 in 10 (69 percent) voters say the federal government is spending too little [on food support to low-income families], which is a 24-point increase from 2002 (Alliance to End Hunger).” 65 Also, another 2008 study concluded that “almost half of workers who make less than $27,000 a year are having a hard time buying food.” 66 In fact, 56% of households in the District served by CAFB (Capital Area Food Bank)— which provides food to needy persons—have at least one employed adult. The CAFB reveals that calls to the Hunger Lifeline, their emergency food referral system, increased 71% in 2009 when compared to calls made in 2008.67 In 2011, children in the District of Columbia under the age of 18 were ranked with those among the top five states in the US with the highest food insecurity rates. 68 In a report produced by the USDA, “Household Food Security in the United States” (2011), from 2009 to 2011, 12.6

D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 1 Revised March 15, 2013. 63 Food Research and Action Center (Spring 2011) Food Insecurity and Obesity: Understanding the Connections. Retrieved on September 9, 2013 from http://frac.org/pdf/frac_brief_understanding_the_connections.pdf. 64 USDA and DC officials kick-off summer food service program for children. (2011, June 23). [USDA Release No. 0272.11]. Retrieved December 1, 2011 from http://tykecoons.com/2011/11/usda-and-dc-officials-kick-offsummer-food-service-program-for-children/ 65 Summary of public opinion research on nutrition and hunger issues that voters want candidates to address. (2008, September, 25). Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., and McLaughlin & Associates. Retrieved December 1, 2011 from http://frac.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hungerpoll08_summary.pdf

Kaiser Foundation/Washington Post/Harvard Low-Wage Worker poll qtd. In Summary of public opinion research on nutrition and hunger issues that voters want candidates to address. (2008, September, 25). Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., and McLaughlin & Associates. Retrieved December 1, 2011 from http://frac.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hungerpoll08_summary.pdf 67 Ibid. 68

Gundersen, C., Waxman, E., Engelhard, E., Satoh, A., & Chawla, N. (2013). Map the Meal Gap 2013, Feeding America.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

percent of households in the District was food insecure. 69 This datum is not far from the results of 2012 UPO’s needs assessment survey that reveals that 16 percent of residents in the District list food as their greatest need.

Housing and Residential Development Renters

Although the population in the District has been increasing recently, the number of rental vacancies has not increased to meet demand, decreasing by less than one percent from 9.9% in 2009 to 9% in 2010.70 Availability is even starker when it comes to affordable rental units. A HUD report concluded that the supply of units that would be affordable to very low income renters was inadequate nationwide with “only 58 affordable units exist[ing] for every 100 extremely low-income renters.” 71 Further, while availability is declining, rental rates have been steadily increasing since 2009. The fair market rent (FMR) for a one-bedroom apartment in the District in 2009 was $1,131.00; in 2010 it increased to $1,318.00, and declined slightly to $1,289.00 in 2011. However, rental rates have increased as of mid-2012 eclipsing the 2010 high with rates toping $1,328.00, the highest FMR since 2009, representing nearly a 15% increase since then. 72 The rising rents are difficult for many District residents to afford. A 2013 article by Laura Barnhardt Cech of The Washington Post discussed the problem of affordable rental housing in the District stating that, “renting is also a problem. In order to afford a District home renting for $1,412.00 per month, while meeting the affordability standard of 30 percent of income, a person needs to earn $56,480 a year . . . A minimum-wage worker would have to work 132 hours a week to meet that standard.” 73 Some District renters have been affected by the housing crisis, displacing them to seek adequate housing. Low-income renters have been disproportionately affected by the crisis, some being “put out” of their apartments with little to no notice and with no place to go by new owners who acquired their properties through foreclosures. This practice was put to a halt, thanks to the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act enacted in 2009. The act protects tenants by requiring new owners to provide renters up to 90 days’ notice to vacate their properties—if the owners desired to move in them—or it would allow current tenants the right to stay in their properties until their current leases expired. Deborah Austin, Division Director of Community Reinvestment for UPO, has an in-depth background in housing and redevelopment and is tasked with assisting District residents with a 69

D.C. Hunger Solutions. Facts on hunger in D.C. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from http://www.dchunger.org/about/facts.html 70 U.S. Census Bureau. Rental vacancy rates from 1986 to 2010. 71 Steffen, B. (2013, August) Worst Case Housing Needs 2011 Report to Congress HUD Retrieved September 10, 2013 from http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/HUD-506_WorstCase2011_reportv3.pdf. 72 The final FY 2012 District of Columbia FMR summary. Retrieved August 17, 2012 from http://www.huduser.org 73 Cech, L.B. (2013, July 3) Groups fight to overcome lack of affordable housing in D.C. region. The Washington Post Retrieved September 10, 2013 from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0703/news/40340111_1_affordable-housing-housing-officials-affordable-units.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

variety of housing challenges. Ms. Austin says that for renters, “the greatest need is emergency assistance because tenants can get behind on their rent or utilities and there are not many resources to assist them on an emergency basis. The needs seem to be endless, but there is just nothing there to help those renters immediately,” she says. Despite the rights granted to some renters, a specific subset of renters (disabled renters) experienced severe housing problems in 2009 and did not receive adequate housing assistance, according to the “2009 Worse Case Housing Needs” report. The report conveys that disabled persons in renter households are more vulnerable to severe housing problems than nondisabled renters with 34% vs. 24% experiencing severe rent burden; severely inadequate housing (4% vs. 3%); and crowding (5% vs. 4%). 74 Further, disabled persons tend to be lowincome renters by virtue of their disability, and in some cases, their disabilities are complicated by their educational attainment, stemming from a very early age. Fourth graders in the District with disabilities who scored below proficient reading increased from 94% in 2009 to 98% in 2011 vs. students without disabilities which numbered 83% in 2009 and 79% in 2011.75 With the aging population increasing and the disabled population experiencing a 3.5% increase in the District, the need for adequate housing accommodations and support services for low-income renters with disabilities has to be taken seriously. Home Ownership Crisis

Over the past ten years, the country has experienced unprecedented change in the housing and mortgage markets and with serious consequences for many who sought to experience the American dream of owning a home. This was also a time period when there was rapid growth in subprime loans. According to the authors of “Risk or Race: An Assessment of Subprime Lending Patterns in Nine Metropolitan Areas,” there was growing concern that many home buyers who qualified for lower-priced “prime” loans, were “inappropriately steered into higherpriced subprime loans.” 76 The report further conveys racial discrimination as problematic: Given the historically contentious nature of the assessment of any matter involving racial discrimination, the analysis presented here will not quiet the debate on the extent to which racial disparities in the allocation of subprime lending contributed to the concentration of foreclosure-prone subprime loans in lower-income and minority neighborhoods. Further, the report points out those Black borrowers were more likely to pay more than necessary for mortgage loans than Whites. Case in point, Bank of America—which acquired Countrywide Mortgage and their mortgage mishaps—reached a settlement in December of 74

HUD report focuses attention on disability among households with worst case needs. (2011, April 13). qtd. in National Low Income Housing Coalition website. [Press Release]. Vol. 16, No. 13. Retrieved December 9, 2011 from http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=7808. 75 Ibid 76 Apgar, W. C., Herbert, C. E., and Mathur, P. (2011, August). Risk or race: An assessment of subprime lending patterns in nine metropolitan areas. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/hsgfin/risk_race_11.html.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

2011 in one of the industry’s largest lawsuits ever filed for widespread discrimination of Latino and Black borrowers of home loans to the tune of $335 million dollars. Countrywide engaged in discriminatory practices when it charged more than 200,000 African American and Latino borrowers higher fees than Whites with similar credit profiles.77 The crisis resulted in increased foreclosures in the District where Ward 7 had the highest concentration of foreclosures (60) and Ward 3, the lowest (5) as of March, 2009. 78 District foreclosures hit a high in 2010 with 1,349 foreclosures. However, since 2010, foreclosures in the District decreased dramatically from 566 in 2011 to just 89 in 2012.79 Ms. Austin attributes this dramatic decline to several factors including some of the work that UPO does on assisting homeowners in negotiating payment arrangements with their mortgage companies prior to foreclosure notices. She also attributes the decline to lenders deciding to halt foreclosures until the lawsuits against mortgage servers are resolved, and the District’s requirement that mediation between homeowners and mortgage companies take place prior to any foreclosure, resulting in alternative arrangements other than foreclosure. Court ordered mediation between mortgage companies and homeowners results in arrangements other than foreclosure about 80% of the time.80 Though foreclosures resulting from lack of payment have decreased, one disturbing trend is that a number of District residents experience foreclosure because of tax delinquencies, often less than $2,500.00, a small fraction of the property’s actual value. 81 The D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue sold tax liens to investors who then added thousands of dollars in costs and legal fees in addition to original tax bills which was impossible for many to pay, resulting in foreclosures. This system morphed into a predatory system of debt collection for well-financed, out-of-town companies that turned $500 delinquencies into $5,000 debts – then foreclosed on homes when families couldn’t pay.” 82 More than half of the foreclosures were in Wards 7 and 8 forcing many who owned property for generations out of their homes. 83

Bank of America settles for $335 million in Latino discrimination lawsuit. (2011, December 22). Fox News Latino. [Associated Press]. Retrieved December 22, 2011 from http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2011/12/21/bank-america-settles-335-million-for-biaslawsuit/#ixzz1hHKJC2gA 78 Department of Housing and Community Development (2009, April). Retrieved December 9, 2011 from http://www.dhcd.dc.gov/dhcd/frames.asp?doc=/dhcd/lib/dhcd/info/pdf/housing_data/dcjanmar09foreclosures.pdf 79 Hartig, K (2013, June 6) Mediation is an Option for Homeowners Facing Foreclosure in D.C. Washington Informer Retrieved September 10, 2013 from http://washingtoninformer.com/news/2013/jun/12/mediation-optionhomeowners-facing-foreclosure-dc/. 80 Ibid. 81 Sallah, M., Cenziper, D. and Rich, S. (2013, September 8) left with nothing. Washington Post. Retrieved September 10, 2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/09/08/left-with-nothing/ 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Homelessness

Despite the increase in wealthy residents in the District, the city continues to be plagued by a rising number of homeless residents. The District’s budget to address homelessness has increased steadily over the years; although during some years that increase has been slight relative to the increase in the homeless population. In 2011 the actual dollars spent on services for homeless residents was about $90 million, in 2012 that figure was $102.8 million.84 In 2013 funding increased slightly with $103.2 million earmarked for homeless services. The 2014 budget includes an increase of $8 million with $111 allocated to services for the homeless. 85 The number of homeless families in the District has risen from 2,523 in 2009 to 2,688 in 2010, which represents a steady increase since 2007.86 Additionally, the number of literally homeless persons87 in the District has risen from 6,228 in 2009 to 6,539 in 2010,88 according to data supplied by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Metropolitan Washington Counsel of Government released a report on homelessness in the Washington region; and that report collects its data on a particular day providing a one day snapshot of homelessness. 89 According to that report, the number of literally homeless individuals in 2012 was 6,954, representing a notable increase from 2010. 90 The District has experienced a substantial decline in homeless families, 1,104 in 2012, over 1,000 fewer homeless families than in 2010. 91 Interestingly, the increase in homeless persons also includes homeless veterans, an often overlooked subset, that has been garnering much attention to their plight. According to Census data, the District houses 47,757 veterans, 92 and among the literally homeless 13.4%, or 476, of them are Veterans. 93 In 2012, the number of homeless veterans increased to 531. 94 The 2009 Veteran Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) estimates that approximately 53% of homeless Veterans have some kind of disability. This estimate is based on a definition of disability that includes substance abuse, mental illness, and physical disabilities. 95 Additionally, many feel that resources are not adequate to meet the needs of veterans. According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 34% of respondents say 84

DC Fiscal Policy Institute. (2013, July 14). What’s in the FY 2014 budget for homeless services? Ibid. 86 DC Fiscal Policy Institute. (2011, June 29). What’s in the FY 2012 budget for homeless services? 87 HUD defines literally homeless as people who reside in some form of emergency or transitional shelters, domestic violence shelters, runaway youth shelters, safe havens, and places not meant for habitation, which include streets, parks, alleys, abandoned buildings, and stairways. 88 Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2009-2010). Number of homeless in DC. 89 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. (2013 May 8) Results and Analysis from the 2013 Point-intime Count of Homeless Persons in the Metropolitan Washington Region. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 92 U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 American community survey 1-year estimates. 93 Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness. (2011, January 27). Fast facts on homelessness in D.C. Retrieved October 24, 2011 from http://www.community-partnership.org/cp_dr-Fastf.php 94 HUD’s 2012 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations (2012, November 15.) 95 Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Service. (2011, April). A Critical Review of the Literature Regarding Homelessness among Veterans. Retrieved October 21, 2011 from http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/homelessness.pdf 85

2012 Community Needs Assessment

that the government has not done enough for returning troops and point to mental health issues as the biggest area of concern. 96 In an effort to eradicate homelessness in the District, the D.C. Council allocated funds to a New End Homelessness Director position who will oversee plans to end homelessness. The Council also established the End Homelessness Fund. 97 Affordable Housing

Although there is an apparent need for greater housing resources to support low-income and disabled persons, federal funding for such programs continues to decrease as the White House strives to make this a priority. For instance, President Obama requested $19.5 billion for tenant-based rental assistance for 2011—an increase from the $18.1 billion spent in 2010—of which Congress enacted $18.3 billion for 2011, representing a 6% shortfall of the President’s request. Moreover, the total budget for Housing and Urban Development for 2010 was $43.6 billion, and the President requested $41.6 billion for 2011 and $41.7 billion for 2012, representing a 4.36% decrease from 2010 spending.98 Thus, low-income and disabled households in the District may experience the full brunt of deceased funding for HUD programs that directly impact the support services that they receive. Despite the looming decreases in housing funding for low-income and disabled persons, the District boasts a booming economy that attracts investors, thus growing the economy. From 2008 to 2010 the District gained 11,469 new residents and had a daytime population of nearly one million people, and it attracted an additional 16.6 million visitors who spent $5.64 billion. Situated in the fourth largest metropolitan region, D.C. hosts prime business locations to tap into 6.2 million people whose median household income is $85,800.99 According to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, four neighborhoods in the District are undergoing renewal meant to improve the quality of life for families under the guise of the New Communities Initiative (NCI); those neighborhoods include Northwest One (Ward 6), Barry Farm (Ward 8), Lincoln Heights (Ward 7), and Park Morton (Ward 1). The project is guided by principles that promise one-for-one replacement of units to ensure that there is no net loss of affordable housing units; the opportunity for residents to return after redevelopment; mixed-income housing; and it plans to build new housing before existing units are demolished. The Barry Farm Community has been undergoing NCI renewal 96

Pew Research Center. (2011, June 29). Four years after Walter Reed, Government still faulted for troop support: Growing concern over Vets’ financial issues, PTSD. Retrieved September 21, 2011 from http://www.peoplepress.org/2011/06/29/four-years-after-walter-reed-government-still-faulted-for-troop-support/ 97 DC Fiscal Policy Institute. (2013, July 14). What’s in the FY 2014 budget for homeless services? The fund is expected to be funded with tax revenue from online purchases, which will be collected if Congress passes the Marketplace Fairness Act. 98 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2011, November 18). Budget comparison for selected HUD programs. Retrieved December 12, 2011 from http://www.nlihc.org 99 Washington, DC Economic Partnership [website]. Industry initiatives. Retrieved December 9, 2011 from http://www.wdcep.com/industry-initiatives/retail/

2012 Community Needs Assessment

efforts since construction of off-site housing units began in 2010, and it was projected that by 2012 Phase I would mark the completion of those units. The “new” Barry Farm will offer 1,341 market rate residential units, 432 affordable residential units, and will cost $550 million. The project is slated for completion by 2020.100 In 2012, the District set aside $100 million for 10,000 affordable housing units by 2020.101 Ms. Austin states that UPO is committed to affordable housing and “making homeownership more of a reality” for low-income District residents.

Economic Development The District of Columbia is experiencing renewal and growth that is projected to continue through 2016 and beyond. Employment, housing, education including college enrollment, as well as growth in the hospitality sectors are all expected to increase. Construction development is outlined to meet market demand based on the trends in population growth, business expansion, and shifts in the socioeconomic makeup of the city. The Washington, D.C. Economic Partnership (WDCEP) recently released the 2013/14 D.C. Development Report outlining economic development activities for the District of Columbia. The report outlines construction development activities since 2001. This section summarizes findings outlined in the report. Specific projects and detailed information can be found, including data sources, methodology for collection, and contributors, by accessing the report online or contacting the WDCEP directly. Construction development starts since 2001 includes 131.4 million square feet, marked by a record 13.4 million in 2002. Starts continued to drop and rise moderately until 2008 when they decreased dramatically to 7.5 million square feet. The downward spiral continued to its lowest level (4.3 million square feet) in 2009 but rose significantly by 2010. Construction starts from 2010-2012 averaged 10.2 million square feet. It is projected that between 5 and 9.5 million square feet will be initiated in 2013. Development since 2001 included an average of 10.2 million groundbreaking square feet from 2010 to 2012, the report says. 38.7 billion dollars of projects have been completed since 2001 including 222 office, 466 residential, 255 retail, 152 hospitality and 149 education facility projects totaling 130.4 million square feet. 153 projects are currently under construction totaling 20.1 million square feet with an estimated value of 7.9 billion dollars, the report says.

100

Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. Barry Farm. Retrieved December 15, 2011 from http://dmped.dc.gov/DC/DMPED/Projects/New+Communities 101 Cech, L.B. (2013, July 3) Groups fight to overcome lack of affordable housing in D.C. region. The Washington Post Retrieved September 10, 2013 from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0703/news/40340111_1_affordable-housing-housing-officials-affordable-units.

2012 Community Needs Assessment Building Completions By Sector Per Sq. Ft. 2010-2012

4,000,000 3,500,000

Square Footage

3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2010

Office 3,408,455

Retail 330,700

Residential 2,186,187

Hospitality 1,052,328

Education 999,490

2011

2,442,869

312,345

1,899,277

241,255

1,086,032

2012

1,531,946

314,324

3,979,723

163,985

1,137,594

Office

The District has an office space inventory of 124.2 million square feet with a 10.4% vacancy rate. The average full service rental rate is $52.25 per square foot. 82% of all new space projected for completion in downtown Washington, DC by 2014 has been rented. A total of 7,383,270 square feet of new space has been completed from 2010-2012. Tenants such as nonprofit organizations requiring 10,000 square feet or less are driving new demand for office space in general; law firms, however, are likely to seek out newly constructed space, the report says. The newly completed U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters in Ward 8 is the largest project of note that was completed in 2012. Valued at $950,000,000, it is expected to be a major contributor to the economy in the ward, the report says. Retail

Groundbreakings for retail establishments included approximately 2,000,000 square feet from 2010-2012. There is a noticeable gap in retail development in Ward 8. A Harris Teeter grocery store is scheduled there in 2014, however; no top retail projects have been completed, are 46

2012 Community Needs Assessment

under construction, or are in the pipeline for the area from 2012-2016, according to the report. Wal-Mart, Giant, Safeway, Harris Teeter, TJ Maxx & HomeGoods, and H&M, to name a few, are slated to open between 2013 and 2015 in other areas of the city. The District has opened 27 grocery stores since 2000, according to the report. Residential

Residential development includes 10,253 units that are under construction with an average rental rate of $2,346 per unit. From 2010-2012, completed residential sites total 73 projects including 7,762 units. Rentals include 1,385, 1,574 and 3,428 units in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively for a total 6,387 units. A total of 1,375 private homes were completed, including 588 condos over the three-year period. Another 47,733 units are in the pipeline to be constructed for 2016 and beyond, the report says. Hospitality

D.C. hosts 18.9 million visitors per annum according to Destination D.C., 2012 Visitor Statistics. Most visitors utilize one of the 27,553 hotel rooms available. Though the average daily room rate is $201, an occupancy rate of 74.9% is maintained. It is projected that an additional 1,795 new hotel rooms will be available as early as 2014. The report indicated 30 hotel projects including 2,174 rooms were completed between 2010 and 2012. Education

According to the 2013/14 Edition of the D.C. Development Report, 6.8 million square feet of space of new construction has been started since 2008. The report also states that seven projects for 999,490 square feet of space were completed in 2010; ten projects for 1,086,032 square feet in 2011, and another 14 projects totaling 1,137,584 square feet were completed in 2012. Another 16 projects, totaling approximately 2.5 million square feet, are currently under construction. These projects are estimated to be completed from 2013-2015. Construction includes colleges and hospitals, but more than half of the space was initiated for the completion of primary and secondary schools (public and charter). It should be noted that additional projects are in the pipeline for development but are in various stages of planning, negotiation, and logistical stages. Information is available in the report that provides estimations on when these projects are expected to be initiated.

Safety Violent Crimes and Property Crimes

The District of Columbia makes crime statistics publicly available through the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Violent crimes have been trending downward over the past three years; for instance, assault with deadly weapons (ADW) crimes have declined steadily from 26,623 in 2009 to 2,356 in 2012; homicides have declined from 132 in 2010 to 88 in 2012. The homicide total is the lowest since 1963 which was the last year the number of homicides was fewer than 100 in the District. Sex crimes, however, have increased rather dramatically. Sexual assaults increased by 51% from 174 in 2011 to a whopping 263 in 2012. In 2009 there were 150 forcible rapes and 236 in 2012. The number of thefts/larceny also increased rather 47

2012 Community Needs Assessment

dramatically, from 18,505 in 2009 to over 22,000 in 2012. Overall, property crimes (burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft and arson) have been steadily increasing since 2009 when the total was 27,062 to 29,314 in 2012.102 Juvenile Crimes

Juvenile crimes in particular have been on the rise. 2010 has seen some the highest numbers of other misdemeanor offenses by juveniles with 1,575 occurrences. Also, simple assault in a menacing manner committed by juveniles declined from an all-time high since 2007 with 470 assaults in 2009 to 343 assaults in 2010, but that trend rebounded and continued to increase in 2011 with 453 incidents as of December 2011 and 536 in 2012.103 Juveniles accounted for only 3 of the homicide victims in 2012, a 50% decrease from 2011. In 2012, 6 juveniles were arrested and charged with homicide, down from 17 in 2008. 104 Bias-Related Crimes

The MPD reveals marked increases in bias-related crimes in the District, which are considered hate crimes. A hate crime is defined as, “any criminal act or attempted criminal act directed against a person based on the victim’s actual or perceived race, nationality, religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation,” according to the MPD. Bias based on sexual orientation accounted for 48% of all bias-related crimes in 2011 with 34 incidents, and 46 incidents in 2012. Although bias-related crimes based on sexual orientation have remained relatively high since 2006, bias-related crimes based on race have experienced the most dramatic increase. While incidents of race-biased crimes remained in the single digits until 2009 (with 2 incidents), an increase occurred in 2010 (with 14 incidents), which nearly doubled in 2011 105 to 22 incidents, an 83% increase over 2010.106 Race-biased crimes decreased by 28% in 2012 with 12 incidents. 107 Suicides

One disturbing trend that is garnering some media attention is that of suicides in the District. Recent news reports have noted a spike in suicides and suicide attempts. Kytia Weir in a Washington Examiner article notes that, “24 people have been hit by Metro trains in suicide attempts since January 2009 . . . [and] three others have jumped to their deaths from Metro parking garages.” Metro’s board of directors has raised concern over the issue and has approved $250,000 for prevention efforts, says Weir. 108 Prevention efforts proved somewhat 102

Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Annual Report. (2012). Retrieved September 11, 2013 from http://mpdc.dc.gov/ 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid. 105 2011 vs. 2010 data is based on data compiled through October 31. 106 Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Supported bias crimes. Retrieved December 12, 2011 from http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,567500.asp 107 Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Annual Report. (2012). Retrieved September 11, 2013 from http://mpdc.dc.gov/ 108 Weir, K. (2011, October 17). Metro starts training workers to intervene with suicide riders. Washington Examiner. Retrieved December 12, 2011 from http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/10/metro-startstraining-workers-intervene-suicidal-riders#ixzz1dFLE4ceY

2012 Community Needs Assessment

effective. In 2012“11 people were hit after deliberately putting themselves in front of trains, with five of them dying.” 109 The number of suicides and suicide attempts that Metro has conveyed as having occurred at their stations reflects numbers revealed in the DC Suicide Prevention Resource Center Fact Sheet that details data on suicides in the District from 1999-2005. The fact sheet reveals that an average of 32 residents died each year during that time period and that 57% of them were Black, 33% were White, and that males were 5 times more likely to commit suicide than females.110 According to the most recent data from the State Center for Health Statistics, the average number of suicides in the District has not changed much; it remained at 31 residents per year from 2005 through 2009. In fact, the number of District suicides reached a high of 37 residents in 2008 before declining to 30 residents in 2009.111 The suicide rate rose again in 2010 with 41 suicides. 112Some of those suicides include the murdering of others, including family members, and then the perpetrators committing suicide. The rash of murder-suicides that have been occurring recently in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area might be the result of a “faltering economy and career stresses that push people already teetering over the edge. . .” writes Freeman Klopott. 113 “It’s not surprising to see this many murder-suicides . . . There’s increased stress and increased despair combining with a lack of availability in good mental health services,” says David Reiss, a psychiatrist who specializes in character and personality dynamics. 114 Suicides involving youth is also a growing concern. Nationwide, suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 15-24 with bullying victims being more likely to attempt suicide. 115 Data from the D.C. Department of Health states that 15.2% of middle school students and 15.7% of high school students have created a suicide plan at some point.116 Over 10% of District youth had actually attempted suicide.117

109

Sommer, W. (2013, January 7) Metro Records First Suicide of the Year Washington City Paper Retrieved September 11, 2013 from http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2013/01/07/metro-records-firstsuicide-of-the-year/ 110 DC Suicide Prevention Resource Center Fact Sheet. [Pamphlet]. Retrieved December 12, 2011 from http://www.sprc.org/stateinformation/PDF/statedatasheets/dc_datasheet.pdf 111 State Center for Health Statistics, Center for Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, DC Department of Health. [20052009 data]. 112 U.S.A. Suicide: 2010 Official Final Data Retrieved September 11, 2013 from http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=262&name=DLFE-635.pdf 113 Klopott. F. (2011, August 8). Rash of murder-suicides strikes region. The Washington Examiner. Retrieved December 12, 2011 from http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/08/rash-murder-suicides-strikes-region 114 Qtd. in Klopott. F. [ibid] 115 Teen Suicide is Preventable. American Physiological Association. Retrieved September 16, 2013 from http://www.apa.org/research/action/suicide.aspx 116 D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013. 117 Ibid.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Education

Secondary Education

In 2010 The District had a total of 235 schools with 71,284 students enrolled in them 118 who were entrusted to more than 3,000 teachers who were supposed to be highly qualified to teach. Of 3,461 teachers who were required to hold a D.C. License to teach in the District, 341 of them did not have valid licenses, according a report by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education.119 This situation may be a contributing factor, among others, to the fluctuating performance numbers of students enrolled in D.C. public schools. Eighth graders in public schools in the District experienced an increase in proficiency in math, representing an 8% increase in test scores from 2010 (50%) to 2011 (58%), and those same eighth graders incrementally increased reading scores from 48% in 2010 to 50% in 2011. However, students in lower grades in 2011 have not demonstrated substantial improvements in reading and math; their test scores remained relatively stagnant in the 40% to 50% range.120 When factoring the race and income of students, test score disparities are prevalent. For instance, fourth-graders who scored below proficient in reading by race ranged from 26% for Whites, to 88% for Blacks, to 81% for Hispanics. Likewise, fourth-grade students who scored below proficient in reading by family income (based on those receiving free/reduced price meals) represented a substantial disparity. 90% of fourth-graders receiving free/reduced meals scored below reading proficiency vs. 55% of those not receiving free/reduced priced lunch.121 Teens that drop out of school, whether for health reasons, or family reasons, or a variety of others, are at a disproportionate disadvantage when competing for jobs, especially in the District, since a substantial number of higher paying jobs require an education, at least a high school diploma. In an effort to better equip District students for the workforce, Mayor Vincent Gray, in partnership with the National Academy Foundation, announced a plan to create nine career academies at area high schools. The goal of the career academies is to prepare students for the, “District’s most vital and fast-growing career sectors: information technology, engineering and hospitality.” 122 The academies are slated to begin programming for the 20142015 school year.

118

CCD (Common Core of Data). (2010-2011). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved September 12, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/sresult.asp?mode=short&s1=11 119 DC Office of the State Superintendent of Education. 2010-2011 Statewide Report. Retrieved September 12, 2013 from http://www.greatschools.org/catalog/pdf/dc-nclb/dc-nclb-state.pdf. 120 DC Action for Children: Kids Count Data Center. (2011). Profile for District of Columbia. Retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/stateprofile.aspx?state=DC&loc=10 121 Ibid 122 Mayor Gray Announces Nine Career Academies in Partnership with the National Academy Foundation. (2013, September 4) Executive Office of the Mayor. Retrieved September 12, 2013 from http://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-gray-announces-nine-career-academies-partnership-national-academyfoundation./

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Early Childhood Education/Head Start

Currently, the District of Columbia is undergoing a demographic shift that is reflective of the multiple ethnic enclaves residing in the District. The result of this change will affect the classroom environment in a way that challenges the skill set of Head Start (HS) instructors due to possible inconsistencies in the languages spoken at home.123 As the HS market evolves, so does the interest of decision makers who drive the enrollment for HS programs. For instance, many early learning programs in the District offer services specifically designed for niche markets to include language arts, science, and social studies, among others to meet the needs of the changing demographics of the District’s population, among which includes multilingual families.

Special Populations Disabled Residents

The American Disability Act defines disability as having, “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individuals; a record of impairment; or being regarded as having such impairment.” 124 The percent of adults who are limited in activities because of physical, mental, or emotional problems has risen to 19.3% in 2010 from 16.1% in 2009. Further, disabled persons requiring the aid of equipment has reached historic proportions with 11.6% requiring equipment in 2010 when compared to 8.1% in 2009.125 In the District of Columbia, based on 2010 data, approximately 14.5% of Blacks have a disability, compared to 14.3% nationwide and compared with 3.5% of Whites in the District. Interestingly, nationwide, the prevalence of a disability in Whites is higher at about 10%. 126 Housing is also a great concern for disabled residents. Disabled renters experience severe housing problems, such as lack of affordable housing and inadequate housing for their particular disability, and do not receive adequate housing assistance. 127 UPO provides education to

disabled residents on programs and grants that are available to assist in making their homes handicap accessible. Youth

Youth under the age of 24 comprise about 30% of the total population in the District. 128 One in every five residents in the District is between the ages of 10-24, and that population has grown 123

Fortuny, K., Hernandez, D. J., & Chaudry, A. (2010) qtd. in Golden, O. Dialogue briefs: a briefing paper on immigration and diversity. 14(1), 1-3 124 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). 125

Centers for Disease Prevention (2010 data). Prevalence and trends data. Retrieved from November 1, 2011 from http://www.cdc.gov/ [crude rate is from 2007 data; all other data is from 2010] 126 District of Columbia Office on Aging (2012, September 5) Senior Needs Assessment Initial Data Collection. Retrieved September 20, 2013 from http://dcoa.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcoa/publication/attachments/DCOA%2520Senior%2520Needs%25 20Assessment%252010-12.pdf. 127 Ibid 128 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Community Profile.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

approximately 8% within the last decade. 129 Several key issues impacting the youth population are unemployment; issues involving the criminal justice system; and health concerns. In terms of unemployment, the unemployment rate for residents ages 16-24 was 12% in 2012, a significant improvement from 20% in 2010.130 Though this is an improvement, it still remains higher than any other age group. The number of youth, under the age of 17, arrested declined 6% between 2011 and 2012 (currently at the lowest point in the last five years). 131 While there have been some marked improvements, juvenile crime is still an issue. Since 2007, 2010 has seen the highest number of other misdemeanor offenses by juveniles with 1,575 occurrences. Also, simple assault in a menacing manner committed by juveniles declined from an all-time high since 2007 with 470 assaults in 2009 to 343 assaults in 2010, but that trend rebounded and continued to increase in 2011 with 453 incidents as of December 2011 and 536 in 2012.132 A report, District Discipline: The overuse of School Suspension and Expulsion in the District of Columbia, discussed the correlation between suspensions from school and the juvenile justice system indicating that students who are suspended have â&#x20AC;&#x153;higher rates of involvement with the juvenile justice system.â&#x20AC;? 133 That report found that 13% of students enrolled in District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and public charter schools were suspended at some point during the 2011-2012 school year. DCPS middle schools had suspended 35% of its students and DCPS high schools over 20% of its student body. Wards 7 and 8 had the highest proportion of students suspended, and impoverished students had a significantly higher rate of suspension.134 Drug and alcohol use is also a health concern. In a 2011 survey, in the Department of Health (DOH) D.C. Community Health Needs Assessment, over 20% of high schoolers reported drinking alcohol before age 13. Over 30% of high school students reported using alcohol in the last 30 days, and over 26% had used marijuana in the last 30 days. Also, District high school students reported smoking cigarettes at a higher rate than the national levels. 135 Seniors

Residents over the age of 65 currently comprise approximately 11.8% of the population in the District.136 By 2017, that number is projected to increase to 13.4%. 137 The growth in this demographic is most likely due in part to the increasing life expectancy in the District. In 2010, 129

D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013. 130 Ibid. 131 DC Lawyers for Youth (2012, March) DCLY Issue Brief Youth Arrest Trends in the District of Columbia (20072011). 132 Ibid. 133 DC Lawyers for Youth (2013) District Discipline: The overuse of School Suspension and Expulsion in the District of Columbia. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from http://www.dcly.org/district_discipline. 134 Ibid. 135 D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013. 136 U.S., Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Community Profile. 137 Ibid.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

the life expectancy in the District was 77.5 years, a 10 year gain from the 1990s. Ward 2 has the highest life expectancy at 85.9 years, and Ward 8 has the lowest at 70.2 years. Hispanic females have the highest life expectancy at 88.9 years. 138 Based on 2010 Census data, the largest number of seniors live in Ward 3 with 16.4 % of the senior population followed closely by Wards 4 and 5 with 16.3% and 15.8% respectively. Ward 8 has the lowest number of senior residents with only 8.6% of total senior population.139 Minorities make up the largest proportion of seniors in the District of Columbia at 69% percent of the population, compared to only 23% of the senior population nationwide. 140 The majority of senior respondents to the Needs Assessment were African American at 69.5%, and 11.5% of senior respondents were Hispanic; likewise, 11.5% were Caucasian. Based on 2010 Census data, the median income for seniors 65 and older in the District of Columbia is $41,128, much higher than the median income nationwide which was $34,381.141 Despite having a median income that is higher than the national median, one of the problems cited by seniors in the District were financial problems; and about 19% of seniors cited financial problems as a minor problem. Also, many seniors are forced to stay in the workforce longer to ensure that their needs are met. In 2010, there were about 7.5 million seniors 65 or older in the workforce in the United States; 16,865 seniors in the District of Columbia were in the workforce during that same period. A little over 18% of senior respondents to the UPO Needs Assessment reported working, and 64% described their employment status as retired. However, 4.6% were unemployed and actively seeking employment. The Needs Assessment conducted by the Office of Aging notes that a seniorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s living arrangement is closely correlated to their quality of life.142 Nearly 40% of seniors in the nation live alone compared to 56.2% of seniors in the District. Only about 6.59% of seniors responding to the Senior Needs Assessment by the Office of Aging reported housing that meets their needs as a major problem; about 9% cited housing as a minor problem. Deborah Austin, Director of Community Reinvestment for UPO, states that because of lack of mobility and pride, many seniors do not seek UPOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing assistance. Ms. Austin also states that UPO provides information to seniors regarding grant programs that provide funds to make improvements to their homes and renovations that will allow them to age in their homes in comfort. 138 D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 1 & Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013. 139 District of Columbia Office on Aging (2012, September 5) Senior Needs Assessment: Initial Data Collection Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://dcoa.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcoa/publication/attachments/DCOA%2520Senior%2520Needs%25 20Assessment%252010-12.pdf 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Seniors responding to the Senior Needs Assessment by the Office of Aging reported their top program and service needs as assistance with transportation, income assistance, and legal assistance. 143 Hispanics/Latinos

Hispanics or Latinos totaled 54,749 D.C. residents in 2010, an increase of 7.9% since 2000. Historically, Hispanics in the District have called Ward 1 home touting the largest concentration of 15,827 Hispanic people or 20% of the population. This, however, is a substantial decrease from 2009 when 18,109 Hispanics called Ward 1 their home. Ward 4 increased substantially from 9,237 to 14,179 Hispanic residents. The Hispanic population increases also occurred in Wards 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 which has the smallest number of Hispanic residents (1,307). Overall, Hispanics equal 9.1% of the total population in the District of Columbia. The 2010 Census defined Hispanic or Latino as referring, “to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.” 144 There are 61,094 residents of Hispanic descent accounting for almost 10% of the District’s population. Hispanics accounted for one-third of the District’s population growth from 2000-2010.145 According to the Migration Policy Institute, in 2011, the total foreign born population of the District was 13.5% with the largest portion being from Latin America (44.9%). 146 Hispanics of Mexican or Salvadoran origin are two largest Hispanic groups in the District.147 Though Hispanics live in all wards, the largest numbers of Hispanics live in Ward 1 followed by Ward 4. 148 38 % of Hispanic respondents to the 2012 Needs Assessment Survey resided in Ward 1 followed by Wards 5 and 4. The majority of the Hispanic population in the District is between the ages of 20-34.149 A 2011 Pew research Center report rates the District of Columbia as having the highest college degree attainment among Hispanic adults 25 or older, with Virginia and Maryland falling in second and third place respectively. 150 About 36% of Hispanic adults in the District have

143

Ibid. The Hispanic Population 2010: 2010 Census Briefs (2011 May) Retrieved September 17, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf. 145 D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013. 146 MPI (Migration Policy Institute) Data Hub. Retrieved August 29, 2013 from http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/state.cfm?ID=DC 147 D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013. 148 Ibid. 149 U.S., Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File. Esri Forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Age by Sex by Race Profile. 150 Cuddington, D. and Lopez, M. Pew Research Center. (2013, August 29) D.C., Virginia and Maryland have the highest shares of college-educated Latinos. Retrieved September 17, 2013 from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/29/d-c-virginia-and-maryland-have-the-highest-shares-ofcollege-educated-latinos/ 144

2012 Community Needs Assessment

attained a bachelor’s degree. 151 90% of the Hispanic residents speak Spanish with less than half (46%) indicating an ability to speak English very well. As the number of Hispanics and other groups continue to increase in the District, so will the realization that diversity will require changes in services and resources to meet the needs of all residents. Language is but one indicator to be considered. Government particularly and service organizations like UPO will need to transform in order to adequately serve residents of the District of Columbia who are increasingly becoming multilingual. The Office of the State Superintendent releases a report card every year. The report includes data regarding the educational progress of the Hispanic community in the District. Some notable information includes the following: • • • • •

46% of Hispanic elementary school students scored as proficient in reading compared to 39% of Black elementary students and 89% of White students. 53% of Hispanic elementary students scored as proficient in mathematics compared to 37% of Black students and 89% of White students. 55% of Hispanic 10th grade students scored as proficient in reading for the 2010-2011 school year compared with just 40% for the 2009-2010 school year. 50% of Hispanic 10th grade students scored as proficient in mathematics for the 20102011 school year compared to 45% in 2009-2011. The graduation rate for Hispanic students is 65%. 152

In terms of income, the median annual personal earnings by Hispanics 16 or older in the District is $28,000.00, significantly less than the median income for non-Hispanic Whites at $61,000.00 and somewhat less than non-Hispanic Blacks at $32,000.00. 153 Hispanics have the second highest unemployment rate climbing slightly from 7% to 7.1% in 2012.154 The District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment discusses what is commonly referred to as the “Hispanic Paradox”, which is the, “phenomenon of healthier outcomes and longevity among Latinos despite a disproportionate burden of poverty, limited health insurance and low education.” 155 Hispanic females live the longest in the District at 88.9 years followed by Hispanic men at 85.2 years. Hispanics in the District live an average of 19.6 years longer than Black men and 12.7 years longer than Black women. 156 The infant mortality rate was 151

Ibid. DC Office of the State Superintendent of Education. 2010-2011 Statewide Report. Retrieved September 12, 2013 from http://www.greatschools.org/catalog/pdf/dc-nclb/dc-nclb-state.pdf. Unless otherwise noted, all data is from the 2010-2011 academic school year. 153 Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project. Demographic Profile of Hispanics in District of Columbia, 2011 Retrieved September 19, 2013 from http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/state/dc/ 154 Manganaris, M. D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute (2013, March 7) For Some DC Groups of DC Residents, Unemployment Remains High in the Wake of the Recession. 155 D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013. 156 Ibid. 152

2012 Community Needs Assessment

significantly lower for Hispanics (3.7 deaths per 1,000 births) than Whites (5.3 death per 1,000 births) and Blacks (10.5 deaths per 1,000 births). 157 In 2010, cancer and heart disease are the leading causes of death among Hispanics. 158 Almost 30% of the Hispanic respondents to the needs assessment indicated that they, or someone in their household, have high blood pressure. Abel Nunez, Executive Director for the Central American Resource Center, stated that quality clinics are needed for the Hispanic community. Many clinics that are currently in neighborhoods with high Hispanic populations are not fully bilingual and culturally appropriate, meaning there is a gap between the clinicsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cultural norms and the cultural norms of the population they serve. Mr. Abel Nunez conveys that the most significant needs in the Hispanic community are affordable housing, safe recreation for youth, economic opportunities, and stronger school systems. He also added that the community needs programs to assist in navigating applying for certain benefits and programs. Generally Hispanics are not benefiting from many of the changes to their neighborhoods, says Nunez, and that they should, â&#x20AC;&#x153;be able to enjoy living in D.C. and not considered to only work in D.C.â&#x20AC;?

Social Impact Indicator Data This section conveys the demographic characteristics of the District of Columbia. Data categories reflect information that might be useful in program planning to meet the needs of certain populations in the District of Columbia.

157 158

Ibid. Ibid.

Ward Population1

2012 Community Needs Assessment 1

Popul a ti on Tota l s 2010

76,556

79,788

77,152

76,294

74,104

76,598

71,596

70,240

Popul a ti on Tota l s 2011

77,080

80,595

77,351

76,637

75,632

78,260

71,250

70,509

Popul a ti on Tota l s 2016

78,681

83,031

79,815

78,029

78,978

82,484

71,574

71,510

Whi te Al one

37,317

57,842

64,625

18,829

12,384

38,788

1,305

2,652

Bl a ck Al one

25,009

10,306

3,861

44,781

57,601

32,421

67,644

65,907

393

219

169

335

289

315

220

147

3,204

6,795

5,135

1,295

1,026

3,401

137

262

8,006

2,883

1,196

8,338

2,268

1,100

755

353

602,328 607,314 624,102

Demographic1 Popul a ti on by Ra ce a nd Ethni ci ty 2011

Ameri ca n Indi a n Al one As i a n Al one Pa ci fi c Is l a nder Al one Some Other Ra ce Al one Two or More Ra ces

3,105

2,485

2,338

3,000

2,034

2,196

1,175

1,168

16,134

7,707

5,891

14,520

4,852

3,840

1,672

1,328

Income <$15,000

6,085

5,625

2,163

2,887

5,383

7,102

6,451

7,699

Income $15,000-$24,999

3,469

2,625

1,235

2,220

2,886

2,628

3,085

3,278

Income $25,000-$34,999

3,184

2,732

1,260

2,296

2,819

2,700

3,140

2,926

Income $35,000-$49,999

3,915

3,822

2,617

3,422

3,969

3,883

4,304

3,694

Income $50,000-$74,999

5,719

5,893

4,764

4,744

5,674

5,913

5,400

3,761

Income $75,000-$99,999

3,849

4,191

4,810

3,675

3,809

4,339

3,349

2,344

Income $100,000-$149,999

4,544

5,536

6,515

4,689

4,083

5,185

2,701

1,931

Income $150,000-$199,999

2,103

3,738

4,525

2,760

1,499

3,090

1,002

510

Income >$200,000

2,554

6,551

10,100

3,032

1,086

2,840

567

505

Unempl oyed

8,864

6,609

4,022

8,430

12,025

10,017

12,683

17,486

Hi s pa ni c Ori gi n (Any Ra ce)

233,742 307,530 2,087 21,255 300 24,899 17,501 55,944

Income2 Hous ehol ds by Income

43,395 21,426 21,057 29,626 41,868 30,366 35,184 19,227 27,235 80,136

Poverty3 Poverty Levels # Indi vi dua l s i n Poverty

11,748

10,258

5,446

7,462

14,337

13,162

19,250

25,120

% Indi vi dua l s i n Poverty

16.50%

14.90%

7.10%

9.70%

19.20%

17.60%

26.40%

34.70%

% Fa mi l i es i n Poverty

13.20%

5.60%

2.60%

6.90%

15.00%

15.80%

24.00%

30.40%

% Under 18 yea rs i n Poverty

23.10%

17.20%

3.20%

12.30%

29.40%

30.60%

40.00%

47.90%

Percent hi gh s chool gra dua te or hi gher

81.20%

91.80%

96.30%

83.60%

81.20%

80.50%

79.20%

Percent ba chel or's degree or hi gher

54.60%

72.70%

82.30%

41.40%

28.90%

16.90%

10.40%

106,783 18.26% 14.19% 25.46%

Education4

84.40% 42.00%

Housing5 Hous i ng Uni ts

37,470

43,730

40,231

37,741

33,036

39,890

34,946

31,643

Owner Occupi ed Hous i ng Uni ts

26.90%

29.50%

47.00%

55.00%

41.70%

35.40%

35.20%

18.50%

Renter Occupi ed Hous i ng Uni ts

64.10%

60.80%

48.80%

37.90%

44.30%

53.10%

50.00%

63.70%

9.00%

9.60%

4.20%

7.20%

14.00%

11.40%

14.80%

17.80%

298,687 36.20% 52.80% 11.00%

10.10%

5.80%

3.20%

9.60%

15.50%

11.50%

19.50%

28.30%

12.90%

Va ca nt Hous i ng Uni ts Unemployment6 Unempl oyment Ra te 1

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Data. Esri forecasts for 2011 and 2016

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Data. Esri forecasts for 2011 (Household Income)

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005-2009) from the American Community Survey (ACS). http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/DC+Data+and+Maps/DC+Data/Tables/Data+by+Geography/Wards/DC+Ward+Dat a+2005-2009+ACS

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005-2009) from the American Community Survey (ACS). http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/DC+Data+and+Maps/DC+Data/Tables/Data+by+Geography/Wards

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Esri forecasts for 2010 and 2015

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Esri forecasts for 2010

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The District is expected to experience steady population growth through 2016 reaching a population in excess of 620,000. With the population expected to increase, Wards 6 and 7 have actually lost residents from 2010 to 2011. The largest racial demographic in the District is Black, and the largest concentration resides in Ward 7 totaling 67,644. The second largest racial demographic is White, and the ward with the largest number of White individuals is Ward 3 with 64,625 White residents. The growing Hispanic population is most heavily concentrated in Ward 1 with 16,134 residents identifying themselves as being of Hispanic origin. A close second to Ward 1, Ward 4 has a Hispanic population totaling 14,520. The highest income earners are in Ward 3 with over 10,000 families earning an income greater than $200,000. The greatest concentration of unemployed persons resides in Ward 8 with 17,486 families reporting to be out of work. Ward 8 also has the largest concentration of those earning less than $15,000. Of all the areas, Ward 8 has the highest concentration of individuals, families, and children (those under 18 years old) living in poverty. Ward 3 leads all the Wards in terms of those who have earned bachelor’s degrees or higher with 82.3 percent. Ward 8 trails the District with 10.4 percent of the residents having earned bachelor’s degree or higher. Wards 5 and 6 are relatively close in the terms of those having earned a bachelor’s degree or higher at 28.9 percent. However, the percentage in these two wards is still below the city’s average of 42 percent. The largest concentration of vacant housing units is in Ward 8, reporting 17.8 percent. The highest unemployment rate is also in Ward 8 reporting a staggering 28.30 percent.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Needs Assessment Survey Results

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The following tables show the results from the UPO 2012 Community Needs Assessment survey displaying respondent demographic and needs-based data. The City-wide needs assessment survey results convey demographic data, needs-based data, and healthy neighborhood data. Immediately following the City-wide data, special population survey results are given on Hispanic and Senior populations.

Demographics of Survey Respondents The average survey respondent was a single black female having never been married between the age of 50 and 57 years old. The typical survey participant had a high school diploma and was employed full-time with an average income between $0 and $9,999.00 per year. During 2012 60% of the respondents received services including but not limited to food stamps, Medicaid (Medicare), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), job training and/or mental health services. It should be noted that 32% of all persons surveyed received no services during 2012. City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Gender 1500 1000 500 0 Male

Female

No Responses

Total

Total #

446

763

1231

Total %

36.2%

62.0%

1.8%

100.0%

City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Marital Status 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Married

Never Married/Sing le

Separated

Widowed

Divorced

Domestic Partnership

No Responses

Total #

262

611

126

Total %

21.3%

49.6%

6.7%

6.5%

10.2%

2.6%

3.0%

2012 Community Needs Assessment City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Age Range

No Responses 58 - 64 years-old 43 - 49 years-old 28 - 34 years-old 12 -19 years-old 0

100

150

200

250

12 -19 20 - 27 28 - 34 35 - 42 43 - 49 50 - 57 58 - 64 65+ yearsNo years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old old Responses Total % 5.4% 13.5% 12.1% 13.1% 14.9% 18.8% 11.0% 10.7% 0.5% Total #

166

149

161

184

231

136

132

City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Ethnicity 1%

1% 2% 2%

African American Hispanic

Caucasian

Asian Native American 78%

Other No Responses

2012 Community Needs Assessment City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Annual Household Income

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

360

197

186 121

City-Wide Needs Assesment Survey Result Age Living w/you Total # 219

218

Total % 251

181

177

147

128

303

133

2012 Community Needs Assessment City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Educational Level

Earned Master's Degree or greater

111

Earned Bachelor's Degree

142

Earned Associate's Degree

Some College

318

Completed Technical School

Some Technical School

Completed High School

348

Some High School

149

Completed Middle School

Some Middle School

24 0

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Employment Status No Responses

Other

Military

Homemaker

Retired

143

Student

Unemployed, not looking for work

Unemployed, looking for work

259

Self-employed

Employed part-time

150

Employed full-time

406 0

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2012 Community Needs Assessment City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Military Veteran 7%

6% Yes No No Responses

87%

City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Services Received 1% 5%

Unemployment Compensation

16%

TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) Food Stamps/SNAP

Head Start or Early Head Start

4% 1%

Alcohol/Drug Abuse Services Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Medicaid/Medicare

32%

Mental Health Services

19%

Jobs Skills Training College or Trade/Technical School Adult Education (GED, ABE) None

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Needs-Based Survey Results Regarding city-wide needs, 35% of respondents had no problem accessing services. Outlined barriers from the remaining 65% included a lack of knowledge regarding services and locations. Seven percent of respondents cited lack of childcare as a challenge. City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Challenges Getting Help Don't Know Where to go for Help Services Available During Limited Hours Poor Health/Disabilities Make It Difficult to Get There Pride (Don't Want To Ask For Help) Can't Read

16% 33%

Too Much Trouble/Red Tape

3% 4%

Had a Prior Bad Experience Lack of Child Care Drug or alcohol usage Inadequate Transportation/Too far Concern about Confidentiality

11% 4% 6%

4% 3% 1%

Not Eligible/Don't Qualify for Assistance None

2012 Community Needs Assessment City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Health Conditions

Learning Disability 3%

High Blood Pressure Diabetes Asthma

19%

2% 5%

Hearing Impairment/Deaf Physical Disability

5% 2% 25%

Vision Impairment/Blind

Overweight Mental Illness

11% 12%

10%

Alcohol/Substance Abuse None

City-Wide Needs Assessment Survey Results Needs

Food Clothing Housing/Shelter

12% 1%

16%

Transportation

10%

4% 3%

10%

5% 2%

Utilities (electricity, water) Employment Services

7% 10%

Child Care Services Immediate/Crisis Assistance Healthcare/Insurance Family/Individual Counseling Referrals/Information about assistance Income Tax Preparation Alcohol or Drug Abuse Counseling Work Readiness Skills Training None

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Needs-Based Survey Analysis

The following analysis displays the rates at which respondents chose positive response choices for each question; they include all positive response choices (i.e., “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” etc.) and compares the frequencies of those aggregate responses on a ward-by-ward basis. Which of the following do you need? Food

Clothing

Transportation

Employment Services

0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00

Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

Ward 7

Ward 8

Based on the need-based categories from the needs assessment survey data, four needs emerge in the District; they include food, clothing, transportation, and employment services. In particular, it stands out that 49 percent of residents in Ward 8 list food as their most pressing need, the highest among all wards. In addition, residents in all wards list food among the greatest of their needs, except those in Ward 3. Residents in Wards 4 through 8 list clothing, transportation, and employment services as among their needs in nearly equal proportions, around 20%, with residents in Wards 7 and 8 rating these needs slightly higher than those in other wards. Ward 1 residents list clothing as their second most pressing need (20%), followed by employment services and transportation. By comparison, residents in Wards 2 and 3 report the four needs the lowest among all wards. Which of the following health conditions do you or a household member suffer from? Asthma

Overweight

High Blood Pressure

0.40 0.20 0.00 Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

Ward 7

Ward 8

The physical health concerns of the District were also addressed in the survey. The results show that the major health conditions DC residents suffer from are asthma, obesity, and high blood pressure. High blood pressure is the most prevalent condition for DC residents, especially in Wards 6 through 8. Ward 8 has the highest percentage of overweight residents with 33 percent compared with the other wards. Also, 21percent of residents in Ward 5 suffer from asthma compared to 4 percent in Ward 2. Further, 21 percent of the residents in Ward 6 report being overweight while only 4 percent report being overweight in Ward 2. Overall, the survey suggests that residents in all wards suffer from high blood pressure and that residents report suffering from asthma and being overweight in all wards except Ward 2. 69

2012 Community Needs Assessment Since last year, which of the following do you receive? Medicaid/Medicare

Food Stamps/SNAP

0.50

0.00

Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

Ward 7

Ward 8

Though the majority of D.C. residents reported that they did not receive any of the services listed in our survey regarding their basic needs since last year, a substantial portion of them reported receiving food stamps (SNAP) and Medicare. More than one-fourth of those surveyed in Wards 6, 7, and 8 received food stamps since last year. A similar number of the residents in Wards 2, 4, and 8 received Medicare/Medicaid. Ward 3 residents appear to be predominantly food secure with only 4 percent of residents receiving food stamps since last year, the lowest among all wards. Generally speaking, across all wards, many residents have been receiving Medicaid/Medicare services since last year, and with the exception of Ward 3, many residents report receiving Food Stamps/SNAP since last year, most notably those in Wards 7 and 8. What problems do you face when trying to get help meeting your basic needs? Not Eligible/Don't Qualify for Assistance

Don't Know Where to go for Help

0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

Ward 7

Ward 8

When District residents try to get help for their basic needs, they face two difficulties: either they are “not eligible or not qualified” for assistance, or they “don’t know where to get help.” Approximately, one-fourth of the respondents in Wards 6 and 8 do not know where to go for assistance, and 23 percent of residents in Ward 1 have the same problem. Nearly one-fifth of respondents in Ward 6 are not eligible or qualified for assistance with meeting their needs. Generally, more than 10 percent of residents across all wards, except Ward 2, report not being eligible for assistance; likewise, more than 10 percent of residents in all wards, except Ward 3, report not knowing where to go for help, with the highest ratings being among residents in Wards 1, 6, and 8. The greatest disparity between residents needing assistance and not knowing where to go for help, is Ward 8 with a low number of respondents reporting not being eligible for assistance (13%), and the highest among all wards of not knowing where to get help (28%). 70

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Healthy Neighborhood Survey Results

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Healthy Neighborhood Survey Analysis

0.60 0.40

To what degree do you feel you are included in the decisions of what your neighborhood would look like in the future? 0.56 0.50 0.49 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.34

0.43

0.20 0.00 Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

Ward 7

Ward 8

Ward 3 has the highest percentage of residents who feel strongly about being involved in the decisions that affect the future design of their neighborhoods, representing 56%. Wards 1 and 2 also have relatively high percentages of respondents in terms of their feelings of inclusion. On the contrary, far fewer respondents in Ward 7 feel that they are included in the decisions that impact what their neighborhoods would look like in the future, with 34 percent. Generally, just under half of the individuals surveyed felt they were included in the decisions that shape the future of their neighborhoods. I feel safer in my neighborhood than I did last year. 0.80 0.60

0.57

0.54

0.51

0.44

0.40

0.38

0.49

0.42

0.43

Ward 7

Ward 8

0.20 0.00 Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

As for safety, the UPO survey data show that 38% of respondents in Ward 5 feel less safe than they did last year, the lowest among all wards. In contrast, the safest ward appears to be Ward 1 with the highest percentage of respondents feeling safer than they did last year at 57%. Generally, more than half of respondents in Wards 1, 2 and 3 feel safer than they did last year in their neighborhoods.

2012 Community Needs Assessment Public schools in my neighborhood offer a quality education.

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

0.60

0.51

0.46 0.36

Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

0.41

Ward 5

0.45

Ward 6

0.37

Ward 7

Ward 8

60 percent of Ward 3 respondents feel positively that their public schools offer a quality education. For residents in Wards 1, 2 and 6, fewer than half of those surveyed feel positively about the quality of education offered by public schools in their neighborhoods. Wards 4, 7 and 8, have lower percentages of the residents who possess positive attitudes about their neighborhood public school education, reporting less than 40%. What is your level of confidence in the City's ability to provide jobs? 0.80

0.63

0.61

0.62

0.60

0.42

0.52

0.49

Ward 5

Ward 6

0.42

0.45

Ward 7

Ward 8

0.40 0.20 0.00 Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

In Wards 1, 2, 3, and 5, more than half of the residents surveyed have confidence in the DC job market. The opposite is true in Wards 4, 6, 7, and 8 with fewer than 50 percent of the residents expressing confidence in the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to provide jobs.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Attitudes of Residents Regarding Healthy Neighborhood Status

Correlations

Involvement

Security

Education

Employment

Single Married African American White/ Caucasian Income: $0-9,999 Income: $65,00074,999 Income: $75,000100,000 Income: $100,000 Some High School Unemployed, looking for work

Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive

Positive

Positive Negative Negative

Generally, married residents are more likely to have relatively positive attitudes about their neighborhoods, expressing positive results on the healthy neighborhood survey questions, than single residents. Married residents are likely to feel involved in the decisions about their neighborhoodsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; future. They also tend to feel safer in their neighborhoods; have confidence in the quality of their public schools education; and have confidence in the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to provide jobs. However, single residents tend to have negative attitudes on all of the healthy neighborhood principles. As far as race is concerned, African American residents are more likely to express negative attitudes on the healthy neighborhood survey questions than White residents. African American respondents are more likely than White respondents to feel they are not included in the decisions of the future design of their neighborhoods; feel less safe in their neighborhoods than last year; have less confidence in the quality of education offered in their neighborhoods; and have less confidence in the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to provide jobs. Low-income District residents who earn less than $10,000 annually tend to have negative attitudes regarding the quality of education provided in their neighborhoods, safety in their neighborhoods, and job prospects in the city. Contrastingly, middle- to upper-income earners (those earning more than $65,000 annually) tend to have positive attitudes about education, safety, and job prospects. Unemployed District residents tend to have negative attitudes regarding being involved in the decisions that affect the future design of their neighborhoods. They also have negative attitudes toward safety, security, and job prospects, essentially all levels of healthy neighborhood principles.

Special Population Survey Reports Hispanic/Latino Special Population Survey Results

Though the District boasts the highest level of education for Hispanics in the nation, overall the majority of the Hispanic respondents to the Needs Assessment had only completed some middle school as the following chart conveys: 74

2012 Community Needs Assessment Hispanic 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Highest Education Level Completed by Respondents Education Level Response Rate Some Middle School Completed Middle School Some High School Completed High School Some Technical School Completed Technical School Some College Earned Associate's Degree Earned Bachelor's Degree Earned Master's Degree or greater Total

22.0% 19.4% 12.9% 18.1% 1.2% 0.0% 16.8% 3.8% 3.8% 1.2% 100%

About 10% of Hispanic respondents to the needs assessment described their employment status as unemployed and currently seeking employment. However, nearly 53% of Hispanic respondents report being employed either full-time or part-time. Hispanic 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Employment Status of Respondents Employment Status

Response Rate

Employed full-time Employed part-time Self-Employed Unemployed, looking for work Unemployed, not looking for work Student Retired Homemaker Military Other No Responses Total

33.7% 19.1% 3.3% 10.1% 3.3% 1.1% 15.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 12.3% 100%

Over 30% of survey respondents received Medicaid/Medicare within the last year, and over 18% received Foods Stamps/Snap, and 5% received Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) within the last year. None of the respondents had utilized Head Start or Early Head Start:

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Hispanic respondents to the Needs Assessment stated that their biggest need was food, followed by clothing:

2012 Community Needs Assessment

When seeking assistance, respondents stated that they face the following barriers; 29% of Hispanics experienced problems regarding where to go for services. This dilemma was also experienced by other D.C. residents. Hispanic 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Barriers to Getting Help from Respondents Barriers to Seeking Assistance Response Rate Don't Know Where to go for Help 29.7% Services Available During Limited Hours 6.7% Poor Health/Disabilities Make It Difficult to Get 2.7% There Pride (Don't Want To Ask For Help) 5.4% Can't Read 12.1% Too Much Trouble/Red Tape 12.1% Had a Prior Bad Experience 9.4% Lack of Child Care 8.1% Drug or alcohol usage 2.7% Inadequate Transportation/Too far 6.7% Concern about Confidentiality 8.1% Not Eligible/Don't Qualify for Assistance 8.1% None 43.2% Total 100%

More than 40% of Hispanic respondents reported the extent to which they are included in the future design of their neighborhood as, “very little” to, “not at all”.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Most of the Hispanic respondents agree that their neighborhoods offer quality education in the neighborhood.

Senior Special Population Survey Results

The greatest need cited by senior respondents (65 years old and older) to the UPO Needs Assessment was food. Respondents reported needing the least assistance with alcohol or drug counseling, family or individual counseling, and child care services:

Senior 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Needs of Respondents

18%

22%

Food Clothing

4% 1%

4% 4% 1%

5% 2%

10% 1%

10%

Housing/Shelter

Utilities (electricity, water) Employment Services Transportation Child Care Services

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The majority of the senior respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s to the UPO Needs Assessment have an income of less than $24,999.

A substantial number of District seniors report residing with youth under the age of 19 (15.7%). However, most report living alone (42%) or with someone older than 50 years-old (26.4%). Senior 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Household Size of Respondents What are the ages of those who live with Number you, if any? (Check all that apply) 0-4 years-old 7 5-9 years-old 2 10-14 years-old 4 15-19 years-old 9 20-24 years-old 4 25-29 years-old 7 30-39 years-old 5 40-49 years-old 6 Over 50 years-old 37 None 59 Total 140

Percentage 5.0% 1.4% 2.9% 6.4% 2.9% 5.0% 3.6% 4.3% 26.4% 42.1% 100.0%

Seniors respondents report receiving the following top three services last year: Medicare/Medicare (29.7%), Supplemental Security Income (13.7%), and Food Stamps/ SNAP (12.6%): 79

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Senior 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Services Received Last Year by Respondents Since last year, which of the following do you receive (check Number all that apply)? Mental Health Services 5 Alcohol/Drug Abuse Services 2 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 24 Medicaid/Medicare 52 Unemployment Compensation 8 TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) 5 Food Stamps/SNAP 22 Head Start or Early Head Start 1 Jobs Skills Training 3 College or Trade/Technical School 2 Adult Education (GED, ABE) 1 None 49 Total 175

Percentage 2.9% 1.1% 13.7% 29.7% 4.6% 2.9% 12.6% 0.6% 1.7% 1.1% 0.6% 28.0% 100.0%

Many seniors reported not knowing where to go for help, too much red tape, and not qualifying for assistance as problems faced when seeking assistance to meet their basic needs. In terms of health, chronic diseases are the leading cause of death among the elderly in the District.159 Senior respondents reported that they, or someone in their household, had diabetes or high blood pressure, more than any other health condition. The prevalence of these chronic conditions suggests that more health and wellness programs are necessary for the senior population.

Senior 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Health Conditions of Respondents 100 80 60 40 20 0

78 12

159

D.C. Department of Health District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment Vol. 1 & Vol. 2, Revised March 15, 2013.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Overall, a slight majority of seniors (28%) reported being somewhat included in future plans for their neighborhoods though many reported having very little inclusion (27%).

Senior 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Inclusion in Future Neighborhood Plans 7%

20%

To a Great Extent

18%

Somewhat Very Little 28%

27%

Not at All No Responses

Seniors agree that they feel safer in their neighborhood now than they did last year.

Senior 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Safety Over the Past Year 9%

16%

Strongly Agree Agree Undecided

21% 27% 23%

Disagree Strongly Disagree No Responses

Seniors were unsure about whether the public schools in their neighborhood offered a quality education. This could stem from that fact that many District seniors live alone and may not currently have contact with the public school system.

2012 Community Needs Assessment Senior 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Quality of Education 6%

Strongly Agree

12%

Agree 14%

25%

Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

34%

No Responses

Finally, though many of the seniors reported being reported retired, 45% do not have confidence in the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to provide jobs.

Senior 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results: Employment Accessiblity 9% 9%

Very Confident 22%

Somewhat Confident Confident Not Very Confident

9% 45%

Uncertain of my Confidence No Responses

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Healthy Neighborhood Report

2012 Community Needs Assessment

DC Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard

This report conveys the healthy neighborhood scorecard grades, which details each category under the four principles of healthy neighborhoods (civic, social, physical, and economic) by displaying grades to gauge neighborhood health. Next, this report also expands upon the healthy neighborhood principles by “hearing” what District residents say regarding those principles as they apply to their neighborhoods through focus group discussions.

According to the “Principles of Healthy Neighborhoods” included in the 2009 UPO Community Needs Assessment: Principles of [h]ealthy [n]eighborhoods . . . work together to affect sustainable social change through a comprehensive community development system that integrates civic, social, physical, and economic development to create spaces and relationships where individuals live, work, raise families, and participate in the community. (101) Although there are eleven principles upon which to determine whether a community is healthy or not, we have evaluated ten of the principles. The category of “Vision,” included under the Civic was not included in this study because of a lack of available data at the ward level and the closeness of interpretation to “Collaboration,” already included in this study.

WARD

Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard Summary 1 2 3 4 5 6

CIVIC Leadership and Collaboration SOCIAL Education, Culture, Health PHYSICAL Safety and Environment ECONOMIC Economy

B-

B+

C-

B-

C-

B-

B+

B-

C+

B-

B+

A-

B-

C+

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

The following are definitions of the principles used in the healthy neighborhood reports, including the scorecard and focus groups: • Civic o Leadership: “Healthy neighborhoods value and cultivate skilled leadership and an active citizenry . . . [and] possess a complement of local organizations, civic associations, religious communities, and/or community development corporations composed of the diverse, local array of racial, ethnic and economic constituencies,” 160 according the Principles of a Healthy Neighborhoods. For the 160

Principles of Healthy Neighborhoods (2006, Jan. 6). Retrieved from http://www.virginialisc.org/pdf/UPS/PrinciplesofHealthyNeighborhoods.pdf

2012 Community Needs Assessment

•

purpose of this study, we evaluate qualitative and quantitative data to measure the effectiveness of community leaders in both the focus groups and the Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard. o Collaboration: Healthy neighborhoods value the effectiveness of crosscollaboration and communication between community entities including “government, private, philanthropic, and independent sectors for neighborhood association formation and growth, local leadership development, and holistic community development initiatives.” 161 We capture data that discusses and measures the accessibility that residents have to engage those leaders regarding the design of their neighborhoods. Social o Services: Healthy neighborhoods maintain the highest standard of health and human services. The Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard (HNS) conveys data regarding the health of residents. Focus group participants discuss their health concerns including access to quality healthcare. Focus group discussions also capture qualitative data that enumerates the needs for access to and improvements in health and human services to residents. 162 o Education: Healthy neighborhoods place an extraordinary value on education; thus, educational institutions, social structures, and parents provide support to local schools and training centers to provide access to and improve the quality of education. Focus group participants share their concerns about access to quality education in their neighborhoods. The HNS measures the confidence residents have in public education, access to educational institutions and libraries, and education performance among secondary students. o Culture: Measurements determine how well the city offers and cultivates artistic, cultural, recreational, and spiritual programs that enhance quality of life. 163 The HNS measures access to cultural enrichment activities to young children and access that residents have to recreational centers and pools. Physical o Safety: Healthy neighborhoods create a safe and crime-free environment as well as “safe and nurturing venues for children.” 164 Focus group participants discuss their safety needs and concerns, and the HNS measures how safe residents feel, mortality rates, and crime rates. o Environment: Healthy neighborhoods “manage and invest in local properties and the common environment to maintain the community’s aesthetic and physical quality.” 165 Focus group participants share their environmental concerns and the HNS reports on the carbon footprint of vehicular use, the condition of trees in the District, and vacant housing.

161

ibid ibid 163 ibid 164 ibid 165 ibid 162

2012 Community Needs Assessment

â&#x20AC;˘

166 167

ibid ibid

o Housing: Healthy neighborhoods promote assets and wealth-building, provide opportunities for families, and ensure the quality of service delivery of adequate housing support/services. 166 Focus group discussions highlight housing concerns of District residents. Economic o Economy: Healthy communities have an integrated economic relationship with localities that provides for both producers and consumers and generates economic opportunity either through the workforce or through entrepreneurial activity. Focus group participants share their concerns regarding the state of the District economy and access to opportunities to attain self-sufficiency, including entrepreneurial support concerns. The HNS measures residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; confidence in job availability, childcare expenditures, net worth, unemployment, and poverty. o Business Diversity: Healthy communities possess a complement of retail and professional services. 167 Focus group participants share their concerns regarding access to healthy food choices among other concerns.

2012 Community Needs Assessment DC Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard

Civic By Ward

Residents’ inclusion in future design of neighborhoods

B-

COLLABORATION Community Group Engagement OVERALL

B B

C+ B-

C+ B

B B

A B+

B D

C C

Social By Ward

EDUCATION Quality of Education in Public Schools Access to Educational Institutions & libraries DC CAS Math Proficiency

B+ C+ D

B A A

A B A

C C+ D

C+ BF

B BD

C C F

DC CAS Reading Proficiency Access to Childcare Centers

F C

B A

A C+

D B-

F C+

F B-

F C

CULTURE Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities offered by Childcare Centers

C-

B+

C+

B+

D B C-

BC+ B-

A CB

F B C-

F B+ D

D C C-

F AD

F BD

Perception of Safety

A-

B+

C+

C-

Mortality Due to Accidents

A-

C-

B+

Violent and Property Crimes

C+

C-

A-

B-

ENVIRONMENT Vacant Housing Units Vehicle Registrations

CB+

C A-

A F

C B-

B B

B C+

B+ B+

AB 1

BB2

AB+ 3

B+ B4

CC 5

C C+ 6

B C+ 7

CC+ 8

Confidence in City's Ability to Provide jobs

A-

C-

C+

C-

Access to affordable Childcare Net worth

B+ B

A A

BB+

C B-

BC+

Unemployment

A-

B-

Poverty level

B-

A-

B+

C+

B-

C-

OVERALL

B-

B+

A-

B-

C+

LEADERSHIP

Access to DC Public Parks and Recreation Centers HEALTH Residents in Excellent Health Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers) OVERALL

Physical By Ward SAFETY

Trees in Good/Excellent Condition OVERALL

Economic By Ward

UPO Office of Strategic Positioning, Community Planning and Research Division, (October 2013). Basis for scores is outlined in the Methodology section of this report. *This grade does not reflect federal parks and recreation centers in this ward, only DC public parks and recreation centers. For more information on sources of individual categories, please see the appendix, “Healthy Neighborhood References”

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Civic Overall Category Score: No Ward scored an A overall in the civics category. The highest grade

was a B+ earned by Ward 5. This principle looks at two factors:

Leadership: Scores were determined by the degree to which respondents reported positive

response choices regarding their feeling of inclusion in decisions that impact the future designs of their neighborhoods. Ward 7 residents are least likely to feel included in decisions that impact their neighborhoods, earning a score of F, while residents in Ward 3 are most likely to feel included in decisions that impact their neighborhoods, earning an A. We determined that community engagement between city officials and community groups throughout the District represents collaborative efforts between the two entities. Although the list is not exhaustive of all community groups in the District, we use these data as a sample of community groups known to be listed by the District government as part of its engagement efforts. 168 Ward 5 scored the highest grade of A with the most community groups listed, 40, representing a ratio of .54 community groups per 1,000 residents. Ward 6 had the lowest score with a C-, listing 11 community groups, representing a ratio of .14 community groups per 1,000 residents. Wards 1, 4, and 7 received Bs, indicating a likelihood of an above-average level of collaboration between resident community groups and District government officials in those wards. Collaboration:

Social Overall Category Scores: On average, the grades for this category were not high with three

wards receiving Ds, three receiving Cs, and two receiving Bs. Ward 3 scored the highest grade with a B. In this category, we examine education, culture, and health to determine how each ward fared with respect to the social principle. Five education factors were examined. Quality of Schools: To measure this category, we recorded the results from the 2012 UPO

Needs Assessment survey that asked respondents to rate their level of agreement with the following statement: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Public schools in my neighborhood offer a quality education.â&#x20AC;? The scores represent the percentages of those who chose positive response choices. According to the survey, residents in Ward 3 reported positively that they agree that their neighborhood schools offer a quality education, earning an A, the highest score among all wards in the city. Likewise, Wards 4, 5, 7, and 8 scored Cs, which demonstrates that an average number of respondents agree positively that their schools offer quality education. Access to Educational Institutions and Libraries: In this category, we examined the ratio of the number of educational institutions and libraries 169 to the population in each ward to reveal the access to these institutions per 1,000 residents. Thus, the greater the number of institutions per 168

Community Groups listed on the Mayor's Office of Community Engagement website. Retrieved 8/26/2013 from http://one.dc.gov/page/ward-1-community-groups 169 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. esri population forecasts for 2012

2012 Community Needs Assessment

resident (representing the highest ratios), the greater the access residents have to those institutions. Wards 2, 3, 5, and 6 provide above-average access to educational institutions and libraries, with Ward 2 offering nearly 6 institutions per 1000 residents in that ward, the highest among all wards. No Ward scored a grade lower than a C in this category. Ward 8 offers the fewest educational institutions and libraries in the city with 1.2 institutions per 1,000 residents. In these categories, we examine 2012 DC CAS overall proficiency data in each ward and determine scores based on the performance proximity of schools in each ward to achieving a goal of 70 percent proficiency. Therefore, an A represents meeting the goal of proficiency, 70 percent. Wards 5, 7, and 8 scored Fs in both reading and math proficiency scores, with Ward 8 earning the lowest proficiency score at 27.2 percent in math proficiency and 25.8 percent in reading proficiency. However, Wards 2 and 3 earned above-averages grades in both math and reading proficiency scores. Only Ward 3 exceeded the 70 percent proficiency goal, scoring 82.2 percent in math proficiency and 80.4 percent in reading proficiency, earning A's in both. Math and Reading Proficiency:

Access to Childcare Centers: The availability of childcare centers indicates the rate at which

children have access to early educational opportunities. In this category, we examine access to childcare centers by determining the ratio of the number childcare centers for children under the age of 5-years-old to the population of 5-year-olds in each ward. Only Ward 2 scored an A in this category with 28.1 childcare centers per 1,000 residents 5-years-old and younger, while Ward 8 (scoring a C) has the fewest childcare centers with 4.5 centers per 1,000 residents 5years-old and younger. Access to Out-of-School Arts and Crafts: In this category, we examine access to out-of-school

cultural activities offered to children enrolled in childcare, 5-years-old and younger. In a survey conducted by the University of the District of Columbia (2010), 170 it was revealed that Ward 2 contained the greatest number of childcare centers that offered out-of-school arts and crafts activities, earning that ward an A. Most wards earned Cs, with Wards 5, 6, and 8 earning above-average grades, indicating that these wards provide adequate opportunities for out-ofschool activities for their young residents who attend childcare centers. Access to DC Public Parks and Recreational Centers: In this category, we examine the ratio of

the number of residents in each ward to the number of parks, pools, and recreational centers listed on the District of Columbiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website, 171 by ward. Although Ward 2 shows a grade of F, it is worthy of note that the grade does not reflect access to federally owned parks and recreational centers in that ward, including the National Mall. Wards 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 have above-average access to DC public parks, pools, and recreational centers. 170

University of the District of Columbia, Center for Applied Research. (2010). 2010 District of Columbia childcare market rates and capacity utilization. 171 DC Department of Parks and Recreation website. Retrieved 9/26/2013 from http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=5&query=AND{'11'.EX.'8'}

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Residents in Excellent Health: For health, we examine whether residents perceived their health

as excellent. 172 Ward grades were determined by measuring ward residents’ self-perception of excellent health when compared to the national rate of 32.7 percent of persons who rate their health as excellent. According to a behavioral health survey in the DC Department of Health’s (DOH) “District of Columbia Health Needs Assessment” (2013), Ward 3 had the highest percentage of residents who rated their health as “excellent” with 36.8 percent, earning a grade of A. However, very few people in Wards 4, 5, 7, and 8 rated their health as excellent, each earning Fs with Ward 4 having the fewest residents rating their health as excellent at a staggering 4.1 percent. The behavior health survey in the DOH health assessment also reveals the percentage of residents in the District who rated themselves as heavy drinkers. The national rate of persons who identify as heavy drinkers is 5.1 percent; this is the rate that District residents are compared to for grading in this report. For the purpose of this scorecard, those wards with high percentages of residents who reported heavy drinking received low grades, and those wards with low percentages of heavy drinkers received high grades. Ward 3 possesses the highest number of residents who rate themselves as heavy drinkers in the District with 8.6 percent, earning a C-, while Ward 7 possesses the fewest residents who rate themselves as heavy drinkers with 2.4 percent, earning a grade of A-. Heavy drinking is defined as having two or more alcoholic drinks per day for males and one or more drinks a day for females. 173 Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers):

Physical Overall Category Score: No ward scored an A in this category, but the lowest grade given was a

C to Ward 5. The factors for this principle examined both safety as well as the environment to present an overall picture of the conditions that affect the quality of life of residents in each Ward. Safety Perception: In the UPO 2012 Needs Assessment survey, respondents were asked to

what degree they felt safer in their neighborhoods than they did last year. We used this factor to determine residents’ positive perception of safety. Residents in Wards 5, 7, and 8 report feeling slightly less safe—earning Cs—than those in Wards 1, 2, 3, and 6. Accordingly, fewer residents in Ward 5 report positive response choices regarding feeling safer than last year (42.3 percent) than residents in Ward 1 where 57.3 percent report positively that they feel safer than last year, the highest percentage in the city. Mortality Due to Accidents: In this section, we examine the mortality rates due to accidents

reported in the DOH “District of Columbia Health Needs Assessment” (2013). For the purpose

172

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-133.pdf 173 District of Columbia Department of Health (2013, 15 March). District of Columbia community needs assessment, vols 1-2

2012 Community Needs Assessment

of this scorecard, high mortality rates due to accidents are represented by low grades, and viceversa for low rates of mortality due to accidents. Hence, Ward 5 earns the lowest grade of Crepresenting the highest percentage of mortality due to accidents with 17.5 percent. Contrastingly, Ward 3 is the safest ward in the city as far as accidents are concerned, with an accident mortality rate of 7.1 percent. Violent and Property Crime: Crime levels, particularly for violent and property crimes, are also

factors used to determine safety grades as these can have a major impact on the level of safety felt by residents. In this category, we base grades on the number of combined violent and property crimes reported during 2012 by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.174 Residents in Wards 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 have experienced decreasing property and violent crimes, with Ward 3 reporting 1,780 violent and property crimes, earning a grade of A. Wards 1, 2, and 6, however, have experienced an uptick of these types of crimes, especially in Ward 2 with 6,517 violent and property crimes reported, earning a grade of C-, representing the ward with the highest rate of violent and property crimes. Environment Vacant Housing Units: Vacant housing includes houses that are considered to be described as

“abandoned” which may cause environmental issues such as rodent infestation, fire hazards, squatters, and vagrancy, among others. In this report, we determine vacant housing ratios from the number of vacant houses in each ward against the total housing stock in each ward. 175 Ward 3 has the fewest vacant houses per 1,000 houses in that ward, earning a grade of A, and Wards 6, 7, and 8 have above-average numbers of vacant houses. Vehicle registrations: This measure indicates the population rate of residents who are age of

18-years-old or older and who have registered vehicles in the District. Fewer cars could lessen the carbon footprint in the District and could also alleviate parking issues and traffic congestion. Ward 3 has the greatest number of registered vehicles in the District, 60 percent, earning a grade of F, while Ward 2 has fewer residents age 18 or older who own registered vehicles, 30%, earning a grade of A-.176 Condition of Trees: The number of trees in good or excellent condition could be an indication

of improved air quality in the District and may indicate greater green space. In this category, we rely on data from the Urban Institutes, “State of Washington, DC’s Neighborhoods” report. Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 have an above-average green canopy with Ward 1 having the largest percentage of trees in good or excellent condition (83.5 percent), earning a grade of A. Ward 8 has the lowest percentage of trees in good or excellent (66 percent), earning a grade of C-. 177 174

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. Number of Crimes that Occurred Between 01/01/2012 and 12/30/2012. Retrieved September 6, 2013 http://crimemap.dc.gov/Report.aspxfrom 175 U.S. Census Bureau. (2010), Summary File 1 176 Comey, J. Narducci, C. & Tatian, P. A. (2010). State of Washington, DC's neighborhoods, 2010. Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/publications/412333.html 177 ibid

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Economic Overall Category Scores: Wards 7 and 8 both scored Ds, the lowest grade in this healthy

neighborhood principle. Ward 3 scored the highest grade, an A-. That ward received an A or Ain every factor examined to determine grades for this principle.

In this category, we assess the responses to the 2012 Needs Assessment regarding respondents’ confidence in the District’s ability to provide jobs. Respondents who reported positive response choices are represented in this category. Half of the wards (Wards 4, 6, 7, and 8) scored Cs, the lowest grades in the city. These wards also tend to be the wards with the high levels of unemployment. Wards 4 and 7 had the fewest number of respondents who reported positively regarding their level confidence in the city’s ability to provide jobs, around 42 percent each, earning the lowest grades in the city, C-s. Wards 1, 2 and 3 report more residents than other wards who report positively of their confidence in the city’s ability to provide jobs, around 62%, each earning A-s. Ability to Provide Jobs:

Access to Affordable Childcare: In this category, access to affordable childcare throughout the

District is examined. We define affordable childcare as the average amount residents pay per ward against the District’s average of $654.00 per month,178 and for the purpose of this report, we assume that the average expenditure is at least what childcare costs—on average—in the District.179 Therefore, residents who pay at least the average cost for childcare are assumed to be those who can afford to pay that amount. By contrast, those who pay less than the District’s average childcare costs are assumed to be those who may not be able to afford to pay that average expense and may be in need of or are receiving some type of assistance, such as Early Head Start or Head Start, among other forms of support, to make up the difference. Wards 5, 7, and 8 received the lowest scores (Cs) indicating that there may be some residents in need of or are receiving some type of assistance to meet the District’s average childcare expense. To be exact, Ward 5 residents pay on average $603 per month on childcare, earning a grade of C; Ward 7, $384 per month, earning a grade of C-; and Ward 8, $374 month, also earning a grade of C-, the lowest grade in the city. Conversely, Ward 3 residents pay on average $1,110 per month for childcare, well above the District’s average and the highest in the city, earning a grade of A. Net Worth: The average net worth in the District is $447,984.

180

Wards with the highest grades, Wards 2, 3 and 4, each have an average net worth that is greater than the District’s average. Ward 3 earned an A, where the average net worth is $949,000. Ward 7, where average net worth is $254,903, and Ward 8, where average net worth is $114,286, received grades of C and D respectively, clearly among the lowest average net worth scores in the District. 178

U.S. Census Bureau. ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2017; Childcare Spending data are derived from the 2010 and 2011 consumer expenditure surveys 179 The Districts’ average childcare expense of $654 per month is used to determine the benchmark of $1,020 per month, representing a grade of A. 180 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary file 1.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Unemployment Rates: Next, we convey the unemployment rate in each ward against a national

rate of 7.1 percent. Ward 8 received a grade of F, with an unemployment rate of 20.7% for 2012, far higher than the national average. Wards 5 and 6 both scored a C+ with unemployment averages at 11 percent and 13.7 percent, respectively. Ward 3 received the highest grade of A with an unemployment rate of 2.1 percent.

Poverty Levels: Finally, the poverty level in each ward is rated against the national rate of 15

percent. Greater poverty may be linked to a bleaker economic outlook. Ward 8 scored a D because the poverty level for individuals at 34 percent is more than double the national rate. Ward 5 scored a C+ with a poverty rate of 19.2 percent, and Ward 7 scored a C- with a rate of 26.4 percent. Comparatively, Ward 3, with a poverty rate nearly 50% less than the national average at 7%, scored an A.

DC Healthy Neighborhoods Focus Groups/Interviews Interviews Civic

• • •

Participants in Wards 1, 4-8 expressed that elected officials do not ensure that the needs of the community are met and are only seen “when it’s time to vote again.” Wards 2 and 3 residents stated that their leaders ensured that their needs were met. Unlike residents from Wards 1, and 4-8, residents interviewed from Wards 2 and 3 stated that they were very informed about future neighborhood plans and knew who to contact regarding any issues because they receive a wealth of information by way of email list-serves and community meetings.

Social

•

In response to what social supports they thought people in their community needed, the most common responses across all wards were additional job training programs that lead to lucrative employment, mentoring programs for youth and adults, recreational activities for youth, and programs and activities for the elderly. One issue that was inconsistent across wards was whether quality education was available. For instance, in Ward 4 the focus group stated that public education in D.C. was not quality and that better teachers, sports programs, and classes were needed. However, participants from one of the Ward 6 focus groups expressed that though there may be some faults, quality education was available in the District.

Physical

•

Safety was another area of inconsistency. For instance, Ward 7 residents stated that they were not safer in their neighborhoods than one year ago. Conversely, residents in Ward 5 expressed feeling safer than one year ago citing, in part, greater police presence. Though residents from Wards 2 and 3 stated that they are safe, those residents expressed a need for increased patrol, especially foot patrol, by officers. 95

•

2012 Community Needs Assessment

With respect to the environment, the top concern was a lack of clinics and health services in the District. Ward 7 focus group participants stated that clinics do exist and have “substandard conditions.”

Economic

• • •

Participants stated the following support services were necessary for individuals in their community who desired to start a business: mentoring programs, business education, money management courses, and loan services. When asked what type of training programs should be offered, job training (including training for trades), interview skills and job placement, was cited most frequently. Participants stated that young families with limited income desiring to rent or purchase a home need: first-time homebuyers programs that educate them on the process; assistance researching locations; and lenders that are willing to provide assistance. Residents interviewed in Wards 2 and 3 expressed that because the cost of housing in their community is very expensive, a working class family with limited income would not have many options.

Across wards, there were some similarities but also some striking differences. Overwhelmingly, the participants in Wards 1, 4-8 expressed that elected official do not ensure that the needs of their communities are met and politicians are only seen “when it’s time to vote again.” Another point of accord in those wards was that participants did not feel included in the future design of their neighborhood. One participant stated that “it seems like the blueprints are laid or in the works prior to holding any sort of community meeting” to elicit feedback. On the other hand, Wards 2 and 3 residents stated that their leaders ensured that their needs were met. Wards 2 and 3 residents also stated that they are included in future neighborhood plans. Several of the residents interviewed from Wards 2 and 3 stated that they were very informed about changes and noteworthy events in their neighborhoods and knew who to contact regarding any issues because they receive a wealth of information by way of email list-serves and community meetings. In response to what social supports participants thought people in their community needed, the most common responses across all wards were additional job training programs that lead to lucrative employment, mentoring programs for youth and adults, recreational activities for youth, and programs and activities for the elderly. One issue that was inconsistent across wards was whether quality education was available. For instance, in Ward 4, the focus group stated that public education in D.C. was not quality and that better teachers, sports programs, and classes were needed. However, participants from one of the Ward 6 focus groups expressed that though there may be some faults, quality education was available in the District. One participant stated that, “nobody who is really reaching out for education can say they can’t find some sort of training [in the District].” The group expressed that there was a need for community responsibility when it comes to education because the “systems starts with us,” one participant said. In Ward 5, participants 96

2012 Community Needs Assessment

stated that education was “lopsided” and that children only receive quality education if they attend certain schools such as charter schools, in the District. The group also expressed that many adults are illiterate and need resources to learn how to read. A Ward 2 interviewee stated that, students in her neighborhood schools “often don’t meet the competitive level of college readiness” to succeed at universities. Though most of the interviewees from Ward 3 agreed that the District did provide quality education, one interviewee stated that the city does not support higher education for poorer residents; “quality education is left to private institutions, and there is an overreliance on public charter schools,” she said. Safety was another area of inconsistency. For instance, Ward 7 residents stated that they did not feel safer in their neighborhoods than one year ago. That focus group cited witnessing kids stealing from stores, seeing drugs sold in broad daylight, and the increased presence of attack dogs as contributing to the lack of safety. Conversely, residents in Ward 5 expressed feeling safer than one year ago, citing wealthier families moving in their neighborhoods resulting in more businesses and greater police presence and resourceful residents who organize and demand greater police presence as contributing to greater safety. Though residents from Wards 2 and 3 stated that they feel safe, those residents expressed a greater need for patrol, especially foot patrol, by officers. With respect to the environment, the top concern was a lack of clinics and health services in the District. Ward 7 focus group participants stated that clinics that do exist and have “substandard conditions.” Residents also expressed concern with the overabundance of trash in their neighborhood. A common theme expressed overall in the focus groups was that many residents do not know where to go for certain programs and services they may need to help meet their needs. Participants also expressed that social service and community agencies do a poor job of working together to ensure that District residents receive necessary assistance. Special Population Focus Groups/Interviews Hispanic Focus Group Results

Group Demographics The focus group was held the morning of August 14, 2013, from 9:30 am – 11:30 am at CHANGE, Inc. The group was made up of Hispanic individuals. Many participants were Spanish speakers and spoke English as a second language. An interpreter assisted this focus group. Key Findings The participants were asked questions in four categories: civics, social, physical, and economic. With respect to whether community leaders ensure their needs were met, the group stated that their political leaders only visit their communities during elections and that there was a lack of bilingual political leaders in the Hispanic community. 97

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The focus group participants also expressed that they were not included in the future design of their neighborhoods because they were not notified of meetings about neighborhood plans; their voices were not valued; many meetings were not in Spanish; meeting venues were not in accessible locations or only advertised via the internet. In response to what social supports participants thought people in their community needed, the focus group stated: affordable housing, health care services, child care, and safe parks, additional police in the neighborhoods and additional Metro bus and train services. With respect to education, the focus group expressed that overall education in D.C. was good but that many residents face “poverty and obstacles” to obtaining education. Mr. Nunez expressed that Hispanics were not benefiting from many of the changes to their neighborhoods and that they should “be able to enjoy living in DC and not considered to only work in DC.” When asked whether they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago one participant stated that there are often numerous uninvited guests entering his apartment building and gang activity at local parks so parents were apprehensive about allowing their children to frequent those parks. The top health concern cited by the group was a lack of health clinics. The Hispanic focus group participants expressed being disconnected from the political process, especially since many leaders are not Hispanic, and expressed a language barrier for many Hispanic residents who are native Spanish speakers. Safety was a major concern for this population. They expressed feeling unsafe in their apartment building, parks, and schools. Finally, the group stated the following training programs should be offered: • Job training (various trades) • Computer Training • ESL • Youth classes on money, credit and budgeting. Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy • UPO should revisit marketing strategies to ensure that residents are aware of the various programs offered. Include strategies aimed at the Hispanic population. • Increase the number of health clinics accessible to Hispanic residents and ensure they provide high quality health services. • Increase the number of adult education programs providing ESL. • Increase programs that target gang members or potential gang and create programs that provide mediation for gang disputes. • Increase police presence, and develop a partnership between neighborhoods and police officers. • Create leadership development programs that help train members of the community for leadership positions and inform the community about their rights.

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Youth Focus Group Report

Group Demographics The youth focus group was conducted on August 7, 2013 in the afternoon at the Thurgood Marshall Center which is located in Ward 1. The participants were part of World Missions summer youth program. Key Findings The participants were asked questions in four categories: civics, social, physical, and economic. Civics The first two questions concerned civics. Participants were first asked whether they thought leaders in their communities (political, religious, and community organizations) ensure that their needs are met. The group expresses that political leaders ensure that their needs are met. One participant cited an example when there was an issue in the neighborhood with the placement of a bus stop and a political leader assisted in a resolution. The group expressed that political leaders do a poor job of communicating with one another; in particular the group stated that ANC commissions did not communicate well among one another. Participants were next asked if they were included in the future design of their neighborhood. The focus group participants agreed that they were not included in future designs of their neighborhood. The planned trolleys on H Street were cited as neighborhood development they did not have a voice in. The group stated that there does not seem to be a way to formally address an opinion about planned developments. One participant stated that they “see small movements” by certain groups voicing opinions about developments, but was not aware of any formal way of expressing an opinion about future city developments. Social Next, the focus group was asked questions regarding social issues. In response to what social supports they thought people in their community needed, the group stated: • After school programs that provide tutoring • Safe recreation centers • Childcare centers In terms of child care, one participant stated that he saw many parents in his neighborhood that could not progress in life or obtain good jobs because they lacked access to affordable childcare. When asked whether quality education was available in their neighborhoods, the group had a mixed reaction. Several youth participants expressed that quality education is lacking because class sizes are too large, and there is a lack of mentoring, tutoring, and after school programs. Other youth participants expressed positive educational experiences. Several students cited positive experiences at private schools. One student discussed programs offered at his charter school that have contributed positively to his education. For instance, one student discussed a program where the students came up with ideas for business and were taught about how to set 99

2012 Community Needs Assessment

the business up; he expressed that the student who were part of this program were very engaged. The mixed responses indicate that quality differed greatly for the youth depending on where they attended school. Physical Questions regarding the physical environment were posed to the focus group. When asked whether they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago, the participants stated they felt safer because there was a decrease in shootings and an increase in police presence. The top health and environmental concerns cited by the group was access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Overall, health and environmental issues were not a significant concern for this youth focus group. Economic Finally, focus group participants were asked three questions related to economic conditions. Participants stated the following support services were necessary for individuals in their community who desired to start a business: • Access to funds • Training programs The group stated the following training programs should be offered: • Computer training • More arts focused training • Culinary Arts programs • Programs that help focus towards a career Finally, participants stated that young families with limited income desiring to rent or purchase a home needed financing. One youth participant stated that she did not see homeownership as a viable option for many in her neighborhood because “they don’t have jobs.” The youth focus group participants did not express feeling disconnected from the political process as adults in other wards expressed, but they appeared to be unaware of any formal way to be involved in future plans and changes in their neighborhoods. Youth focus group participants are experiencing greater safety because of increased police presence in their neighborhoods. The youth participants did not appear to have much information about or be keen on issues related to health and the environment. Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy • UPO should revisit marketing strategies to ensure that residents are aware of the various programs offered. • Increase mentoring programs that will assist youth in choosing a career. • Create programs in partnership with schools that will enhance the learning experience for students. Participants expressed a desire for increasing training programs in Information Technology and the arts. 100

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Disabled Population Focus Group Report

Group Demographics This focus group was conducted for persons in the city with disabilities. The focus group was held in the afternoon, between 11:00 am -1:00 pm at the Martin Luther King, Jr. library. Key Findings The participants were asked questions in four categories: civics, social, physical, and economic. Civics Participants were first asked whether they thought leaders in their communities (political, religious, and community organizations) ensure that their needs are met. One disabled participant, who was a Ward 1 resident cited Jim Graham as an elected official who ensures needs are met because he has helped keep rent control and has been “great for lower income residents.” Overall, the group expressed that leadership does a poor job of providing citizens with information about available services and that there is no centralized location to give residents all the information needed when a life event or crises is experienced. Also, the group expressed that leadership appears insensitive to the needs of residents with disabilities. One participant who was vision impaired recalled an experience with the DC courts, where she said her “needs and disability were ignored.” Participants were next asked if they were included in the future design of their neighborhoods to which they responded “no”. The group stated that they do not receive information about planned developments for the city and information is not filtered down to District residents. Social Next, the focus group was asked questions regarding social issues. In response to what social supports participants thought disabled persons in their communities needed, the group stated: • Job training focused on marketable skills • Networking programs that will assist in locating jobs • Funding/startup costs for small businesses • Mentorship programs to help people with jobs and life skills • Programs that promote flexible working arrangements for parents so they are not disadvantaged in the workplace • Parenting groups so parents can provide support systems for one another • Services that assist with racial and disability discrimination in the workforce • Referral services between non-profits and need based organizations The group emphasized that networking and mentorship programs were important because in finding good employment it is “all about who you know,” as one participant remarked. Those programs would assist residents in making the necessary connections needed to find suitable employment. With respect to education the group expressed that quality education was not available for blind children. One participant stated that Braille services were not provided so those “children 101

2012 Community Needs Assessment

do not learn how to read.” At the high school level, the group stated the city needs to “reengage students” who get their GED and implement programs to mentor youth in terms of education. Physical Two questions regarding the physical environment were posed to the focus group. When asked whether they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago many participants stated that there has not been much change in a year, but the city feels safer than it did a few years ago, citing increased police presence. There were several factors cited by the group that contributed to feeling unsafe at times: • More crime (pick pocketing, thieves, etc.) on the Metro trains and buses • Increased panhandling, begging • Thieves that are more aggressive In terms of safety on using public transportation, especially, the group stated that more security is needed when the buses and trains get overcrowded. Many participants expressed that it feels more unsafe because it is easier for pickpockets to steal. The top health and environmental concerns cited by the group were: • Rat and rodent issues • Unclean water reservoirs • Uncollected garbage • Locating quality fruits, vegetables, and meats at affordable prices The most significant health concern was access to health facilities. The concern was for a lack of clinics for residents who have non-emergency issues, such as checking their blood pressure, because they do not want to visit an emergency room. One participant had also experienced a delay in the Medicaid recertification process resulting in a gap in receiving necessary medications. Economic Finally, focus group participants were asked three questions related to economic conditions. Participants stated the following support services were necessary for individuals in their communities who desired to start a business: • Services for aspiring entrepreneurs that are not computer literate • Social media training • Funding • Assistance cutting through red tape and bureaucracy • Programs to help obtain equipment, computers, etc. The group stated that disabled persons can receive computers and other equipment from Rehabilitative Service Administration, but the process is lengthy. 102

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The group was asked what training programs should be offered and agreed that many programs were available; residents just had to “be resourceful” in locating programs useful to them. Though the participants could cite several examples of politicians who ensured their needs were met, overall participants felt disconnected from the political process and appeared unaware of any meaningful way to effect change and to have their voices heard. As disabled citizens, they expressed that leadership does not understand issues germane to them. Meetings regarding neighborhood plans or changes should be held specifically for disabled residents. Though participants expressed greater safety than in years prior, many “nuisance” crimes are still occurring, especially on public transportation. Participants were unaware of the various farmers markets or places to obtain fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats at affordable prices. Finally, participants stated that young families with limited income desiring to rent or purchase a home need: • Additional resources for individuals who do not have Section 8 vouchers • Family support • Advocacy programs to assist in knowing rights in renting or purchasing a home • Assistance in choosing locations and options Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy • UPO should revisit marketing strategies to ensure that residents are aware of the various programs offered. • Create a referral system between providers. • Increase the number of health clinics available that provide preventative care. • Create mentoring programs that target various age groups and interests. Mentoring programs were discussed with respect to youth but also individuals who desired to start a business or enter a particular career path and to help with life skills. • Increase programs aimed at assisting entrepreneurs with funding, business, marketing and computer skills. • Increase training programs for trades and computers, career counseling and training for interviewing, and work place etiquette. • Create advocacy services for disabled residents which will assist them with obtaining resources in a timely manner, housing issues, and discrimination in the workforce. • Create programs for disabled youth to ensure they are getting the social services they need.

103

2012 Community Needs Assessment

104

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Education Assessment

105

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Early Childhood Education

This analysis examines current capacity of childcare programs to provide access to District residents of various risk levels, including children from ages 0-5 years-old. Further, the Division examines the 2011 District of Columbia Early Childhood Risk and Reach Assessment (herein referred to as the 2011 DCRRA); gauges childcare capacity; performs a risk and reach analysis of UPO sites; recommends potential sites; and finally makes recommendations to UPO leadership for establishing Early Head Start (EHS) and Head Start (HS) sites in the District. As District residents regain confidence in the quality of educational programs for children in the city, much remains to be seen of programs that impact young children as they develop and ready themselves for the rigors of secondary education. It is commonly known that children whose cognitive abilities are stimulated at very early ages are well prepared to take on more challenging intellectual activities as they develop and matriculate through their secondary education. Historically, parents of low-income households and ethnic minorities have had an especially hard time securing access to quality education for their very young children. As a remedy, HS was started in 1965 to address the education, health, and nutritional needs, among others, of “at-risk” children and their families and is often touted as a much relied upon asset to many families that would otherwise not have access to educational resources for their children. The Head Start Impact Study Final Report published by the National Head Start Association highlights the many successes of Head Start programs: “The Head Start children outperformed the control group [in the Impact Study] in every domain that the study measured, including positive cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting impacts. The Head Start children left Head Start more ready for school than their peers in the control group” 181 another report states. One of the more striking aspects pointed out as missing from the Impact Study is the long-term benefits of HS programs on at-risk children. In fact, one report notes that a community in California benefited to the tune of $9 for every $1 invested in a HS child that included increased earnings, employment, family stability, decreased welfare dependency, and decreased crime.182 Despite the varying views on the effectiveness of HS programs in the District, there remains varying degrees of capacity to serve “at risk” populations throughout the District.

DC Risk and Reach Summary The 2011 DCRRA provides interested parties with research-supported data to better understand the education programming needs, particularly in high-need areas. The findings on 181

National Head Start Association. Head Start Impact Study—Final Report: What does it say? What does it mean? Retrieved February 1, 2012 from http://www.nhsa.org/files/static_page_files/E3916AED-1D09-3519AD93BCDBD93F4D08/HSImpactStudyWhatDoesItSay.pdf 182 Meier, J (2003) quoted in National Head Start Association. Benefits of head start and early head start programs. Retrieved February 1, 2012 from http://www.nhsa.org/files/static_page_files/399E0881-1D09-3519AD56452FC44941C3/BenefitsofHSandEHS.pdf

106

2012 Community Needs Assessment

risk and reach in the District of Columbia are presented in two parts. First, the 2011 DCRRA assessment identifies family risk indicators that can potentially affect child outcomes. Second, the report examines the number of children and families who are served or who can be served through various early childhood programs supported by OSSE’s Division of Early Childhood Education. These “reach” data are also presented by ward 183 and (in addition) by neighborhood clusters defined by the Office of Strategic Positioning. The prevalence of children “at-risk” (those who mimic certain characteristics of various poverty indicators) in the District of Columbia is analyzed by calculating the percentage of children in the various risk categories by ward. The 2011 DCRRA assessment describes what some may interpret as “need” as “risk” in the sense that it represents factors that affect the residents’ ability to gain access and to afford childcare services—those factors take into consideration families living below poverty, the number of single mother households, and the number of families receiving other forms of aid including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), among other factors (eleven total). However, one should not wholeheartedly interpret “need” as being the equivalent of “risk,” in the sense that persons who live in what is indicated as “high-risk” areas as being locations that are in greatest need of childcare programs or are at high risk of deficient access to childcare programs, though these are factors. For all intents and purposes, “risk” can be interpreted as representing populated areas of persons who fit a combination of defined risk indicators, signifying a “need” for subsidized support, including childcare. Table 1 reveals data on the 11 risk indicators that were used to define and assign risk levels to the District, by ward in the 2011 DCRRA assessment:

183

Moodie, S, Rothenberg, L, and Sidorowicz, K. (2011). District of Columbia early childhood risk and reach assessment: Fiscal year 2011. Retrieved February 20, 2012 from http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/ChildTrends_RiskReach_final%20(2). pdf [DCRRA]

107

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Table 1: Risk Factors 184

Ward

# Children Under 5 *

% Children % Of Births to Under 5 in % Of Births to % Of Births % Low Birth Mothers w/out % Population Families Single Mothers To Teen Adequate Weights Under 5 * Below Poverty Mothers *** Infants *** Prenatal Care *** Level ** ***

1 3,480 2 2,021 3 3,377 4 4,783 5 3,735 6 3,902 7 4,758 8 6,557 Totals 32,613 National Average 20,860,344

4.60% 2.50% 4.40% 6.30% 5.00% 5.10% 6.70% 9.30% 5.40%

23.00% 15.10% 2.40% 10.20% 23.30% 17.50% 44.10% 58.70% 28.10%

57.20% 29.50% 6.20% 59.00% 71.20% 44.60% 85.80% 89.10% 61.00%

9.90% 5.60% 0.70% 9.70% 16.40% 8.00% 18.60% 19.90% 12.20%

7.50% 8.50% 7.40% 8.50% 10.90% 10.30% 13.90% 14.00% 10.40%

6.90%

21.20%

41%

10%

38.20% 26.30% 13.70% 40.20% 43.40% 29.30% 50.80% 50.70% 38.50% NA

% Of Mother Infant % of Children in % Of children w/less than Mortality Families in Families 12 Years of Rate per Receiving Aid Receiving Aid Formal 1,000 Live Through TANF via SNAP (Food Education ^ Births ^ ^^ Stamps) ^^

% Of Children in Families Receiving Aid via Medicaid/ SCHIP ^^^

# Of Substantiate d Cases of abuse and Neglect ^^^^

29.60% 12.30% 1.80% 27.70% 18.70% 10.50% 20.50% 23.10% 19.90%

6.10% 2.90% 5.10% 10.20% 6.00% 8.00% 17.20% 17.70% 10.90%

23.70% 11.50% 0.03% 20.80% 39.90% 26.40% 57.40% 64.50% 35.40%

38.50% 18.30% 0.90% 35.70% 53.30% 32.10% 73.20% 78.20% 46.90%

60.30% S 5.10% 64.80% 59.20% 64.50% 68.50% 62.50% 65.10%

147 86 4 140 343 79 360 671 2,004

22%

7.00%

* Data are from the 2010 Census ** Data are from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey *** Data are from Vital Statistics Data, DC Department of Health and NeighborhoodInfo DC as the Urban Institute ^ Data are from the 2008 Department of Health ^^ Data are from 2010 Income Maintenance Administration, DC Department of Human Services and NeighborhoodInfo DC at the Urban Institute ^^^ Data are from the 2009 Income Maintenance Administration, DC Department of Human Services ^^^^ Data are from the DC Child and Family Services Agency for fiscal year 2009. 174 cases were missing the child's home Ward. S = Data suppressed for this indicator because it does not produce a reliable estimate. NA = Data not available.

In the DCRRA report, each ward was assigned a risk 185 level and ranked according to its respective degree of average risk factors, where 1 represents the lowest risk (including areas in need of subsidized childcare programs), and 3, the highest. The following figure illustrates the wardsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; risk levels:

184

Ibid The data that were used to calculate risk included data from the 2000 Census, 2007/2006 Vital Statistics data, 2009 Income Maintenance Administration data, and 2008 data from DC Child and Family Services Agency. Qtd. in 2011 DCRRA 185

108

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Figure 1: Average Risk Level by Ward 186

Table 2: Average Risk Level by Ward Ward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Avg. Risk 1.92 1.36 1.00 1.92 2.58 1.83 2.92 3.00

Rank Moderate Low Low Moderate High Moderate High High

According to the figure, Wards 5, 7, and 8 have the highest average level of risk in the District, while Wards 1, 4, and 6 have a moderate level of risk, and Wards 3 and 2 have the lowest. Correspondingly, green represents low-risk areas, yellow represents moderate-risk areas, and orange (or red) represents high-risk areas. Some subsequent figures and tables produced by the UPO, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Community Planning and Research (also referred to as the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Divisionâ&#x20AC;?) will include these colors to indicate risk levels. In order to determine the areas in the District most likely to benefit from early childhood services, an average risk level was developed to identify those wards with the highest risk levels and, therefore, the greatest need for early childhood investments. According to the 2011 DCRRA assessment, wards with the highest average risk level are 5, 7, and 8, yet none of the child development centers in these wards has enough total capacity to reach many of the children under age five. Ward 7 has the lowest total childcare center capacity and the lowest percentage of children able to be served by center-based care of all eight wards (32.1 percent). Ward 8 has the second lowest total percentage of children able to be served by childcare centers (35.4 percent). When analyzing the data by age group, low-risk Ward 3 has the lowest percentage of infants and toddlers able to be served by center-based care (6.3%), while low-risk Ward 2 has the greatest percentage (81.9 percent). Ward 2 has the greatest percentage of older children able to be served, ages 3-15, (305.0 percent), and Ward 7 has the lowest percentage (46.4 percent). 187 186 187

Ibid Ibid

109

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The 2011 DCRRA assessment finds the following:

There are many childcare centers throughout the wards that include families receiving subsidies for early childcare. In 2011, the greatest number of centers was located in Ward 8 (36 centers), whereas the fewest number was located in Ward 3 (2 centers). Similarly, the capacity to serve children in centers receiving subsidies was greatest in Ward 8 (2,324 slots) and lowest in Ward 3 (282 slots). These numbers are not surprising, as the largest number of children under age five living in families below the poverty level reside in Ward 8 (3,849 children) and the smallest number reside in Ward 3 (80 children). In total, 4.3 percent of children living in families below the poverty level can be served by homes that provide care to subsidy-receiving families. Ward 3 has no child development homes that provide care to subsidy-receiving families. With the exception of Ward 3, moderate-risk Ward 1 and low-risk Ward 2 have the highest percentages of children living in poverty able to be served by homes that provide care to subsidy-receiving families (1.3 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively). Wards 4 and 6 have the highest percentages of children living below the poverty level that can be cared for by child development homes serving subsidy-receiving families, at 13.3 percent and 12.8 percent, respectively. 188 The following are maps with the locations of all of the childcare facilities included in the 2011 DCRRA report by type. 189

188 189

Ibid Maps provided by 2011 DCRRA

110

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Figure 2:

111

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Figure 3:

112

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Changes in Risk and Reach over Time The DCRRA 2011 reports the following: As mentioned previously, the [DCRRA] report is part of an endeavor to inform the District of Columbiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efforts to reach children most at risk for school failure with programs and services in early childhood. Changes that have occurred since the District of Columbia Early Childhood Risk and Reach Assessment for Fiscal Year 2009 in regard to the District of Columbiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population of children 0-5, Ward risk levels, and early childhood programming available in the District should be noted. 190 Preliminary data from the 2010 U.S. Census show that the population of children 0-5 decreased in Wards 1, 5, 7, and 8 by an average of 452 children. The population of children age birth to age five increased in Wards 2, 3, 4, and 6 by an average of 471 children. In addition to these population shifts, the percentage of children under five living in families below the federal poverty level decreased in Wards 1, 2, 4, and 6 by an average of 3.8 percent and increased in Wards 3, 5, 7, and 8 by an average of 10.1 percent. 191 The most substantial change in the ARL (average risk level) by Ward occurred in Ward 2, where the ARL decreased from 1.73 to 1.20. This decrease resulted in Ward 2 moving from a moderate risk level to a low risk level. This may be an indication of decreased need [or saturation of childcare programs] in Ward 2, among other factors. 192 Since the 2009 Risk and Reach Assessment, the number of child development centers has decreased by 26 centers across all eight Wards of the District of Columbia. The largest decrease was in Ward 8, which had 45 centers in the 2009 assessment and 38 in the current assessment. Wards 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 all decreased by approximately six centers between the two assessments. The number of centers in Wards 4 and 5 increased since the 2009 assessment. Ward 4 went from having 40 centers in Fiscal Year 2009 to 46 centers in the current assessment. Ward 5 had 32 centers in the last report and 34 centers in this 2011 assessment. The total capacity to serve children 0-5 in the District of Columbia decreased by 1,322 slots. Despite this overall decrease, Wards 4 and 5 both increased their child care center capacity by 334 and 78 slots, respectively. 193 Limitations of the DCRRA Assessment The following is an excerpt from the 2011 DCRRA assessment Although the [2011 DCRRA] report provides insight into how the District of Columbia is reaching its early childhood population, there are a number of limitations that should be considered. . . . It is difficult to determine accurately whether child development programs within specific wards are actually serving children who reside in those locations. This difficulty 190

Ibid Ibid 192 Ibid 193 Ibid 191

113

2012 Community Needs Assessment

arises because children often attend early childhood programs outside of their immediate neighborhood. In order to remedy this situation in future reports, data on childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s home addresses would need to be included within the analyses. More detailed examinations at the census tract level for population figures and risk indicators would provide more insight into where there may be pockets of need within otherwise low or moderate risk wards. . . Along those same lines, differentiating between the usage of services within wards by those who actually live in the ward and those who live elsewhere would be helpful in future work. This information can aid policymakers in targeting resources within and across wards. Data from the 2010 U.S. Census show that more than half of the growth in the total population of the United States between 2000 and 2010 was due to the increase in the Hispanic population. In the District of Columbia, the Hispanic population increased by over 21 percent between 2000 and 2010. In order to support [the increase in Hispanic] students, OSSE currently oversees professional development opportunities for educators who work with English Language Learners. Data on the number of children under age five in each ward who are non-native English speakers were not available for this assessment. 194

Subsidy-Receiving Disabled Children in DC Table 3: Children 0-3 receiving IDEA Part C Early Intervention Services 2010 195 # of Children 0-3 % of Children under age 5 Ward Receiving IDEA Part C Receiving IDEA Part C Services Services 1 57 1.6% 2 17 0.8% 3 26 0.8% 4 66 1.4% 5 54 1.4% 6 42 1.1% 7 54 1.1% 8 62 0.9% TOTAL

373

1.2%

The 2011 DCRRA reports the following: 194

Moodie, S, Rothenberg, L, and Sidorowicz, K. (2011). District of Columbia early childhood risk and reach assessment: Fiscal year 2011. [herein referred to as 2011 DCRRA] 195 Ibid

114

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The DC Strong Start Early Intervention Child Find Program locates, identifies, and refers children birth through two years of age who may have a disability or developmental delay. Children must meet one of the following criteria to be eligible for Part C [Early Intervention] services in the District of Columbia: 1) the child is diagnosed with a disability at birth; 2) the child expresses a 50 percent delay in one or more of five areas of development (cognitive, adaptive, physical and motor, communication, and social and/or emotional); or 3) the child does not have a 50 percent delay, but has received a clinical recommendation for services. . . [The Table above] shows the number and percentage of children in each ward receiving Part C early intervention services. The largest number of children (66) is in Ward 4, and the smallest number of children (17) is in Ward 2. The largest percentage of children receiving early intervention is in Ward 1 (1.6%), and the smallest percentages are in Wards 2 and 3, 0.8 percent in each. 196

Gauging DC Childcare Capacity In this section, the Division compiles data from the 2011 DCRRA report and other sources to produce tables and figures to determine and to analyze the capacity that the District has to offer early childcare programs to its residents. The prevailing data seem to suggest that the number of slots available to District children in order for them to have access to childcare services is nearly reaching parity with demand in some areas. The District has the capacity to offer nearly 80% of its families, who have children between the ages of ages 0-5, slots in early childcare facilities. Moreover, the total number of slots made available to District children from ages 0-5 (representing capacity) is 33,068, and if the District were to make a slot available for every child in the same age range, regardless of the risk level, it would have to produce additional 8,254 slots (see table 4). The following table demonstrates the capacity of each ward to provide childcare slots to families with children age 0-5 by risk:

196

Ibid

115

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Table 4: Childcare Facilities Capacity by Ward by Risk

Ward

**Child Dev. Center Slots

**Child Dev. Home Slots

^Pre-K, DCPS, PCS, CBO Slots

2,308

1,118

507

3,963

2,846

1,858

4,704

741

15.8%

3,814

497

419

4,750

1,257

913

2,170

(2,580)

-118.9%

2,682

364

3,061

2,757

2,505

5,262

2,201

41.8%

2,918

191

1,536

4,645

3,102

2,304

5,406

761

14.1%

2,377

107

1,483

4,052

2,783

2,108

4,891

839

17.2%

2,294

150

1,705

4,149

2,755

1,929

4,684

535

11.4%

1,871

162

1,532

3,565

2,529

3,299

5,828

2,263

38.8%

2,966

122

1,732

4,883

4,251

4,126

8,377

3,494

41.7%

Total

21,230

797

9,967

1,074

33,068

22,280

19,042

41,322

8,254

20.0%

HS & EHS Slots

Total Total *Children *Children Children Total % of Capacity 0-2 3-5 0-5 Variance Variance

* 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Qtd. in DCRRA 2011 ** DC OSSE, Early Care and Education Administration, February, 2011. qtd in DCRRA, 2011 ^ Pre-K Capacity Audit, Child Trends, 2011. qtd. in DCRRA, 2011 UPO Office of Strategic Positioning, Community Planning and Research Division, (October 2013).

Low-risk Wards 2 and 3 have more childcare centers than any other form of childcare service, most notably homes; however, Ward 2 appears to have a greater capacity to provide early childcare than its population of children ages 0-5, having a surplus of 2,580 slots, which can be loosely interpreted as an oversaturation of childcare facilities (see table 4). Perhaps those slots are being filled by neighboring wards families, including few who are subsidy-receiving families. Moderate-risk Wards 1, 4, and 6 are 20% away from maximizing their capacities to offer childcare services to their residents aged 0-5 with 17%, 14%, and 11% rates, respectively, suggesting nearly saturated wards with the capacity to offer childcare services. High-risk Wards 5, 7, and 8, and low-risk Ward 3 have lesser capacities to fill slots in childcare facilities serving children 0-5 than their neighboring wards. Although Ward 5 has a 17.2% margin to reach its capacity, high-risk residents wards, Ward 7 and 8 are less than 50% away from maximizing their capacities to offer childcare to all of their residents. Ward 7 has a rate of 39%, and Ward 8 has a rate of 42%, representing the greatest disparity among high-risk and moderate-risk wards in the District.

UPO Risk and Reach Analysis This section endeavors to analyze the 2011 DCRRA data and census data in the context of UPO’s ability to increase the capacity to provide childcare to residents identified as “at risk.” It explores possible neighborhood locations in which to establish new childcare opportunities for 116

2012 Community Needs Assessment

residents, considering the 2011 DCRRA assessment of risk (need for subsidy receiving slots) and reach (the number of children served or could be served). UPO has a longstanding relationship with the residents of the District, offering a myriad of wrap around services, and has been providing childcare to residents and their families for nearly 50 years. Further, UPO is one of two grantees in the District that offer Head Start and Early Head Start programs in multiple locations—the other being Edward C. Mazique. According to the 2011 DCRRA report, UPO maintains its status of having the greatest number of sites in the District, serving nearly all wards except Ward 2. However, Rosemount Center serves the most HS /EHS children in a single location. 197 Together with the shifting demographic trends of the District and the current economic climate, “many states and local communities are working to maximize resources by targeting early childhood investments to the children and families who stand to receive the greatest benefit from such programs” [emphasis added]. 198 According to table 5, moderate-risk Ward 1 possesses the fewest number of early childcare facilities serving children 0-3 with 34 facilities, while Ward 4 possesses the most number of early childcare facilities serving children 0-3 with 83 facilities. On average, the remaining Wards 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have an average of 60 early childcare facilities serving children 0-3. The District has a total of 473 early childcare facilities that serve children 0-3, and the District’s population of children eligible for early child care (in the 0-2 year-old range) makes up 54% of the District’s population of children 0-5 (see table 6). These data suggest that there are more children who are eligible to attend early childhood (children 0-3 years-old) facilities than preschool-age (children 3-5 years-old) facilities. Table 5: Early Childcare Facilities by Ward by Risk 199

Ward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

* 0-3 Centers

Child 24 61 34 46 34 39 30 38 306

Dev.

*^ Early Head Start 4 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 16

* 0-3 Child Dev. Total Early Childcare Homes Facilities 6 34 4 68 3 38 35 83 21 58 29 69 30 61 23 62 151 473

* OSSE, Education Early Care and Education Administration, February 2011. Qtd. in DCRRA 2011. Does not include contracted and delegated slots. ^ Taken from Capacity and Enrollment and Data, Data are from DC Head Start Collaboration Office. Qtd. in DCRRA 2011

197

Ibid Ibid, 4 199 Table produced by the Division of Community Planning and Research 198

117

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Many low-income families depend on early childcare homes as opposed to centers to provide care for their young children between the ages of 0-3. The table above is demonstrative of the substantial number of early childcare facilities overall in Wards 1, 2, and 3 (low- to moderaterisk Wards)—the majority of them being centers—, yet, when compared with the number of childcare facilities in Wards 4 through 8 (moderate- to high-risk wards) those wards have double-digit numbers of homes when compared to the single-digit numbers of homes in Wards 1 and 2. These data suggest that in high-risk areas—those exhibiting high concentrations of “at risk” population characteristics—families have a tendency to utilize childcare homes. When comparing the wards that offer Head Start and Early Head Start combined (including UPO operated sites), again, Wards 1 and 2 have a greater capacity to serve families seeking Head Start programs for their children. As the following Table 6 shows, high-risk Wards 5, 7, and 8 have the fewest number of Head Start (HS) and Early Head Start (EHS) slots: Table 6: Total UPO and CBO Head Start and Early Head Start Slots by Ward 200 Total HS and Ward HS*^ EHS*^ UPO HS*^^ UPO EHS*^^ EHS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

241 206 -

148 213 -

447

361

62 14 -

56 71

507 419 85

63 190

63 1,074

* Does not include contracted and delegated slots. ^ DC Head Start Collaboration Office. Qtd. in DCRRA 2011 ^^ UPO, Office of Child and Family Development, February, 2012 Of the total HS and EHS slot made available in the District, UPO operates a total 266 slots throughout the wards, predominantly located in moderate and high-risk wards. These data indicate that UPO operated sites are a positive contribution to the overall capacity to provide affordable early childcare to residents in multiple-risk areas, especially in high-risk areas. Moreover, when factoring in contracted and delegated sites under the auspices of UPO, the risk assessment confirms a continued tendency towards slot offerings in multiple-risk areas. The following map provides a visual of the site locations of UPO operated sites including contracted and delegated sites (not including DCPS and Visitor sites):

Figure 4: Map of UPO, Contract, and Delegate Sites 201

200

Does not include 40 home visitor sites. Table produced by the UPO, Office of Strategic Positioning Division of Community Planning and Research

118

2012 Community Needs Assessment

UPO Site From the map above, we find that there are eight sites located in high-risk areas, six sites located in moderate-risk areas, and two sites located in low-risk areas indicating a variety of locations in multiple-risk areas. UPO may determine to increase the number of sites according to risk, using â&#x20AC;&#x153;high-riskâ&#x20AC;? as a determinant or benchmark, which would favor mostly moderate- to high-risk areas, predominately in Wards 5, 6, 7 and 8. Currently, UPO operates and oversees 1,817 slots filled by District residents as the following Table 7 shows:

201

The numbers in boxes indicate more than one site in close proximity to each other. Data provided by Office of Child and Family Development, UPO. Map produced by the UPO, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Community Planning and Research

119

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Table 7: UPO HS and EHS Slot Distribution Totals 202 UPO Sites Early Head Start 16 Azeeze Bates 16 Ballou High School 24 Dance Institute of Washington 31 Developing Families Center 12 Dunbar High School Edgewood Child Development Center 21 47 Frederick Douglass Center 40 Home Visitors 7 Luke C. Moore 16 Marie Reed 230 TOTAL Early Head Start Slot Purchase Agreement 0 Eagle Academy 0 Spanish Education Development 0 University of the District of Columbia 0 TOTAL Early Head Start Delegates 14 Bright Beginnings 0 District of Columbia Public Schools 72 EduCare DC 0 Rosemount Center 82 Edward C. Mazique 168 TOTAL 398 Grand Total 403 Funded -5 Variance

Head Start 30 0 32 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 76 Head Start

TOTAL 46 16 56 31 12 35 47 40 7 16 306 TOTAL

170 56 20 246 Head Start

170 56 20 246 TOTAL

46 701 51 193 106 1097 1,419 1,386 -33

60 701 123 193 188 1265 1,817 1,782 -35

UPO Office of Strategic Positioning, Community Planning and Research Division, (October 2013).

According to Table 7 above, UPO currently offers the fewest number of HS/EHS slots (7) at the Luke C. Moore site and offers the most slots at the Dance Institute of Washington site with 62 HS/EHS slots. Also, DCPS is UPOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest holder of slots under UPOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s auspices as a delegate offering 701 slots to HS participating children, while delegate UDC offers the fewest HS slots, 20. The distribution of slots among UPO, slot purchase agreements (or contracts), and delegates reveal that UPO operated sites account for a majority of the slot offerings to EHS 202

Data provided by the UPO Office of Child and Family Development (as of February 29, 2012). Table produced by the Division of Community Planning and Research.

120

2012 Community Needs Assessment

participating children with 230 slots v. 76 slots for HS participating children. Overall, the majority of the HS sites under UPO’s auspices are operated by contracted Community Based Organizations (CBOs) (by slot agreement), and delegated CBOs, accounting for a total of 1,343 slots. These data suggest that UPO is more likely to operate EHS facilities than HS facilities, which are typically distributed among CBOs operating under UPO’s auspices. UPO offers early childcare services throughout the wards and makes those slots available to all children and families, regardless of the risk level, or ability to pay and receives federal and local funds to provide early childcare to eligible families. In determining potential neighborhoods to locate new investments to increase the District’s capacity to offer early childcare to its neediest residents, UPO may find that the number of current subsidy-receiving families in the District may be an indicator for which risk areas to consider placing potential sites. For instance, Wards 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 have high populations of families with children aged 0-5 that are receiving subsidies that make it possible for their children to attend early childcare facilities throughout the District, while Ward 3 has the fewest as the following table demonstrates: Table 8: Slots Provided to Subsidy-Receiving Families by Ward by Slots 203

Total Center Ward slots 0-5 1 2,124 2 983 3 282 4 2,901 5 2,503 6 1,652 7 1,987 8 2,324

Total Home Slots 0-5 10 10 78 78 83 114 80

Pre-K CBOs OSSE Funded 196 36 48 52 164

HS & EHS Slots 507 419 85

Total Families Receiving Subsidies 0-5 2,837 1,412 282 3,015 2,714 1,787 2,101 2,631

Total

453

496

1,074

16,779

14,756

UPO operates nine EHS and HS sites throughout the city (in addition to home visit and contracted and delegated sites operated by other CBOs under UPO auspices). These nine UPO operated sites are located in various census tracts within each ward. The following table displays each UPO HS/EHS site by census tract—each assigned a specific risk level by the 2011 DCRRA—, the neighborhoods of those sites, and the wards they are located within by risk.

203

Data from Moodie, S. and Rothenberg (2011 DCRRA). Table produced by the UPO, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Community Planning and Research

121

2012 Community Needs Assessment Table 9: UPO Operated Sites by Neighborhood by Ward by Risk

Tract UPO Site Name 29.00 DIW 89.03 Developing Families 92.04 Edgewood 74.04 Frederick Douglass 93.01 Luke C. Moore 98.04 Ballou 87.02 Dunbar 79.01 Azeeze Bates 38.00 Marie Reed Total Slots

Neighborhood Columbia Heights Carver Langston Edgewood Douglass Brookland Congress Heights Eckington Kingman Park Adams Morgan

Ward 1 5 5 8 5 8 6 6 1

HS & EHS Slots 56 31 35 47 7 16 12 46 16 266

UPO Office of Strategic Positioning, Community Planning and Research Division, (October 2013).

According to Table 9 above, the DIW site, located in low-risk census tract 29.00, is located in the Columbia Heights neighborhood which is located within moderate-risk Ward 1; this site provides the second highest number of slots to children 0-5 in a moderate-risk ward, offering a total of 56 slots. The Developing Families is located within a high-risk census tract within highrisk census Ward 5, offering 31 slots to residents in the Carver Langston neighborhood, respectively. Home visit sites are not included in the table. The following map plots the tracts where UPO currently operates HS and EHS sites throughout the wards by risk; following it is an analysis of those sites relative to risk and capacity.

122

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Table 10: UPO Site Capacitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to Serve Subsidy-Receiving Families by Tract by Risk

* Children 0-4 in Census Tract

^ Children 0-4 Below Poverty

** % Below Povert y

Children 100%124% of Poverty

** % Children 100%124% of Poverty

Total Eligible Childre n/Tract

^ Total UPO Capacit y (slots)

Variance

% Capacity

Census Tract #

UPO Site Name

29.00

DIW Developing Families

257

17.8%

4.7%

96.8%

153

24.3%

2.3%

76.2%

147

35.0%

2.7%

63.2%

478

172

35.9%

6.0%

200

153

23.5%

93.01

Edgewood Frederick Douglass Luke C. Moore

166

9.4%

3.2%

33.5%

98.04

Ballou

278

19.7%

3.6%

24.7%

87.02

Dunbar Azeeze Bates ^^ Marie Reed^^

150

27.9%

9.7%

21.3%

243

152

62.6%

4.5%

163

117

28.2%

0.0%

-16

0.0%

89.03 92.04 74.04

79.01 38.00

Totals 1,961 570 29% 89 5% 659 266 393 40.3% *U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Demographic and Income Comparison Profile. Esri Forecasts for 2010 and 2015. ** U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005-2009 American Community Survey. ACS Population Summary. ^Does not include home visitor slots. ^^ Poverty data based on U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2006-2010 American Community Survey. UPO Office of Strategic Positioning, Community Planning and Research Division, (October 2013).

According to Table 10, on average, UPO has the capacity to serve 40% of the total eligible children ages 0-4 of subsidy-receiving families in the 9 locations where they operate Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Census tract 89.03, where the UPO Developing Families site is located, is in a high-risk area. The Frederick Douglas site (located in moderate-risk census tract 74.04) has the greatest opportunity to increase its capacity to offer HS and EHS programs offering slots to 47 out of 200 eligible children 0-4 in the area. However, low-risk census tract 29, home to UPOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Dance Institute of Washington center, offers slots to the greatest number of children 0-4 (among all other locations), 56 in total, offering 96.8% of eligible children slots. Though UPO focuses on serving low income children, no matter where they live, the data seem to suggest that areas where the population of eligible children is high, tend to be in moderateand high-risk areas, but the greatest investments by UPO to offer slots to children 0-4 have been made in low- and moderate-risk areas.

Assessing UPO Childcare Potential by Neighborhood Risk UPO has the potential of investing in early childcare in the District by establishing new sites throughout the city, using the high-risk wards as a benchmark and taking other factors into consideration. This section takes into consideration many factors to produce proposed 123

2012 Community Needs Assessment

neighborhoods in which to locate new HS and EHS sites; among them include deciphering population data per census tract for further analyses; compiling neighborhood clusters made up of contiguous census tracts; analyzing data per risk level for each neighborhood; and plotting potential sites per neighborhood cluster.

Childcare Potential in High-Risk Areas The 2011 DCRRA identifies census tracts and census tract data for all high risk areas throughout the District. Again, Wards 5, 7, and 8 are identified as possessing the greatest number of jurisdictions, identified by census tract, that are considered "high" risk, according to the poverty indicators that the DCRRA assessment used to determine them as such. Therefore, a detailed examination of these high-risk areas shows the location of them by census tract, which have been combined where those tracts connect to each other to form what the Office of Strategic Planning has identified as neighborhood clusters. Those neighborhood clusters have been given names that include neighborhoods contained within them since many tracts cross more than one neighborhood and are represented by the names of dominant neighborhoods in terms of land mass.

124

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The following table represents a listing of the high-risk areas by census tract and neighborhood. Table 11: High-Risk Neighborhoods by Census Tract Census Tract Neighborhoods 98.01 Washington Highlands 97.00 Washington Highlands 98.06 Washington Highlands 98.08 Bellevue 73.02 Congress Heights 75.03 Anacostia 75.04 Anacostia 74.07 Buena Vista 74.08 Garfield Hts, Knox Hill, Woodland 74.03 Shipley Terrace 99.04 Benning Ridge 99.05 Marshal Heights 99.07 Ft. DuPont Park 96.01 Kenilworth 69.02 Mayfair Mahanning, Hillbrook, Benning 78.03 Heights 88.04 Trinidad, Ivy City 89.03 Carver 89.04 Carver

Cluster # and Name 1 Washington Highlands 1 Washington Highlands 1 Washington Highlands 1 Washington Highlands 2 Congress Heights 3 Anacostia 3 Anacostia 3 Anacostia 3 Anacostia 3 Anacostia 4 Benning/Marshall 4 Benning/Marshall 4 Benning/Marshall 5 Kenilworth/Mayfair 5 Kenilworth/Mayfair 5 Kenilworth/Mayfair 6 Carver/Trinidad 6 Carver/Trinidad 6 Carver/Trinidad

UPO Office of Strategic Positioning, Community Planning and Research Division, (October 2013).

To identify where those neighborhood clusters are located in the District visually, the following Map was created; each number corresponds with one on the list in Table 11 above, naming each neighborhood:

125

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Figure 6: Map of High Risk Neighborhood Clusters 204

# 1 2 3 4 5 6

Neighborhood Cluster Name Washington Highlands Congress Heights Anacostia Benning/Marshall Kenilworth/Mayfair Carver/Trinidad

Any consideration to establish new UPO HS and EHS sites in the District must include these high-risk areas. Childcare Potential in Multiple-Risk Areas To be sure, not all sites have to be limited to high-risk areas; the potential to fill slots in multiple-risk neighborhood clusters is possible; however, avoiding highly saturated areas with childcare facilities would be advisable for establishing new facilities. This assessment takes into consideration input from UPO leadership for potential sites throughout the District, the level of average risk associated with those areas, population characteristics, inclusion of high-risk neighborhood clusters, and the number of subsidy-receiving children residing in the potential neighborhood clusters. Each neighborhood cluster includes census tracts that can include risk levels not consistent with ward risk levels and each neighborhood cluster is color coded (by risk level), which is determined by the dominant average risk level contained within the cluster. For instance, Ward 5 (a high-risk ward) contains a neighborhood, Edgewood/Brookland, which includes more than one census tract that is identified as low-risk â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in fact all of the census tracts located within this neighborhood cluster are identified as low-risk; therefore, the neighborhood cluster is color 204

Map produced by the Division of Community Planning and Research

126

2012 Community Needs Assessment

coded green although it is located within a ward that is color coded red, signifying a high-risk ward. The following figure illustrates the risk levels of each neighborhood cluster within each Ward, which is also color coded by risk level; these areas represent potential neighborhoods where new UPO HS or EHS sites can be established. Figure 7: Map of Potential UPO HS and EHS Sites by Tract by Risk205 The map displays 12 potential sites at which to locate new HS and EHS sites throughout the District; it maintains the sites (1-6) from the previous report of highrisk neighborhood clusters in Wards 5, 7, and 8, already presented in Figure 7. Site selection methodology: To determine the capacity to serve UPO potential HS/EHS sites, the Division performs the calculation based on the following: Calculation of the Total Eligible (subsidyreceiving) Children (TEC), which is the product of the number of children 0-4 below poverty 206, plus the number of children 100124% at and above poverty207 (the closest percent available from Census data), since eligible families max out at incomes 205

Map produced by the Division of Community Planning and Research The number of children 100%-124% of poverty is the product of multiplying the number of children 0-4 by percent of the population ratio of income to poverty level derived from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey. 207 In 2010, the preliminary estimates of weighted average poverty thresholds for a family of four was $22,314. Qtd. In 2011 DCRRA. The number of children below poverty is the product of multiplying the number of children 04 by the percent of household poverty status derived from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey. 206

127

2012 Community Needs Assessment

above 130% poverty. Then the number of proposed slots is calculated based on a 30% rate (an estimated percentage the Division anticipates UPO has the potential of fillingâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;considering a current capacity rate of 27%, see table 10). This rate is multiplied by the TEC, which results in the number of proposed slots. The number of Proposed Sites is calculated based on an average capacity of 50 slots per site. Table 12: Proposed Sites to Serve Subsidy Eligible Children 0-4 208 ** ** Childr Childre en n Belo 100%* w 124% Children Pover of Cluster Name Ward 0-4 ty 0-4 Poverty Washington 1 Highlands 8 1,535 454 91 2 Congress Hts. 8 212 57 3 3 Anacostia 8 1,443 447 97 Benning/Marshal 4 Hts 7 786 222 37 Kenilworth/Mayf 5 air 7 741 271 32 6 Carver/Trinidad 5 642 178 22 Mt. Vernon/No 7 Ma 6 698 193 42 Edgewood/Brook 8 land 5 62 4 1 9 Adams Morgan 1 387 22 10 10 Petworth 4 176 25 7 11 Columbia Hts. 1&4 1,132 179 95 12 N. Cleveland Park 3 190 15 2 Totals 8,004 2,067 439

Total Eligible Childre n

^ Propo sed Slots

^^ Propose d Sites

551 60 544

165 163

3 3

259

303 200

91 60

2 1

235

82 710

2 14

4 32 32 274 17 2,511

*US Census Bureau. Age Groups and Sex: 2010, Census Summary File 1 ** US Census Bureau. Age Groups and Sex: 2000: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data ^ (# below poverty * 50%)/50 slots ^^ based on 50 slots per facility UPO Office of Strategic Positioning, Community Planning and Research Division, (October 2013).

Based on Table 12 above, two high-risk neighborhoods have the highest number of children 04, cluster one, Washington Highlands, and Cluster 3, Anacostia, and consequently have the 208

Table produced by the Division of Community Planning and Research

128

2012 Community Needs Assessment

highest number of eligible children to receive subsidies for HS and EHS programs in the District. Therefore, UPO can increase the area’s capacity to offer early childcare to residents in these high-risk areas by offering three sites in the Washington Highlands neighborhood cluster (and 165 slots) and an equal number of sites in Anacostia for an additional 163 slots in that neighborhood cluster. The majority of the 14 proposed sites are located in high-risk wards and neighborhood clusters representing 11 proposed sites and 557 proposed slots in high-risk Wards 5, 7, and 8. The remaining proposed slots 209 are located in moderate-risk Wards 1, 4, and 6, representing three sites total and 153 proposed slots. The multiple-risk area proposed slot distribution would account for 78.45% of the slots being offered in high-risk areas versus 21.55% of slots being offered in moderate-risk areas. This would be a departure from the current distribution of UPO operated slots available throughout the District, with 16.75% of the UPO HS/EHS operated slots being offered in high-risk areas versus 83.25% being offered in lowand moderate-risk areas.210 The following is a map that identifies potential sites (but not actual physical ones) where a UPO HS or EHS could be established: Figure 8: UPO Head Start Office of Early Head Start Potential Sites 211

209

Some of these areas were identified as areas of interest by UPO leadership. Refer to table 9. “UPO Operated Sites by Neighborhood by Ward by Risk.” 211 Map produced by the Division of Community Planning and Research 210

129

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Future Considerations and Recommendations

In step with current market demands in the early childcare industry, UPO, Office of Strategic Positioning, the Division of Planning and Research offers the following items to consider moving forward regarding the expansion of new UPO HS and EHS sites in the District: Future Considerations:

•

• •

The changing demographics of the District including its foreign speaking population (Hispanic in particular), the influx of higher-income residents that are projected through 2015, the migration of low-income residents from the District, and the fluctuating child population of children 0-5 (which is anticipated to experience meager changes over the next five years). The economy in the District is undergoing dramatic shifts, tending toward an even wider income disparity, which may affect the number of subsidy-receiving families in the District, generally. Resources to cover the cost of real property for planned UPO use, or for potential HS/EHS sites, especially in low- and moderate-risk areas.

Recommendations:

• • •

•

• • •

Perform a comprehensive evaluation and market analysis on current UPO sites so as to provide insight on how to improve upon already marketable assets. Decide on potential neighborhood sites taking several aspects into consideration including a risk and reach analysis (such as included in this report) and a market analysis. After UPO Leadership has decided on which neighborhoods to invest EHS/HS sites, then it should scout for possible site locations, following clearly established criteria for selection including, but not limited to, access to public transportation, residential and commercial areas, schools, parks, and population characteristics that favor UPO’s mission, among others. DCPS operates the largest number of UPO delegated sites and remains the largest competitor for HS (preschool age children, 3-5) in the District; further, UPO currently operates more EHS facilities than HS facilities. Given the large population of EHS age children in the District and a lesser capacity to serve them, especially in high-risk areas, UPO should maximize its efforts to continue to serve EHS children by increasing its capacity to do so. UPO leadership should avoid establishing EHS and HS sites in nearly saturated and over saturated low- and moderate-risk areas, paying close attention to data of population characteristics at the census tract level. UPO leadership should make its greatest HS and EHS investments to high-risk areas, particularly in Wards 7 and 8. Given that high-risk Wards 7 and 8 include substantial populations of families who utilize home childcare centers, UPO leadership should create strategies to capture this market in such a way that it benefits its capacity to serve families who prefer home centers. 130

â&#x20AC;˘

2012 Community Needs Assessment

UPO Leadership should endeavor to invest substantially in all aspects of marketing its UPO childcare brand to ensure enrollment.

Secondary Education Performance The educational analysis is derived from the District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC-CAS). The assessment measures specific skills defined for each grade by the District of Columbia and provides measurements of student progress of reaching the learning objectives and standards laid out in core academic subjects. The assessment also contributes to measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) that schools need to perform. This system endeavors to remove barriers and creates pathways for the District of Columbia's K-12 students to receive an excellent education and to prepare them for success. 212 In this section, student DC-CAS proficiency scores are reported in reading and mathematics and compared by ward using the overall proficiency scores of DCPS (District of Columbia Public Schools) and Public Charter School data, including tiers. Public School (DCPS and PCS) students have shown considerable performance improvement over the last five years, according to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education. 213 DC-CAS performance have shown significant gains in elementary math scores as well as middle school reading and math scores throughout the District since 2007 when DCPS was placed under the control of the Executive Office of the Mayor. 214 Educational Campus (K-12) During the last five years, District of Columbia Public Charter Schools and District of Columbia Public Charter Schoolsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; overall proficiency rates have improved in educational campus (K-12) schools. Mamie D. Lee School, a Ward 5 educational campus, has the highest 2012 overall proficiency rate as well as the highest proficiency scores in math and reading, scoring of 100% in all three categories. This is among the highest in the District of Columbia for an educational campus. Ward 5 has 14 educational campuses, which is the most in the District of Columbia. Elementary School Key ES, an elementary school located in Ward 3, has the highest 2012 overall proficiency rate of 91.6% among all elementary schools in the District. Key ES also holds the title of possessing students who scored among the highest in mathematic proficiency, with a score of 92.3 percent and reading, with a score of 90.9 percent. Ward 8 has 17 elementary schools, which is the most in the District of Columbia.

212

The District of Columbia, Office of the State Superintendent of Education, DC CAS Retrieved from: http://osse.dc.gov/service/dc-cas 213 District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education. Mayor Vincent C. Gray Announces 2012 DC CAS Results. Retrieved from: http://osse.dc.gov/release/mayor-vincent-c-gray-announces-2012-dc-cas-results 214 ibid

131

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Middle School Deal Junior High School (JHS), located in Ward 3, has the highest 2012 overall proficiency rate of 83.4%. This is among the highest in the District of Columbia. D.C. Preparatory Academy PCS-Edgewood Middle Campus in Ward 5 has the highest 2012 math proficiency rate of 88.8%, which is the highest rate in the District of Columbia. Washington Latin High Middle PCS, located in Ward 4, has the highest 2012 math proficiency rate of 80.6%, which is the highest rate in the District of Columbia. Ward 8 has six middle schools, the most in the District of Columbia. High School

School Without Walls SHS, a Ward 2 high school, has the highest 2012 proficiency rate, math and reading of 98.2%. This is among the highest in the District of Columbia. Ward 5 has five high schools, the most in the District of Columbia. Secondary Education Tier Performance

The Performance Management Framework (PMF) is an evaluation instrument that was developed to improve Public Charter School Broad’s (PCSB) ability to define high, medium, lowperforming and at-risk schools and to clearly communicate the expectations, rewards, and consequences to schools, families and communities. PMF evaluates charter school performance, based on common measures across all schools. These measures include student achievement as well as student growth performance measures, indicators of readiness for high school and college, and mission-specific measures at each school. The schools are rated by tiers: (Note: Performing Tiers: T1/T2, Underperforming Tiers: T3/T4): • Tier 1: Schools meet standards of high performance. • Tier 2: Schools fall short of high standards but meet minimum overall performance. • Tiers 3 and 4: Schools fall significantly short of high performance standards, showing inadequate performance. Reviewing the District as a whole, Ward 3 leads other wards with the most T1 performing schools with eight schools. Conversely, Ward 8 has the most T4 underperforming schools in the District with 15 schools.

Special Report: Adult Education Assessment in Ward 8 Ward 8 Adult Education Focus Group

The following section examines the need for adult education in Ward 8, more specifically, in the Congress Heights neighborhood. This special report includes both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of key findings relative to the needs that residents have regarding adult education. It includes a neighborhood profile of Congress Heights, focus group findings, and survey results. Further, it explores the question of whether there is a need for additional adult education opportunities for 16 to 24-year-olds in Ward 8, particularly in the Congress Heights neighborhood. 132

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The results of this focus group study are couched in the context of three objectives for the purpose of conveying and analyzing findings that address 1) why youth do not complete high school, 2) what support services they need, and 3) what is expected of additional adult educational opportunities in Ward 8. First, the report conveys the key findings for each focus group, and then it conveys an analysis of the findings with implications for all of the focus groups, combined, in light of the above mentioned objectives. Finally, the report offers suggestions for UPO leadership to consider as it moves forward in this endeavor along with recommendations. Community Focus Group Results

The community focus group consisted of members of the Ward 8 community who were either between the ages of 16 and 24 or who were parents/guardians/care givers of persons who were between the ages of 16 and 24. All participants in the focus group were African American. The majority—all but one male—consisted of parents/guardians of children between the ages of 16 and 24, and there were a total of eight participants in the community focus group. Three of the participants represented youth between the ages of 16 to 18 years-old, and four of the participants represented youth between the ages of 19 and 24 years-old.215 Key findings

Participants were asked an “ice breaker” question to set the stage for the types of questions that followed. When asked why young people don’t finish high school, there was consensus on one issue that seemed to echo throughout the focus group setting: that of peer pressure, mostly regarding clothes. “If they don’t have the same [fashionable] clothes as their peers, then they have self-esteem issues . . . they may be embarrassed to go to school,” one participant said. Along the self-esteem issue, additional comments indicated “embarrassment” as a reason why some students perform poorly, especially those who need additional help and are apprehensive about asking for additional help “because they can’t read,” said another participant. Consistent comments regarding absentee or neglectful parents was another concern voiced by many of the participants as to why many young person’s drop out of high school. Only one participant, a youth who was self-identified as attending a vocational training program, expressed satisfaction with the vocational training program in nursing that she was currently enrolled in; however, she also expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that she had no support to pay her student loan for the program in which she was enrolled. Most participants were aware of current adult programs offered at “Ballou” and “PR Harris,” says one participant; another chimed in that she was trying to get into “Bennet.” All expressed unanimous agreement for the need of additional GED and vocational opportunities in Ward 8. In general, almost all of the participants indicated that safety is a major concern when choosing to attend an adult education program. Gang territory and rivalries were mentioned as the top safety concerns by participants, although the term “gang” was used in conjunction—and more frequently— with words like “neighborhood groups,” or “crews.” One participant, a male 215

One participant did not respond to the age question.

133

2012 Community Needs Assessment

youth, commented that he would hesitate to attend a program if he noticed “loiterers” near a facility and that he would want to avoid them. Many participants voiced that they or their children did not want to attend facilities outside of their neighborhoods because they would want to avoid chance encounters with rival gang members. When asked what support services they felt were most needed, the participants offered the following list: • Financial Aid • Transportation • Guidance/counseling, including parenting skills training/counseling • Community support (extra-curricular activities) • Food • Clothing Many participants expressed their expectations of new GED/training opportunities as including employment after completion, not surprisingly. Other expectations included a convenient location, “close to metro” as one participant put it; patient staff, especially for “slower learners,” said another participant; mentoring; a computer lab; and small classrooms. When asked what types of training would be most useful in today’s market, the participants offered the following list: • Nursing • Computer classes • Home Health Aides • Child Care • Soft Skills (interview skills, communications skills, etc.) • Music • Foreign languages Another overarching theme that emerged from the community focus group discussion was that of offerings that occupy youth’s free time when they are not in school, so that they can avoid some of the trappings that keep them from completing their education. Some of the suggestions included making investments in greater access to internet technology in neighborhoods and creating community centers with gymnasiums. One participant mentioned the need for something like “Town Hall Education Arts Recreation Campus.” 216 Strikingly, a few echoed the need for an “all-in-one place for learning that included all types of training and offered housing.”

216

THEARC is a non-profit organization run by BBAR (Building Bridges Across the River) which has a mission to improve the quality of life of children and youth who reside east of the Anacostia River. For more details, visit http://www.thearcdc.org/partners-programs/building-bridges-across-river-bbar

134

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Provider Focus Group Results

Participants in the provider focus group were representatives of establishments that offered GED and/or vocational training programs in Ward 8, most notably, in the Congress Heights neighborhood. The participants included five African American women and five African American men, some of whom were management professionals in their respective fields representing their establishments, and some of whom were associated with their representative establishments as contractors or as volunteers. A total of 10 representatives from five area providers (So Others Might Eat, Southeast Ministries, Opportunities Industrialization Center, and Congress Heights Training Center) participated in the focus group. The participants report that their respective establishments serve students/clients ranging in ages from 12 to 50 years-old. The average number of students/clients each establishment serves annually is 37. The types of services that participants report that their establishments offer include vocational and employment training, GED, ABE (Adult Basic Education), Computer skills training, work readiness, entrepreneurship, building maintenance technology, medical administration, tutoring, childcare, and sports. The services most frequently listed as offered include GED, ABE, computer skills training, and work readiness training. Key Findings

When asked why providers thought some youth do not complete high school, responses ranged from students being embarrassed about asking for help to peer pressure (mostly having to do with lack of material possessions, i.e. fashion). One striking discussion centered on the issue of parents not offering, “enough guidance or support” said one participant. Another participant reinforced the issue by adding that some parents “were poor examples because they too were uneducated.” Another notable discussion centered on the fact that some students are homeless and that, “some of them struggle in school because they are not rested because they have not had a decent place to rest the night before,” said one participant. Participants were asked to express their first thoughts about adult education to gauge how unified or disjointed their perceptions of adult education was. This question was intended to set the tone for the rest of the session. Most of the participants nodded in unison as others shared their first thoughts: “GED”, “hands-on training”, “life skills training.” The discussion also included rhetoric that was emblematic of running programs: “Barrier reduction, like conflict resolution. . . “, “under budget”, “accountability,” etc. There seemed to be a consensus of an understanding of what typically may encapsulate the idea of “adult education.” When asked whether there was a need for additional GED and vocational programs for 16 – 24year-olds, there were a variety of reasons offered for why there was a need for additional programs. One provider participant said that “some students are too old to return to high school,” so adult programs outside of a high school setting would be more suitable for them. This led others in the focus group to raise the issue of the age range identified in the question (16 - 24-years-old); many felt the age range was too restrictive. One provider participant said, “It’s hard to wrap the 16-24 age range around my head.” Another said, “They need to raise the age range to 35,” as others nodded and voiced affirmation. Strikingly, one provider participant changed directions and said, “I think there are enough GED programs” and there is a greater 135

2012 Community Needs Assessment

need for vocational programs. There was little reaction to the “enough GED programs” statement; neither was there a direct challenge to it immediately following the statement. The facilitator attempted to encourage further discussion on the GED issue, which mainly resulted in a more focused discussion on vocational programs and eventually a need for “a match of pairing both GED and vocational programs, like in auto mechanics . . . there can be a mixture of the two,” said a provider participant. Regarding the question of safety, many respondents reported that late classes offered at night were not ideal to ensure safety of patrons. Transportation—though not the first time raised in the discussion—was a major issue. “Many students are afraid to catch the bus at night . . . to walk to the bus stop if it is too far,” said one provider participant. “Proper lighting is also important,” said another. Many affirmed that gang violence (rather, gang territory and rivalry) is a major concern. “It might be safer to go to a location away from your area to avoid gangs,” said one provider participant. When asked what the provider participants would expect from an adult education school, the results varied. The following is a short listing of some their responses: • • • • • •

Patient instructors Soft skills training Support after completion of training Funding Support to families with children Students should be motivated and dressed properly

Additional comments included “community support for the school,” but when asked for further elaboration by citing examples of when a community has lacked support for a school, none could articulate a response. The issue of transportation was raised again, this time in the context of incentivizing students to attend school. One provider participant said, “Stipends should be given to students” so they could attend. A robust discussion ensued. Some argued the money would not be utilized for its intended purpose (travel), and that those who were willing to attend would do so without being incentivized with money. Others disagreed, and thought money was a good way to help students to attend an adult education school. Some proffered that money could be given in other ways, like “to reward students for [academic] achievements,” one provider participant said. There was no clear consensus on the issue. On the question of the types of support services the providers thought were most needed by their students, the following list captures their responses: • • • •

On-site child care Food assistance On-site mental health assistance Tutors and mentors 136

• • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Transportation assistance Staff training (beyond case management)on referral services Stipends for students Guidance/counseling

Considerable comments were made regarding the lack of knowledge that many of the provider participants—some speaking on behalf of their students—have of available services, especially for seniors. More needs to be done, “to let seniors know of what services are available to them,” said one provider participant, to which another responded, “that is what the Office on Aging provides.” Regarding the question on what training programs are most useful in today’s job market, the provider participants offered the following list: 217 • Green [training] • Computer training • Health Care Aides • Auto Mechanic • Nursing • Construction • Entrepreneurial training • Training that doesn’t end at entry level (sustainable) • Barbering/cosmetology • Mortuary Science Provider participants were then asked to decide how education dollars should be spent in Ward 8. Note that this question was not geared toward the cohort of adult education (16-24). It was meant to gauge how the participants felt investments should be made in education, generally. It was to encourage discussion on the topic to determine whether, in earnest, the participants felt that investments should be made in their market, or other education markets (like K-12 for instance). One provider participant said that “aftercare” should be offered to students so that they could have a safe place to complete their assignments and homework. Another said that money should be invested in “retraining teachers.” “More money needs to be invested in marketing programs so more people can know they exist,” said another participant. “We need more resources for seniors,” pined another provider participant. Technology, education materials, and remodeling schools rounded out the responses of the participants. There seemed to be a tendency to focus efforts on supporting older students, including secondary students, and seniors.

217

This is a summary list

137

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Adult Education Considerations and Recommendations Considerations

• • • • • •

UPO leadership should be mindful of the dynamics of student retention in light of gang rivalries and territorial disputes that may impact whether and how often adult students will attend an adult education program. UPO leadership should be mindful of the focus group participants’ desire for extracurricular activities that support and occupy students’ time while out-of-class. UPO leadership should consider the fact that focus group participants desire adult educational opportunities for a much wider age range of adult students to accommodate an older adult population than the proposed 16 to 24 year-old cohort. UPO leadership should consider and study the market fluctuations of available GED programs, specifically, in the Congress Heights area to avoid oversaturation of available GED programs. If UPO leadership intends to offer fee-for-service options to students, then it should consider sources of financial assistance to offer students, other than student loans. UPO leadership should be mindful that focus group participant’s list embarrassment as a leading factor as to why students are less likely to stay in school, most notably regarding fashion.

Recommendations

• • • • • • • •

That the location of the facility to offer adult education programs is conveniently located near public transportation and is located in an area that is well lighted at night. That staff and curricula designs require well qualified teachers of students with learning disabilities. That course offerings include (at a minimum) GED, health-related training, computer technology training, and soft skills training. That the adult education facility should achieve an “all-in-one” environment that offers on-site support services including mental health, food assistance, and mentoring, among others. That students are supported with transportation assistance. That students be offered “creative” incentives to attend adult education programs in order to maintain retention (i.e., stipends, sports teams, achievement contests, etc.). That adult education programs be vigorously marketed so as to maintain service capacity and utilization. That students are offered “aftercare”—supportive services—when they complete their adult education programs.

138

2012 Community Needs Assessment

139

2012 Community Needs Assessment

140

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy

141

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The following recommendations include considerations based on indicators from the review of data and information and input gleaned from focus group discussions and the UPO Needs Assessment Survey. More detailed recommendations can be found in the ward sections of this assessment.

Daily Needs • • • • • • • •

Increase access to and the availability of food, especially for low-income residents. Improve access to employment services. Increase access to affordable housing. Facilitate access to rental and mortgage assistance. Improve communication of available social services to residents, so they may know where to go for help. Increase access to and the availability of clothing especially for low-income residents. Loosen eligibility requirements for residents seeking social services, including families with employed individuals struggling to make ends meet. Improve access to and the availability of transportation, especially for low-income and elderly residents in some areas of the city.

Education •

• •

Continue to ensure residents have access to high performing Tier 1 and Tier 2 public schools and increase proficiency scores in underperforming Tier 3 and Tier 4 public schools. Improve DC CAS math and reading proficiency scores in all wards. Increase access to childcare facilities in underserved wards.

Civics • • •

Improve engagement efforts between elected representatives and all residents including multilingual residents. Improve communication efforts of planned community meetings so that residents are better aware of meetings including multilingual residents. Improve engagement efforts between developers/planners and residents to facilitate greater inclusion in decisions, that affect the future design of their neighborhoods.

Social •

• •

Increase efforts to improve the health of residents by addressing high percentages of survey respondents who list high blood pressure, asthma, diabetes, and obesity among their top health problems in all wards. Increase community support programs that offer cultural, recreational, and educational activities to residents in all age groups in underserved wards. Increase access to healthcare, including specialty/acute healthcare in underserved wards or those with at risk populations.

Physical •

Improve safety at neighborhood parks and recreational centers. 142

• • • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Address increasing gang-related activity and presence in the District with emphasis on those wards identified as problem areas. Address homelessness through effective programming and engage the community in the development of positive solutions for decreasing loitering. Increase police presence in neighborhoods with high crime areas. Address the traffic congestion issue in Wards 2 and 3. Reduce rodent infestations.

Economic • • • • •

Increase access to and awareness of business start-up capital and business training opportunities. Increase access to vocational skills training. Reduce high unemployment rates. Reduce high poverty rates in the city. Increase access to first-time homebuyer and renter assistance.

143

2012 Community Needs Assessment

144

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 1 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

145

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 1 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

Social Impact Data The following chart briefly outlines the demographic, income, housing, and other characteristics of this Ward. Ward 1

Population

Population Totals 2010

76,556

Population Totals 2011

77,080

Population Totals 2016

78,681

Demographic

Population by Race and Ethnicity 2011 White Alone

37,317

Black Alone

25,009

American Indian Alone

393

Asia n Alone

3,204

Pacific Islander Alone

Some Other Race Alone

8,006

Two or More Races

3,105

Hispanic Origin (Any Race)

16,134

Income

Households by Income Income <$15,000

6,085

Income $15,000-$24,999

3,469

Income $25,000-$34,999

3,184

Income $35,000-$49,999

3,915

Income $50,000-$74,999

5,719

Income $75,000-$99,999

3,849

Income $100,000-$149,999

4,544

Income $150,000-$199,999

2,103

146

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Income >$200,000

2,554

Unemployed

8,864

Poverty

Poverty Levels # Individuals in Poverty

11,748

% Individuals in Poverty

16.50%

% Families in Poverty

13.20%

% Under 18 years in Poverty

23.10%

Education

Percent high school graduate or higher

81.20%

Percent bachelor's degree or higher

54.60%

Housing

Housing Units

37,470

Owner Occupied Housing Units

26.90%

Renter Occupied Housing Units

64.10%

Vacant Housing Units

9.00%

Unemployment

Unemployment Rate

10.10%

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Data. Esri forecasts for 2011 and 2016 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Data. Esri forecasts for 2011 (Household Income) 3 U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005-2009) from the American Community Survey (ACS). http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/DC+Data+and+Maps/DC+Data/Tables/Data+by+Geography/Wards/DC+Ward+Data+2005-2009+ACS 2

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005-2009) from the American Community Survey (ACS). http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/DC+Data+and+Maps/DC+Data/Tables/Data+by+Geography/Wards 5 6

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Esri forecasts for 2010 and 2015 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Esri forecasts for 2010

• • • •

Home to fewer than 13% of the District’s total population, with 77,080 residents, Ward 1 is projected to grow along with the rest of the city. With predominantly white residents, Ward 1 boasts the city’s largest Hispanic population with 16,134 people identifying themselves as Hispanic. The majority of households with those employed number 6,085 and earn an income of less than $15,000 Even with a moderate family income, there is still a large number of people in poverty with 18% of families living at or below the poverty line 147

• •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Most of the families living in Ward 1 rent their homes with 64.1% of the total housing units not being occupied by owners. The unemployment rate is relatively low at 10.1% up against a city average of 12.94%

Education The following section details the performance of the K – 12 schools in this ward on the standardized District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment Systems (DC CAS). DC CAS is used to measure academic proficiency using the DC Content Standards as the model. Ward 1 CAS Proficiency Rates and Tiers by School for 2008, 2012 and 2016 Projections Projected Projected Overall Overall Math Reading Reading Reading Tier School Proficiency Proficiency Math Math Rank Sector Type 2008^ 2012^ (2016)* 2008^ 2012^ (2016)* * School Name 2008^ 20012^ Capital City PCS - Lower 1 PCS EC 75.3% 65.1% 73.0% 62.3% 67.7% 77.6% 67.8% 68.1% 2 E.L. Haynes PCS - Georgia Avenue Campus 2 PCS EC 63.6% 62.3% 67.1% 65.8% 100.0% 60.0% 58.9% 78.0% 1 Meridian PCS 3 PCS EC 44.2% 59.5% 48.1% 61.8% 85.5% 40.3% 57.3% 90.2% 2 Columbia Heights EC 4 DCPS EC 44.0% 47.6% 48.0% 40.3% 45.0% 2 Cleveland ES 1 DCPS ES 68.3% 70.9% 63.5% 74.5% 97.7% 73.0% 67.3% 67.9% 1 Community Academy PCS - Butler Bilingual 2 PCS ES 61.0% 63.2% 100.0% 58.8% 61.3% 1 Tubman ES 3 DCPS ES 32.6% 58.4% 35.9% 65.0% 100.0% 29.3% 51.9% 63.9% 2 Marie Reed ES 4 DCPS ES 59.7% 53.8% 58.4% 58.0% 67.9% 60.9% 49.6% 34.6% 2 D.C. Bilingual PCS 5 PCS ES 17.2% 50.0% 3.4% 45.5% 100.0% 31.0% 54.5% 46.0% 2 Bancroft ES 6 DCPS ES 55.8% 42.2% 58.6% 49.4% 40.6% 53.0% 35.1% 21.6% 3 Bruce-Monroe ES at Park View 7 DCPS ES 45.7% 34.2% 48.3% 40.6% 28.1% 43.1% 27.9% 7.1% 4 H.D. Cooke ES 8 DCPS ES 39.4% 29.9% 42.6% 29.1% 31.6% 36.1% 30.7% 63.0% 3 Benjamin Banneker SHS 1 DCPS HS 97.6% 91.7% 98.1% 96.8% 100.0% 97.1% 86.6% 94.9% 1 Capital City PCS - Upper 2 PCS HS 48.7% 48.7% 95.4% 48.7% 61.4% 2 Cardozo HSH 3 DCPS HS 24.8% 28.6% 26.6% 31.6% 34.1% 23.0% 25.5% 39.2% 4 Booker T. Washington PCS 4 PCS HS 14.6% 26.3% 11.4% 21.1% 30.6% 17.8% 31.6% 79.1% 3 The Washington Metropolitan High School 5 DCPS HS 9.4% 8.3% 10.4% Howard University MS of Math and Science 1 PCS MS 62.2% 76.0% 63.9% 78.9% 100.0% 60.4% 73.0% 100.0% 1 Cesar Chavez PCS - Bruce Prep Campus 2 PCS MS 30.6% 60.0% 30.6% 72.9% 100.0% 30.6% 47.0% 84.3% 1 Shaw MS at Garnet-Patterson 3 DCPS MS 35.7% 32.5% 32.7% 32.9% 47.5% 38.7% 32.1% 32.3% 3 ^Soumya Bhat. (2013, March 13). An uphill climb for DC schools: A look at DC CAS test score trends. DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-13-13-Final-Test-Score-Paper.pdf *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• • • •

Capital City PCS, a Tier 2 school, tops the list with 65% overall proficiency for an educational campus Cleveland Elementary, a Tier 1 school, tops the list of elementary schools with an overall proficiency rate of 70.9% Benjamin Banneker, a Tier 1 school, is the top performing high school in the ward with an overall proficiency rate of 91.7% Howard University Middle School of Science and Mathematics, also a Tier 1 school, is a top performing school with an overall proficiency rate of 76%

148

2012 Community Needs Assessment

School Type and Tier SY 2011* School Type T1 T2 T3 T4 Totals % 1 3 4 21.1% EC = Educational Campus (K-12) 2 3 2 1 8 42.1% ES = Elementary School 1 1 1 1 4 21.1% HS = High School 2 1 3 15.8% MS = Middle School 0 Other 0.0% 6 7 4 2 19 Totals 100.0% 32% 37% 21% 11% 100% % *Source: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood • • • • •

The majority of the schools in Ward 1 (69%) are performing at Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels 32% of the schools in Ward 1 are underperforming Tier 3 and Tier 4 schools. More than half of the eight elementary schools in the Ward are performing Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools Half of the high schools in the Ward are performing Tier 1 and Tier2 schools The majority of the schools in the ward are elementary schools with 42.1%

Focus Group Results The following section details the results from personal conversations with community members on their views and attitudes in regards to the health and well-being of the communities in which they live. August 14, 2013 9:30 am – 11:30 am CHANGE, Inc. 1413 Park Road, NW Group Demographics

The focus group was held the morning of August 14, 2013, from 9:30 am – 11:30 am at Change, Inc. The group was made up of Hispanic individuals. Many participants were Spanish speakers and spoke English as a second language. An interpreter assisted for this focus group. Key Findings

Participants were given an overview of the purpose of the needs assessment and how the focus group is important to that process. The focus group was also provided with a brief history of UPO as well as background information on programs and services offered by UPO. The participants were asked questions in four categories: civic, social, physical, and economic.

149

Civic

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The first two questions concerned civics. Participants were first asked whether they thought leaders in their community (political, religious, and community organizations) ensure that their needs are met. The group stated that their political leaders only visit the community during elections and that there was a lack of bilingual political leaders in the Hispanic community. The groups expressed that religious leaders provide shelter, food, and clothes. Participants were next asked if they were included in the future design of their neighborhood. The focus group participants agreed that they were not included in future designs of their neighborhood. The focus group participants expressed that they were not notified of meetings about neighborhood plans, their voices were not valued, many meetings were not in Spanish, not in an accessible location, or only advertised via the internet and many people do not have access to a computer. Social

Next, the focus group was asked questions regarding social issues. In response to what social supports they thought people in their community needed, the group stated: • Affordable housing • Health care services • Child care • Safe parks • Additional police in the neighborhoods and metro. With respect to education, one focus group expressed that overall education in D.C. was good but that many residents face “poverty and obstacles” to obtaining education. That focus group also expressed concern about the safety in D.C. Public Schools. Physical

Two questions regarding the physical environment were posed to the focus group. When asked whether they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago, the focus group stated that more community involvement and police surveillance were needed. One participant from that group stated that their building was “clean but not safe” and there are often numerous uninvited guests entering the building and gang activity. The top health and environmental concerns cited by the group was a lack of health clinics. Economic

Finally, focus group participants were asked three questions related to economic conditions. Participants stated that loan services would be a support service necessary for individuals in their community who desired to start a business. 150

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Needs Assessment Survey Results

Ward 1 UPO 2012 Community Needs Assessment Survey Results

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Gender

39.6%

Male

60.4%

Female No Responses

0.0%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Martial Status 50.0%

Neverâ&#x20AC;Ś 17.7%

Married Divorced

12.5%

Separated

6.2%

Domestic Partnership

5.2%

Widowed

6.2%

No Responses

2.1%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

151

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Age Range

3.1%

12 -19 years-old

10.4%

20 - 27 years-old

20.8%

28 - 34 years-old

10.4%

35 - 42 years-old

13.5%

43 - 49 years-old

12.5%

50 - 57 years-old

7.3%

58 - 64 years-old

21.9%

65+ years-old No Responses

0.0%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Race/Ethinicty

54.2%

African American 33.3%

Hispanic 6.2%

Caucasian Asian Native American Other No Responses

2.1% 0.0% 1.0% 3.1%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and

152

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Annual Household Income

28.1%

$0 - $9,999 18.7%

$10,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999

11.4%

$35,000 - $44,999

11.4%

$45,000 - $54,999

11.4% 5.2%

$55,000 - $64,999 $65,000 - $74,999

3.1% 6.2%

$75,000 - $100,000 $100,000 +

2.1%

No Responses

2.1%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Age Range in Household 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research

153

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Highest Educational Level

Earned Master's Degree or greater

1.0% 17.7%

Earned Bachelor's Degree

5.2%

Earned Associate's Degree

27.1%

Some College Completed Technical School Some Technical School

0.0% 1.0% 15.6%

Completed High School

7.3%

Some High School

11.5%

Completed Middle School

6.3% 7.3%

Some Middle School No Responses

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Employment Status

34.4%

Employed full-time Employed part-time Self-employed

12.5% 1.0% 14.6%

Unemployed, looking for work Unemployed, not looking for work Student Retired Homemaker Military Other No Responses

4.2% 3.1% 19.8% 2.1% 0.0% 5.2% 3.1%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

154

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Military Veteran Status

4.2%

Yes

85.4%

No 10.4%

No Responses

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Household Needs 25.0%

20.7%

20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

11.4% 5.7% 4.7%

7.8% 7.3%

3.6% 3.1% 4.1% 4.7%

1.6%

4.7%

2.1%

3.6%

0.0%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

155

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Household Health Conditions

25.0%

20.3%

20.0%

13.5%

15.0% 10.0%

9.8% 6.0%

5.0%

6.8%

5.3% 1.5%

1.5%

0.0%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1- Resources Received Last Year 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

43.3%

12.5% 3.3%

0.0%

15.8%

13.3% 3.3%

4.2%

0.8%

1.7%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and

156

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Roadblocks to Your Needs

20.0%

18.2%

15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

10.7%

9.1% 4.1% 4.1%

5.8% 2.5% 2.5%

4.1%

1.7%

0.0%

1.7%

0.0%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Neighborhood Safer In 2012 To a Great Extent 12.5%

36.5%

Somewhat

Very Little

Not at All 26.0%

No Responses 20.8%

4.2%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

157

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 Neighborhood Inclusion To a Great Extent

12.5%

10%

Somewhat

Very Little

Not at All

36.5%

20%

30%

No Responses

26.0%

40%

50%

60%

20.8%

70%

80%

4.2%

90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 1 - Quality Schools in My Neighborhood Strongly Agree

14.6% 0%

10%

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

36.5% 20%

30%

Strongly Disagree

12.5% 4.2% 4.2%

28.1% 40%

50%

60%

No Responses

70%

80%

90%

100%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessments Survey Results Ward 1 - Confidence in the City's Ability to Provide Jobs Very Confident

Somewhat Confident

Confident

Not Very Confident

Uncertain of my Confidence

No Responses

10.4%

10%

35.4%

20%

30%

16.7%

40%

50%

24.0%

60%

70%

10.4% 3.1%

80%

90%

100%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

158

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 1 Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard CIVIC

LEADERSHIP Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inclusion in future design of neighborhoods

COLLABORATION Community Group Engagement

OVERALL

SOCIAL EDUCATION Quality of Education in Public Schools

B+

Access to Educational Institutions & libraries

C+

DC CAS Math Proficiency

DC CAS Reading Proficiency

Access to Childcare Centers

CULTURE Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities by Childcare Centers

Access to DC Public Parks and Recreation Centers

HEALTH Residents in Excellent Health

Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers)

OVERALL

C-

PHYSICAL SAFETY Perception of Safety

A-

Mortality Due to Accidents

Violent and Property Crimes

C+

ENVIRONMENT Vacant Housing Units

C-

Vehicle Registrations

B+

Trees in Good/Excellent Condition

A-

OVERALL

ECONOMIC Confidence in City's Ability to Provide jobs

A-

Access to affordable Childcare

B-

Net worth

Unemployment

Poverty level

B-

OVERALL

B-

159

•

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 1 scored Bs and Cs in every principle indicating that overall its health is average to good. Civic: There is solid inclusion by residents in future neighborhood plans, which is likely supported by the number of community groups that allow residents an opportunity for engagement.

•

Social: Though residents generally agree that their public schools offer quality education, Ward 1 scored a D in math proficiency and F in reading proficiency suggesting a gap between perception and the reality of education in Ward 1. This principle was the lowest score for Ward 1 and was affected by the low math and reading proficiency scores.

•

Physical: Though scoring a C in terms of violent and property crimes, Ward 1 residents still had a great perception of safety.

•

Economic: Ward 1’s confidence in the District’s ability to provide jobs is somewhat supported by the unemployment rate where it scored a B.

160

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy Daily Needs

• • • • •

Increase access to and the availability of food, especially for low-income residents Improve access to and the availability of transportation, especially for low-income residents Improve communication of available social services to residents, so they may know where to go for help Increase access to employment services Increase access to affordable housing

Education

• •

Continue to ensure residents have access to performing Tier 1 and Tier 2 Public Schools and increase proficiency scores in underperforming Tier 3 and Tier 4 Public Schools Improve DC CAS math and reading proficiency scores

Civics

• • •

Improve engagement efforts between elected representatives and residents, including representatives who speak Spanish. Improve communication efforts of planned community meetings so that residents are better aware of meetings and include Spanish-speaking representatives Improve engagement efforts between developers/planners and residents to effect greater inclusion in decisions that affect the future design of their neighborhoods

Social

• •

Improve safety at neighborhood parks and recreation centers, addressing gang-related activity and presence. Increase police presence in neighborhoods

Physical

• •

Increase access to healthcare providers Increase efforts to improve the health of residents by addressing high percentages of survey respondents who list high blood pressure, asthma and diabetes among their top health problems.

Economic

• • • •

Increase education/training opportunities including dual language instruction Reduce the rate of poverty in the ward for residents under the age of 18-years-old Increase soft skills training aimed at youth in money management/budgeting Implement programs that educate Ward 1 residents on issues related to health and wellness.

161

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 2 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

162

2012 Community Needs Assessment

163

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 2 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

Social Impact Data The following chart briefly outlines the demographic, income, housing, and other characteristics of this ward. Ward 2

Population1

Population Totals 2010

79,788

Population Totals 2011

80,595

Population Totals 2016

83,031 Demographic1

Population by Race and Ethnicity 2011 White Alone

57,842

Black Alone

10,306

American Indian Alone

219

Asian Alone

6,795

Pacific Islander Alone

Some Other Race Alone

2,883

Two or More Races

2,485

Hispanic Origin (Any Race)

7,707 Income2

Households by Income Income <$15,000

5,625

Income $15,000-$24,999

2,625

Income $25,000-$34,999

2,732

Income $35,000-$49,999

3,822

Income $50,000-$74,999

5,893 164

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Income $75,000-$99,999

4,191

Income $100,000-$149,999

5,536

Income $150,000-$199,999

3,738

Income >$200,000

6,551

Unemployed

6,609 Poverty3

Poverty Levels # Individuals in Poverty

10,258

% Individuals in Poverty

14.90%

% Families in Poverty

5.60%

% Under 18 years in Poverty

17.20% Education4

Percent high school graduate or higher

91.8%

Percent bachelor's degree or higher

72.7%

Housing5 Housing Units

43,730

Owner Occupied Housing Units

29.5%

Renter Occupied Housing Units

60.8%

Vacant Housing Units

9.6% Unemployment6

Unemployment Rate

5.8%

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005-2009) from the American Community Survey (ACS). http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/DC+Data+and+Maps/DC+Data/Tables/Data+by+Geography/Wards 5 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Esri forecasts for 2010 and 2015 6 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Esri forecasts for 2010

165

• • • • • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 2 is DC’s largest ward with regards to the number as it is home to 80,595 residents Ward 2 has the District’s second largest concentration of white residents, and those residents are 72% of the ward’s total population. Ward 2 is also the City’s second most affluent ward with 13.8% of the families earning an income greater than $200,000 annually. Poverty is not as rampant in the ward with just 5.6% of the families living below the federal poverty line. Almost 3 out of 4 Ward 2 residents have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. A large portion of the families living in Ward 2 rent their homes with 61% of the ward living as renters. The unemployment rate is far below the city average of 12.94%

Education The following section details the performance of the K – 12 schools in this ward on the standardized District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS). DC CAS is used to measure academic proficiency using the DC Content Standards as the model Ward 2 CAS Proficiency Rates and Tiers by School for 2008, 2012 and 2016 Projections Overall

Overall

Projected

School Proficiency Proficiency Math Math Reading Reading Reading Tier Math Rank Sector Type 2008^ 2012^ (2016)* 2008^ 2012^ School Name * 2008^ 20012^ (2016)* Francis - Stevens EC 1 DCPS EC 45.8% 50.7% 43.3% 49.6% 62.9% 48.2% 51.8% 70.6% 2 Center City PCS - Shaw Campus 2 PCS EC 38.8% 41.3% 45.6% 36.4% 24.5% 3 Hyde-Addison ES 1 DCPS ES 80.8% 82.2% 79.5% 81.2% 87.8% 82.1% 83.2% 76.5% 1 Ross ES 2 DCPS ES 54.5% 68.8% 46.3% 72.9% 88.2% 62.7% 64.6% 84.3% 1 Thomson ES 3 DCPS ES 38.3% 51.9% 31.7% 54.5% 51.9% 44.9% 49.3% 24.9% 3 Garrison ES 4 DCPS ES 56.5% 47.8% 55.6% 50.7% 34.1% 57.3% 44.8% 50.9% 3 Seation ES 5 DCPS ES 42.1% 43.0% 44.4% 45.2% 44.5% 39.7% 40.9% 51.9% 3 School Without Walls SHS 1 DCPS HS 93.9% 98.2% 93.0% 98.2% 100.0% 93.0% 98.2% 100.0% 1 Elington School of the Arts 2 DCPS HS 64.4% 65.8% 52.3% 58.3% 100.0% 76.5% 73.4% 100.0% 1 Hardy MS 1 DCPS MS 67.2% 65.6% 63.1% 68.4% 81.0% 71.3% 62.8% 70.7% 1 KIPP DC WILL Academy PCS 2 PCS MS 60.8% 60.9% 65.4% 66.8% 100.0% 56.2% 55.0% 95.1% 1 ^Soumya Bhat. (2013, March 13). An uphill climb for DC schools: A look at DC CAS test score trends. DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-13-13-Final-Test-Score-Paper.pdf *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• • • •

Francis – Steven EC, a Tier 2 school, tops the list with 45.8% overall proficiency for an educational campus. Hyde – Addison ES, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 80.8% overall proficiency for an elementary school. Hardy MS, a Tier 1 middle school, tops the list with 67.2% overall proficiency. School Without Walls SHS, a Tier 1 high school, is listed in the high 90 percentile in all ratings.

166

2012 Community Needs Assessment

School Type and Tier SY 2011*

% School Type T1 T2 T3 T4 Totals 1 1 2 18.2% EC = Educational Campus (K-12) 2 3 5 45.5% ES = Elementary School 2 2 18.2% HS = High School 2 2 18.2% MS = Middle School 0 Other 0.0% 6 1 4 0 11 Totals 100.0% 55% 9% 36% 0% 100% % *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• • • •

55% of schools in ward 2 are performing Tier 1 schools. 36% of the schools in Ward 2 are underperforming Tier 3 schools. All of the educational campus, middle school, and high school are performing schools with 64%. Three out of five elementary schools are underperforming Tier 3 schools.

Focus Group/Interview Results The following section details the outcomes from personal conversations with community members on their views and attitudes in regards to the health and well-being of the communities in which they live. In lieu of focus groups, for Ward 2 there were interviews conducted with individual residents. There were three residents - one Caucasian male and two Caucasian females. One interviewee was a college student, one had earned a bachelor’s degree, and one had earned a master’s degree. Two of the interviewees were between the ages of 20-27, and one was between the ages of 35 -42. The college student interviewed was employed part-time and had an annual income of 25,000 -34,999 and the two other interviewees had an income over $35,000.

Key Findings The interviewees were given an overview of the purpose of the needs assessment and how discussion with residents from each ward is important to that process. The interviewees were asked questions in four categories: civics, social, physical, and economic. Civics

The first two questions concerned civics. Interviewees were first asked whether leaders in their community (political, religious, and community organizations) ensure that their needs are met. All three interviewees stated that their leaders ensured needs were met. One interviewee stated that she has access to a neighborhood list-serv where she and others can find out whom to contact regarding issues; she also stated that residents “usually receive a somewhat prompt response to any concerns.” Interviewees were next asked if they were included in the future design of their neighborhood. Interviewees stated that they were included in decision making in their communities. One interviewee stated that leaders “are pretty good at informing 167

2012 Community Needs Assessment

residents about Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC), Department of Transportation, and other meetings via the list-serv.” Another interviewee stated that “there were many stores opening up that seem to be responsive to the needs and requests of the community.” Social

Next, interviewees were asked questions regarding social issues. In response to what social supports people in their community needed, they stated: • Free/affordable health clinics • Affordable daycare • Elder assistance • Affordable gyms/exercise facilities With respect to education, the interviewees agreed that there was quality education available on the college/university level. One interviewee stated that she was “unaware of the quality of DC Public Schools in her neighborhood.” Another interviewee stated that students in her neighborhood schools “often don’t meet the competitive level of college readiness” to succeed at universities. Physical

Two questions regarding the physical environment were posed to interviewees. Two of the interviewees agreed that they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago. Despite greater safety, one interviewee cited the need for additional patrolling in his neighborhood, especially on the weekends and late nights. One interviewee stated that she was not sure whether her community was safer than one year ago, but intimated that the area was somewhat unsafe. That interviewee noted that burglaries seemed common, given the fact that she lives near a university where “students are seen as easy targets” for crime, she said. The top health and environmental concerns cited by the interviewees are: • Traffic • Garbage retrieval • Rodent infestations Economic

Finally, interviewees were asked three questions related to economic conditions. First, they stated that individuals in their community who desired to start a business would need: • Business development classes • Start-up projects • Loans • Assistance with child care When asked what type of training programs should be offered in their neighborhood, one interviewee stated job search training, job skills training, and college search training. One interviewee stated “that most of the people around her appeared to have had the privilege of having a decent education or training.” However, “many of these people have hired help,” such 168

2012 Community Needs Assessment

as maids and nannies she continued, and perhaps the hired help would benefit from training to expand their job opportunities. Finally, interviewees were asked what resources young families with limited income desiring to rent or purchase a home in their neighborhood needed. Two interviewees noted the expense of living in their communities. One stated that the resources needed to rent or purchase a home would be much more assistance than may be available for potential renters or buyers.

169

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Needs Assessment Survey Results

Ward 2 UPO 2012 Community Needs Assessment Survey Results

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Gender

46.4%

Male

53.6%

Female No Responses

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Marital Status 57.1%

Never Married/Single 21.4%

Married 7.1%

Divorced Separated

3.6%

Domestic Partnership

3.6% 7.1%

Widowed No Responses

0.0%

170

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Age Range

12 -19 years-old

0.0% 21.4%

20 - 27 years-old 14.3%

28 - 34 years-old

21.4%

35 - 42 years-old 10.7%

43 - 49 years-old 7.1%

50 - 57 years-old

10.7%

58 - 64 years-old

14.3%

65+ years-old No Responses

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Race/Ethnicity

60.7%

African American 10.7%

Hispanic

25.0%

Caucasian Asian Native American

0.0% 3.6%

Other

0.0%

No Responses

0.0%

171

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Annual Household Income 14.3%

$0 - $9,999

21.4%

$10,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999

3.6% 14.3%

$35,000 - $44,999 $45,000 - $54,999

3.6% 17.9%

$55,000 - $64,999

10.7%

$65,000 - $74,999

7.1%

$75,000 - $100,000 $100,000 + No Responses

3.6% 3.6%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Household Age Range

35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

172

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Highest Educational Level 3.6%

Earned Master's Degreeâ&#x20AC;Ś

28.6%

Earned Bachelor's Degree 14.3%

Earned Associate's Degree

17.9%

Some College Completed Technicalâ&#x20AC;Ś Some Technical School

0.0% 0.0% 28.6%

Completed High School 7.1%

Some High School Completed Middle School

0.0%

Some Middle School

0.0%

No Responses

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Employment Status 39.3%

Employed full-time

7.1%

Employed part-time

10.7%

Self-employed

3.6%

Unemployed, looking for work

7.1%

Unemployed, not looking for work

3.6%

Student

17.9%

Retired

3.6%

Homemaker

3.6%

Military Other No Responses

3.6% 0.0%

173

2012 Community Needs Assessment

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Household Needs 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

12.8% 5.1%

7.7%

10.3%

5.1% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0%

2.6% 2.6% 2.6%

0.0%

2.6%

174

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Household Health Conditions 19.4%

20.0% 15.0%

9.7%

10.0% 3.2%

5.0%

3.2%

0.0%

3.2% 0.0%

3.2%

3.2% 0.0%

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Resources Received Last Year 60.0%

44.8%

40.0% 20.0% 0.0%

24.1% 0.0%

6.9% 6.9%

17.2% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

175

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Roadblocks to Your Needs

15.0%

13.8%

13.8% 10.3%

10.0% 5.0%

6.9% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%

3.4% 0.0%

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 - Neighborhood Safer In 2012

Strongly Agree

7.1% 0%

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

46.4% 10%

20%

30%

Strongly Disagree

35.7% 40%

50%

60%

70%

No Responses

3.6% 7.1% 80%

90%

100%

176

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 -Inclusion in Neighborhood Decision Making

To a Great Extent

Somewhat

21.4% 0%

10%

Very Little

28.6% 20%

30%

Not at All

25.0%

40%

50%

60%

No Responses

10.7% 70%

14.3%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 -Quality Schools in My Neighborhood Strongly Agree 7.1% 0%

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

39.3% 10%

20%

30%

Strongly Disagree 35.7%

40%

50%

60%

No Responses 10.7%

7.1% 70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 2 -Confidence in the City's Ability to Provide Jobs Very Confident

Somewhat Confident

Confident

Not Very Confident

Uncertain of my Confidence

No Responses

17.9% 0%

10%

17.9% 20%

30%

25.0% 40%

50%

25.0% 60%

70%

7.1% 7.1% 80%

90%

100%

177

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 2 Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard CIVIC

LEADERSHIP Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inclusion in future design of neighborhoods

B-

COLLABORATION Community Group Engagement

C+

OVERALL

BSOCIAL

EDUCATION Quality of Education in Public Schools

Access to Educational Institutions & libraries

DC CAS Math Proficiency

DC CAS Reading Proficiency

Access to Childcare Centers

CULTURE Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities by Childcare Centers Access to DC Public Parks and Recreation Centers

A F*

HEALTH Residents in Excellent Health

B-

Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers)

C+

OVERALL

BPHYSICAL

SAFETY Perception of Safety

B+

Mortality Due to Accidents

A-

Violent and Property Crimes

C-

ENVIRONMENT Vacant Housing Units

Vehicle Registrations

A-

Trees in Good/Excellent Condition

B-

OVERALL

BECONOMIC

Confidence in City's Ability to Provide jobs

A-

Access to affordable Childcare

B+

Net worth

Unemployment

A-

Poverty level

OVERALL

B+

178

• •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 2 scored Bs in every principle indicating that overall its health vis-à-vis the principles was good. Civics: While Ward 2 boasts an average number of community groups as compared to other Wards, residents generally feel included in future neighborhood plans.

•

Social: The proficiency of Ward 2 children in math and reading matched the perception of the quality of public schools as it scored a B in each factor. Notably, in comparison to other wards, Ward 2 residents have very little access to parks and recreation centers having scored an F in that factor.

•

Physical: Though scoring a C- in terms of violent and property crimes, Ward 2 residents still had a great perception of safety.

•

Economic: The economic health of Ward 2 is great. Ward 2’s great confidence in the District’s ability to provide jobs is somewhat lessened by the unemployment rate where it scored an A. Further, the average net worth in that ward is close to the District average.

179

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy Daily Needs

• • •

Improve access to and the availability of transportation, especially for low-income residents Increase access to and the availability of food, especially for low-income residents Improve communication of available social services to residents, so they may know where to go for help

Education

•

Continue to ensure residents have access to performing Tier 1 and Tier 2 public schools and increase proficiency scores in underperforming Tier 3 and Tier 4 public schools

Social

• • •

Increase access to affordable fitness facilities (gyms) Increase access to affordable childcare Increase access to healthcare

Physical

• • • • •

Increase efforts to improve the health of residents by addressing high percentages of survey respondents who list high blood pressure and diabetes among their top health problems Improve violent and property crime rates in the ward Address traffic congestion Improve garbage retrieval Reduce rodent infestations

Economic • Increase opportunities for residents to increase their knowledge of how to establish a business enterprise

180

2012 Community Needs Assessment

181

2012 Community Needs Assessment

182

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 3 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

183

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 3 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report Social Impact Data

The following chart briefly outlines the demographic, income, housing, and other characteristics of this Ward. Ward 3

Population1

Population Totals 2010

77,152

Population Totals 2011

77,351

Population Totals 2016

79,815 Demographic1

Population by Race and Ethnicity 2011 White Alone

64,625

Black Alone

3,861

American Indian Alone

169

Asian Alone

5,135

Pacific Islander Alone

Some Other Race Alone

1,196

Two or More Races

2,338

Hispanic Origin (Any Race)

5,891 Income2

Households by Income Income <$15,000

2,163

Income $15,000-$24,999

1,235

Income $25,000-$34,999

1,260

Income $35,000-$49,999

2,617

Income $50,000-$74,999

4,764

Income $75,000-$99,999

4,810

Income $100,000-$149,999

6,515 184

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Income $150,000-$199,999

4,525

Income >$200,000

10,100

Unemployed

4,022 Poverty3

Poverty Levels # Individuals in Poverty

5,446

% Individuals in Poverty

7.10%

% Families in Poverty

2.60%

% Under 18 years in Poverty

3.20% Education4

Percent high school graduate or higher

96.3%

Percent bachelor's degree or higher

82.3%

Housing5 Housing Units

40,231

Owner Occupied Housing Units

47.0%

Renter Occupied Housing Units

48.8%

Vacant Housing Units

4.2% Unemployment6

Unemployment Rate

3.2%

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Data. Esri forecasts for 2011 and 2016 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Data. Esri forecasts for 2011 (Household Income) U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005-2009) from the American Community Survey (ACS). http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/DC+Data+and+Maps/DC+Data/Tables/Data+by+Geography/Wards/DC+Ward+Data+2005-2009+ACS 2 3

• • •

Ward 3 is one of the more populous among those in the city and is home to 77,351 residents. Home to a notably large Asian population of 5,135 individuals Would probably be considered Washington, DC’s most wealthy ward with 24% of the families earning an income of greater than $200,000 185

• • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Another testament to the affluence of the ward is the fact that only 2.6% of families live below the poverty line Also, Ward 3 is the most educated of all the wards in DC with 82.3% of the residents having earned a bachelor’s degree or better In regards to housing, there are a relatively equal amount of renters and those buying their homes at 48.8% and 47.0% respectively The unemployment rate is very low compared to others in the District at 3.2%

Education The following section details the performance of the K – 12 schools in this ward on the standardized District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS). DC CAS is used to measure academic proficiency using the DC Content Standards as the model. Ward 3 CAS Proficiency Rates and Tiers by School for 2008, 2012 and 2016 Projections Overall

Overall

Projected

Schoo Proficiency Proficiency Math Math Reading Reading Reading Tier Math Rank Sector l Type 2008^ 2012^ (2016)* 2008^ 2012^ (2016)* * School Name 2008^ 20012^ Oyster-Adams Bilingual 1 DCPS EC 71.4% 82.8% 69.0% 82.2% 94.3% 73.8% 83.4% 78.9% 1 Key ES 1 DCPS ES 88.1% 91.6% 91.5% 92.3% 95.3% 84.6% 90.9% 100.0% 1 Janney ES 2 DCPS ES 88.4% 91.2% 89.0% 89.1% 98.8% 87.8% 93.2% 100.0% 1 Mann ES 3 DCPS ES 88.2% 85.1% 84.9% 83.1% 100.0% 91.4% 87.1% 85.0% 1 Eaton ES 4 DCPS ES 68.9% 84.6% 63.8% 83.8% 100.0% 73.9% 85.5% 96.6% 1 Murch ES 5 DCPS ES 76.3% 83.2% 73.1% 81.3% 100.0% 79.4% 85.1% 91.1% 1 Stoddert ES 6 DCPS ES 67.5% 81.2% 61.6% 84.8% 100.0% 73.3% 77.6% 99.4% 1 Hearst ES 7 DCPS ES 87.0% 61.7% 87.0% 60.2% 69.6% 87.0% 63.3% 73.1% 2 Wilson, Woodrow HS 1 DCPS HS 61.2% 59.9% 59.9% 59.5% 67.9% 62.5% 60.3% 79.0% 2 Deal JHS 1 DCPS MS 77.8% 83.4% 76.9% 84.7% 100.0% 78.6% 82.1% 97.9% 1 ^Soumya Bhat. (2013, March 13). An uphill climb for DC schools: A look at DC CAS test score trends. DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-13-13-Final-Test-Score-Paper.pdf *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• • • • •

Oyster – Adams Bilingual, a Tier 1 school, lists a 82.8% overall proficiency for the only educational campus (EC) school in Ward 3. Key ES, a Tier 1 school, tops the lists with 91.6% overall proficiency for elementary schools. Stoddert ES, a Tier 1 school, has improved its overall proficiency in 2008-2012 from 67.5% to 81.2%. Deal JHS, a Tier 1 school, has improved its overall proficiency in 2008-2012 from 77.8% to 83.4%. Wilson, Woodrow HS, a Tier 2 school, lists a 59.9% overall proficiency for the only high school in Ward 3.

186

2012 Community Needs Assessment

School Type and Tier SY 2011*

School Type T1 T2 T3 T4 Totals % EC = Educational Campus (K-12 1 1 10.0% ES = Elementary School 6 1 7 70.0% HS = High School 1 1 10.0% MS = Middle School 1 1 10.0% Other 0 0.0% Totals 8 2 0 0 10 100.0% % 80% 20% 0% 0% 100% *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• •

All schools in Ward 3 are performing (Tier 1 and Tier 2) schools. Ward 3 has only one of the following schools: educational campus, middle school, & high school.

Focus Group/Interview In lieu of focus groups, for Ward 3 we conducted interviews with four individual residents. We spoke with four residents from Ward 3, one Caucasian man, one Caucasian woman and two African-American women. Each of the interviewees was over the age of 40. The interviewees had an annual household income of $55,000 or more. Key Findings

The interviewees were given an overview of the purpose of the needs assessment and how discussion with residents from each ward is important to that process. The interviewees were asked questions in four categories: civics, social, physical, and economic. Civics

The first two questions concerned civics. Interviewees were first asked whether they thought leaders in their community (political, religious, and community organizations) ensure that their needs are met. All stated that their leaders ensured needs were met. One interviewee stated that his ANC commissioner walks the neighborhood weekly looking for damages to public property and coordinates service if necessary. Another interviewee expressed that community organizations do great work in the neighborhoods but often do a poor job of communicating with their customer base. Interviewees were next asked if they were included in the future design of their neighborhood. Interviewees stated that they feel “very” included in decision making in their community. One interviewee stated that his feeling of inclusion stems from all of the information he gets from the ANC commissioner and other community associations. This wealth of information comes to him by way of list-serv messages, community meetings, open forums, and neighbor-to-neighbor word-of-mouth. The other interviewee stated that there are regular meetings in her apartment building, and community organizations do a good job of informing the public of events through 187

2012 Community Needs Assessment

adequate signage. Another interviewee expressed that residents who live in apartments or condominiums are less included in future neighborhood plans. Social

Next, interviewees were asked questions regarding social issues. In response to what social supports they thought people in their community needed they stated: • Job assistance. • Additional buses • Activities for elderly • Transportation for the aging population. With respect to job training, one interviewee stated that there should be some sort of services to assist with job training, job searches, job readiness, resume writing, and other services. With respect to education, three of the interviewees agreed that there is education available to residents in his community. One interviewee went on to say that there is quality higher education available to “every resident of the city” from the University of the District of Columbia. However, one interviewee expressed that the city does not support higher education for poorer residents; “quality education is left to private institutions, and there is an overreliance on public charter schools,” one interviewee said. Physical

Two questions regarding the physical environment were posed to the interviewees. When asked whether they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago, one interviewee stated that the police patrol more often now and as a result, the neighborhood seems safer. Another interviewee stated that his/her neighborhood is not as safe as it could be citing an increasing amount of road traffic from Rock Creek Park and the zoo. “In addition to commuter traffic, the area is not as safe as it could be” said one interviewee. Another interviewee makes an account of the District Department of Transportation having neglected to complete any traffic calming measures in Woodley Park along Connecticut Avenue and Cathedral Avenue. That interviewee also commented on the lack of police presence in his area with the exception of Woodley Park Metro. Another interviewee echoed the lack of police presence and stated that “officers should get out on foot and patrol as opposed to sitting in their patrol cars.” Two residents stated that the lighting in their neighborhood was poor contributing to a lack of safety. The top health and environmental concerns cited by the interviewees were: • Rats • Overabundance of trash • The preservation of Rock Creek Park due to a lack of maintenance in addition to the homeless individuals that inhabit the park. • Increased auto traffic contributing to poorer air quality and noise pollution. One interviewee did not cite any health or environmental concerns, noting that there are programs for recycling and tree planting. Also, the sidewalks and streets are all regularly maintained and are currently in good repair most interviewees mentioned. 188

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Economic

Finally, interviewees were asked three questions related to economic conditions. First, they stated that individuals in their community who desired to start a business would need loan and startup financial information in conjunction with mentorship programs to assist novice entrepreneurs with business planning and administration functions such as budgeting, accounting, marketing, and selecting and securing a location. One interviewee noted that since UDC closed its small business center, there is no other small business unit offering like services in the area to her knowledge and she wants to see the program reopened. When asked what type of training programs should be offered in their neighborhood, one interviewee stated that he was not aware because that topic has not come up in any of the community meetings he has attended and so he has not made an assessment. Another interviewee stated that The University of the District of Columbia offers a wealth of short-term programs. A good example would be the course offering dedicated to teach basic culinary skills. It was also stated by an interviewee that the District needs vocational educational programs and literacy programs that also teach writing skills. Finally, interviewees were asked what resources young families with limited income desiring to rent or purchase a home in their neighborhood needed. One interviewee responded that with the cost of living going up all across the city any young family with limited income might possibly need rental assistance or an income-based loan. Another interviewee added that a perspective homebuyer or renter may need a first-time homebuyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s program and rental assistance. There is also a need for emergency rental assistance as an interviewee recalled an increase in the number of evictions evidenced by residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; belongings being placed on curbs. All of the interviewees expressed that because the cost of housing in the District is very expensive, a working class family with limited income would not have many options.

189

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Needs Assessment Survey Results

Ward 3 UPO Community Needs Assessment Survey Results

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Gender

38.2%

Male

61.8%

Female 0.0%

No Responses

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Marital Status

33.8%

Never Married/Single

41.2%

Married

5.9%

Divorced

7.4%

Separated Domestic Partnership

2.9% 8.8%

Widowed No Responses

0.0%

190

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Age Range 4.4%

12 -19 years-old

16.2%

20 - 27 years-old 10.3%

28 - 34 years-old

13.2%

35 - 42 years-old 7.4%

43 - 49 years-old

13.2%

50 - 57 years-old 58 - 64 years-old

17.6%

65+ years-old

17.6%

No Responses

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Race/Ethnicity 33.8%

African American Hispanic

2.9% 48.5%

Caucasian 5.9%

Asian Native American Other No Responses

2.9% 4.4% 1.5%

191

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Annual Household Income

8.8%

$0 - $9,999

8.8%

$10,000 -… $25,000 -…

10.3%

$35,000 -…

10.3% 7.4%

$45,000 -… $55,000 -…

5.9%

$65,000 -…

5.9% 11.8%

$75,000 -…

27.9%

$100,000 + No Responses

2.9%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Household Age Range

25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

192

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Employment Status

39.3%

Employed full-time

7.1%

Employed part-time Self-employed Unemployed, looking for work Unemployed, not looking for work Student Retired Homemaker Military Other No Responses

10.7% 3.6% 7.1% 3.6% 17.9% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Military Veteran Status

Yes

7.4%

88.2%

No No Responses

4.4%

193

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Household Needs

8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0%

7.3% 4.2%

5.2%

4.2%

5.2%

6.3%

5.2%

4.2%

3.1%

2.1% 0.0%

1.0%

4.2%

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Household Health Conditions

17.9%

20.0%

12.8%

15.0%

9.0%

10.0% 5.0%

5.1% 1.3%

2.6%

3.8% 0.0%

0.0%

194

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Resources Received Last Year

80.0%

63.6%

60.0% 40.0% 20.0%

0.0% 0.0% 3.9%

15.6%

0.0% 3.9% 3.9% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 1.3%

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Roadblocks to Your Needs 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

11.8% 6.6% 3.9% 1.3%

5.3%

3.9%

2.6% 0.0%

1.3% 1.3%

2.6% 0.0%

0.0%

195

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Neighborhood Safer In 2012

Strongly Agree

Agree

10.3% 0%

Undecided

Disagree

41.2%

10%

20%

Strongly Disagree

25.0%

30%

40%

50%

60%

No Responses

17.6% 70%

80%

5.9%

90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Inclusion in Neighborhood Decisions To a Great Extent

Somewhat

13.2% 0%

10%

Very Little

Not at All

42.6% 20%

30%

No Responses

32.4% 40%

50%

60%

70%

8.8% 80%

90%

2.9% 100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Quality Schools in my Neighborhood Strongly Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No Responses 2.9%

13.2% 0%

10%

47.1% 20%

30%

40%

22.1% 50%

60%

70%

10.3% 4.4% 80%

90%

100%

196

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 3 - Confidence in the City's Ablility to Provide Jobs

Very Confident Not Very Confident

Somewhat Confident Uncertain of my Confidence

Confident No Responses 1.5%

8.8% 0%

35.3% 10%

20%

30%

17.6% 40%

50%

32.4% 60%

70%

80%

4.4% 90%

100%

197

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 3 Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard CIVIC

LEADERSHIP Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inclusion in future design of neighborhoods

COLLABORATION Community Group Engagement

C+

OVERALL

B SOCIAL

EDUCATION Quality of Education in Public Schools

Access to Educational Institutions & libraries

DC CAS Math Proficiency

DC CAS Reading Proficiency

Access to Childcare Centers

C+

CULTURE Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities by Childcare Centers

C-

Access to DC Public Parks and Recreation Centers

C+

HEALTH Residents in Excellent Health

Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers)

C-

OVERALL

B PHYSICAL

SAFETY Perception of Safety

B+

Mortality Due to Accidents

A-

Violent and Property Crimes

ENVIRONMENT Vacant Housing Units

Vehicle Registrations

Trees in Good/Excellent Condition

A-

OVERALL

B+ ECONOMIC

Confidence in City's Ability to Provide jobs

A-

Access to affordable Childcare

Net worth

Unemployment

Poverty level

A-

OVERALL

A-

198

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 3’s health is good, and it boosts the highest grades, overall, of every ward. •

Civic: There is a disconnect between the number of community groups and residents’ inclusion in future neighborhood plans, where Ward 3 scored a C and an A respectively. Perhaps residents in that ward have other avenues for advocacy apart from community groups.

•

Social: The proficiency of Ward 3 children in math and reading matched the perception of the quality of public schools as it scored an A in each factor. Though Ward 3 residents are heavy drinkers, they rate their own health as excellent.

•

Physical: The only F received by Ward 3 was in vehicle registrations. The high level of vehicles suggests that parking and congestion is an issue and that Ward 3 residents have a higher carbon footprint.

•

Economic: Ward 3 was the only ward to score an A in every factor related to economics. Notably, Ward 3 residents pay an average of $1,110 per month for childcare; more than double the District average for childcare.

199

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy Daily Needs

• •

Increase access to affordable housing Improve access to adequate transportation

Education

•

Continue efforts to maintain high proficiency scores and to improve school status from Tier 2 performing schools to Tier 1 performing schools

Social

• • • •

Increase transportation services for the elderly Increase Metro bus routes Increase social activities for the elderly Increase job placement services

Physical

• • • • • • • •

Increase efforts to improve the health of residents by addressing high percentages of survey respondents who list high blood pressure, asthma, and obesity among their top health problems Increase awareness of the dangers of alcohol abuse and increase access to treatment Reduce vehicular carbon footprint Address traffic congestion and noise pollution issues Improve pedestrian/vehicular traffic safety Address homelessness/loitering issue Improve garbage retrieval Reduce rodent infestations

Economic

•

Increase access to first-time homebuyer and renter assistance

200

2012 Community Needs Assessment

201

2012 Community Needs Assessment

202

2012 Community Needs Assessment Ward 4 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhoods Report

203

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 4 Needs Assessment & Healthy Neighborhoods Report

Social Impact Data The following chart briefly outlines the demographic, income, housing, and other characteristics of this Ward. Ward 4 Population1 Population Totals 2010

76,294

Population Totals 2011

76,637

Population Totals 2016

78,029

Demographic1 Population by Race and Ethnicity 2011 White Alone

18,829

Black Alone

44,781

American Indian Alone

335

Asian Alone

1,295

Pacific Islander Alone

Some Other Race Alone

8,338

Two or More Races

3,000

Hispanic Origin (Any Race)

14,520

Income2 Households by Income Income <$15,000

2,887

Income $15,000-$24,999

2,220

Income $25,000-$34,999

2,296

Income $35,000-$49,999

3,422

Income $50,000-$74,999

4,744

Income $75,000-$99,999

3,675

Income $100,000-$149,999

4,689 204

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Income $150,000-$199,999

2,760

Income >$200,000

3,032

Unemployed

8,430 Poverty3

Poverty Levels # Individuals in Poverty

7,462

% Individuals in Poverty

9.70%

% Families in Poverty

6.90%

% Under 18 years in Poverty

12.30%

Education4 Percent high school graduate or higher

83.6%

Percent bachelor's degree or higher

41.4%

Housing5 Housing Units

37,741

Owner Occupied Housing Units

55.0%

Renter Occupied Housing Units

37.9%

Vacant Housing Units

7.2%

Unemployment6 Unemployment Rate

9.6%

• • •

At 76,637 inhabitants, Ward 4 is just under the median population for the entire City. The ward is predominantly Black or African American with 44,781 residents claiming the ethnic background. Ward 4 also has the second largest Hispanic population with almost one in five residents being of Hispanic descent 205

• • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

This area could possibly be deemed ‘middle class’ by many with the largest segment of employed households totaling 4,744 and earning household incomes of $50,000 – $74,999 The poverty level is moderate to low with only 6.9% of families living in poverty More than 50% of the residents in Ward 4 are buying their homes The unemployment rate is just a little below the District average at 9.6%

Education The following section details the performance of the K – 12 schools in this Ward on the standardized District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS). DC CAS is used to measure academic proficiency using the DC Content Standards as the model. Ward 4 CAS Proficiency Rates and Tiers by School for 2008, 2012 and 2016 Projections Overall

Overall

Projected

School Proficiency Proficiency Math Math Reading Reading Reading Tier Math 2008^ 2012^ School Name Rank Sector Type * 2008^ 20012^ 2008^ 2012^ (2016)* (2016)* Sharpe Health School 1 DCPS EC 91.5% 90.5% 92.7% 85.7% 100.0% 90.2% 95.2% 100.0% 1 Community Academy PCS - Online 2 PCS EC 56.9% 63.7% 43.1% 61.3% 70.7% 70.6% 66.1% 58.8% 2 Roots PCS-Kennedy Street Campus 3 PCS EC 43.9% 58.4% 34.1% 47.7% 69.5% 53.7% 68.9% 80.5% 2 Center City PCS - Petworth Campus 4 PCS EC 53.4% 57.5% 61.4% 49.3% 84.2% 2 EC 51.5% 52.9% 26.8% 50.0% 47.5% 3 Hope Community PCS - Lamond Campu 5 PCS West EC 6 DCPS EC 46.8% 49.1% 38.3% 50.4% 44.9% 55.3% 47.9% 48.2% 2 Center City PCS - Brightwood Campus 7 PCS EC 48.6% 51.8% 42.7% 45.3% 45.0% 3 Truedell EC 8 DCPS EC 48.6% 42.8% 49.3% 47.2% 44.1% 47.8% 38.4% 26.8% 3 Raymond EC 9 DCPS EC 69.0% 41.2% 68.0% 42.0% 34.6% 70.0% 40.3% 20.9% 3 Whittier EC 10 DCPS EC 47.2% 41.2% 44.3% 42.9% 45.2% 50.0% 39.4% 24.0% 3 Ideal Academy PCS - North Capitol Stre 11 PCS EC 40.6% 37.6% 70.4% 43.6% 39.9% 2 Takoma EC 12 DCPS EC 68.6% 37.2% 66.3% 37.2% 33.1% 70.8% 37.2% 36.0% 3 Brightwood EC 13 DCPS EC 37.1% 36.7% 27.8% 39.4% 35.8% 46.4% 34.1% 20.9% 4 LaSalle-Backus EC 14 DCPS EC 35.1% 18.8% 31.3% 17.6% 32.9% 38.9% 19.9% 24.0% 4 Lafayette ES 1 DCPS ES 88.8% 90.5% 88.6% 90.8% 85.8% 89.0% 90.1% 83.2% 1 Shaphard ES 2 DCPS ES 67.8% 72.7% 63.0% 69.1% 72.7% 72.6% 76.3% 66.6% 1 Latin American Montessori Bilingual PC 3 PCS ES 66.3% 62.5% 88.3% 70.0% 100.0% 1 Barnard ES (Lincoln Hill Cluster) 4 DCPS ES 60.2% 57.1% 55.1% 58.3% 75.8% 65.3% 55.8% 58.5% 2 Community Academy PCS - Amos 1 5 PCS ES 55.5% 50.2% 58.9% 51.6% 97.5% 52.0% 48.8% 75.9% 1 Powell ES (Lincoln Hill Cluster) 6 DCPS ES 39.3% 43.8% 46.3% 50.8% 70.1% 32.2% 36.9% 55.4% 2 Washington Latin High PCS 1 PCS HS 61.3% 62.7% 60.0% Coolidge SHS 2 DCPS HS 37.3% 33.1% 47.6% 31.6% 50.1% 27.0% 34.6% 82.0% 2 Hospitality PCS 3 PCS HS 30.7% 26.7% 28.1% 26.7% 60.2% 33.3% 26.7% 50.3% 2 Roosevelt SHS 4 DCPS HS 24.1% 16.7% 27.0% 17.9% 39.0% 21.2% 15.4% 39.7% 4 Washington Latin Middle PCS 1 PCS MS 74.0% 78.8% 72.5% 77.1% 88.8% 75.4% 80.6% 96.8% 1 Paul Junior High PCS 2 PCS MS 64.6% 63.8% 67.6% 68.1% 86.0% 61.5% 59.5% 76.3% 1 MacFarland MS (Lincoln Hill Cluster) 3 DCPS MS 34.7% 30.8% 35.6% 34.5% 66.2% 33.8% 27.1% 31.7% 3 ^Soumya Bhat. (2013, March 13). An uphill climb for DC schools: A look at DC CAS test score trends. DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-13-13-Final-Test-Score-Paper.pdf *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• •

Sharpe Health School, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 90.5% overall proficiency for an educational campus. LaSalle-Backus EC, a Tier 4 school, is the lowest performing educational campus school and their proficiency scores have dropped dramatically in 2008-2012 from 35.1% to 18.8%. 206

• • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Lafayette ES, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 90.5% overall proficiency for elementary schools. Powell ES, a Tier 2 school, is the lowest performing elementary school with 43.8% overall proficiency. Washington Latin Middle PCS, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 78.8% overall proficiency for middle schools Coolidge SHS, a Tier 2 school, is the second highest performing high school.

School Type and Tier SY 2011* School Type T1 T2 T3 T4 Totals % EC = Educational Campus (K-12) 1 5 5 2 13 52.0% ES = Elementary School 4 2 6 24.0% HS = High School 2 1 3 12.0% MS = Middle School 2 1 3 12.0% Other 0 0.0% Totals 7 9 6 3 25 100.0% % 28% 36% 24% 12% 100% *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• • •

The majority of the schools in Ward 4(64%) are Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools. The majority of the schools in Ward 4 are educational campus with 52% All elementary schools in Ward 4 are Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools.

Focus Group Results Focus Group No. 1 August 13, 2013 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm 3900 14th St, NW Group Demographics

One focus group was held in Ward 4. The focus group was conducted on August 13, 2013, in the evening, between 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm 3900 14th St, NW. Key Findings

The first two questions concerned civics. Participants were first asked whether they thought leaders in their community (political, religious, and community organizations) ensure that their needs are met. The focus group stated that their political leaders only visit the community during elections and that there was a lack of bilingual political leaders in the Hispanic 207

2012 Community Needs Assessment

community. The groups expressed that churches do assist residents. One participant said that “Scared Heart and other Catholic churches” provide food and clothing assistance. Participants were next asked if they were included in the future design of their neighborhood. The focus group participants agreed that they were not included in future designs of their neighborhood. The focus group participants stated that there were condo buildings being built that they were “never informed of” and are not affordable for many already residing in the neighborhood. Even though they do not feel included in neighborhood plans, the group expressed that the community was becoming safer and providing better job opportunities. Social

Next, the focus group was asked questions regarding social issues. In response to what social supports they thought people in their community needed, the group stated: • Social service locations that are closer • Recreational centers with computer access and children’s activities With respect to education, the focus group stated that public education in D.C. was not quality and that better teacher, sports programs, and classes were needed. In discussing the quality of teachers, the group stated that more teachers were needed that were willing to provide assistance to challenging students. The focus group also stated that additional adult education programs were needed. Physical

Two questions regarding the physical environment were posed to the focus group. When asked whether they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago, the participants in the focus group stated that they felt safer because of increased police presence but recognized that they are sometimes unable to visit certain recreational centers because of gangs and homeless individuals hanging out there. One participant stated that there only seem to be clinics for expectant mothers. The top health and environmental concerns cited by the group were: • Poor clinic services • Excessive amounts of trash on the ground Economic

Finally, focus group participants were asked three questions related to economic conditions. Participants stated the following support services were necessary for individuals in their community who desired to start a business: • Loan services • Business education The group stated the following training programs should be offered: • CPR Training • Computer training • Child care training • Kids sports training 208

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Finally, participants stated that young families with limited income desiring to rent or purchase a home need: â&#x20AC;˘ Affordable housing â&#x20AC;˘ First time homebuyers programs

Needs Assessment Survey Results 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Gender

42.3%

Male

57.7%

Female

No Responses

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Marital Status 39.2%

Never Married/Single 29.9%

Married 11.3%

Divorced Separated Domestic Partnership Widowed No Responses

3.1% 4.1% 5.2% 7.2%

209

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Age Range 6.2%

12 -19 years-old

8.2%

20 - 27 years-old

11.3%

28 - 34 years-old 35 - 42 years-old

16.5%

43 - 49 years-old

16.5%

50 - 57 years-old

16.5% 13.4%

58 - 64 years-old 10.3%

65+ years-old 1.0%

No Responses

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Race/Ethnicity

60.8%

African American

19.6%

Hispanic

15.5%

Caucasian Asian

0.0%

Native American

0.0%

Other No Responses

3.1% 1.0%

210

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Annual Household Income

26.8%

$0 - $9,999

9.3% 9.3% 9.3%

$10,000 -… $25,000 -… $35,000 -… $45,000 -…

6.2% 9.3%

$55,000 -…

7.2%

$65,000 -… $75,000 -…

5.2% 12.4%

$100,000 + No Responses

5.2%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Household Age Range 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0-4 years- 5-9 years- 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 Over 50 old old years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old

None

211

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Highest Educational Level

Earned Master's Degree orâ&#x20AC;Ś Earned Bachelor's Degree Earned Associate's Degree Some College Completed Technical School Some Technical School Completed High School Some High School Completed Middle School Some Middle School No Responses

16.5% 15.5% 7.2% 23.7% 2.1% 1.0% 15.5% 8.2% 2.1% 5.2% 3.1%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Employment Status 43.3%

Employed full-time

10.3%

Employed part-time

4.1%

Self-employed Unemployed, looking for work Unemployed, not looking for work Student Retired Homemaker Military Other No Responses

20.6% 2.1% 0.0% 10.3% 1.0% 0.0% 4.1% 4.1%

212

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Military Vetaran Status

7.2%

Yes

87.6%

No Responses

5.2%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Houshold Needs 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

12.4%

11.5% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8%

9.2%

6.9% 3.2% 0.5%

2.3%

4.1% 4.6%

1.8%

2.8%

0.0%

213

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Household Health Conditions 19.6%

20.0%

13.0%

15.0% 8.7%

10.0% 5.0%

5.8% 2.2%

8.7%

5.8%

2.9%

2.2%

1.4%

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Resources Received Last Year 33.3% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

19.6% 13.0% 4.3%

0.0%

4.3%

7.2%

7.2% 1.4%

2.2%

5.8%

1.4%

214

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Roadblocks to Your Needs

12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

11.7%

4.2% 4.2%

5.8%

5.0%

3.3%

0.8%

5.0%

4.2%

1.7% 1.7%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Neighborhood Safer In 2012 Strongly Agree

5.2%

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

39.2%

10%

20%

Strongly Disagree

25.8%

30%

40%

50%

60%

No Responses

18.6%

70%

80%

9.3%

90%

2.1%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Inclusion in Neighborhood Decisions To a Great Extent

Very Little

38.1%

8.2% 0%

Somewhat

10%

20%

30%

Not at All

23.7% 40%

50%

60%

No Responses

24.7% 70%

80%

5.2% 90%

100%

215

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Quality Schools in My Neighborhood

Strongly Agree

4.1%

Agree

Undecided

32.0%

10%

20%

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

32.0%

30%

40%

50%

No Responses

18.6%

60%

70%

80%

11.3%

90%

2.1%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 4 - Confidence in the City's Ability to Provide Jobs Very Confident Not Very Confident

4.1% 0%

Somewhat Confident Uncertain of my Confidence

25.8% 10%

20%

12.4% 30%

40%

Confident No Responses

40.2% 50%

60%

14.4% 70%

80%

90%

3.1% 100%

216

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 4 Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard CIVIC

LEADERSHIP Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inclusion in future design of neighborhoods

COLLABORATION Community Group Engagement

OVERALL

B SOCIAL

EDUCATION Quality of Education in Public Schools

Access to Educational Institutions & libraries

C+

DC CAS Math Proficiency

DC CAS Reading Proficiency

Access to Childcare Centers

B-

CULTURE Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities by Childcare Centers

C-

Access to DC Public Parks and Recreation Centers

B+

HEALTH Residents in Excellent Health

Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers)

OVERALL

CPHYSICAL

SAFETY Perception of Safety

C+

Mortality Due to Accidents

Violent and Property Crimes

A-

ENVIRONMENT Vacant Housing Units

A-

Vehicle Registrations

Trees in Good/Excellent Condition

B+

OVERALL

BECONOMIC

Confidence in City's Ability to Provide jobs

C-

Access to affordable Childcare

B-

Net worth

B+

Unemployment

Poverty level

B+

OVERALL

B-

217

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 4 scored Bs and Cs in every principle indicating that overall its health is average to good. •

Civic: There is solid inclusion by residents in future neighborhood plans, which is likely supported by the number of community groups that allow residents an opportunity for engagement.

•

Social: Ward 4 residents scored an F in their perception of their own health as excellent. However, that Ward provides access to parks and recreation centers that residents could use for physical activity.

•

Physical: Though scoring an A- with respect to violent and property crimes, residents did not feel completely safe, scoring a C+ in terms of their perception of safety.

•

Economic: The unemployment rate in Ward 4 is lower than the national average, yet residents did not exhibit much confidence in the District’s ability to provide jobs.

218

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy Daily Needs

• • • •

Education

• •

Continue to ensure residents have access to performing Tier 1 and Tier 2 public schools and increase proficiency scores in underperforming Tier 3 and Tier 4 public schools Improve DC CAS math and reading proficiency scores

Civics

• • •

Improve engagement efforts between elected representatives and residents, including representatives who speak Spanish Improve communication efforts of planned community meetings so that residents are better aware of meetings Improve engagement efforts between developers/planners and residents to effect greater inclusion in decisions that affect the future design of their neighborhoods

Social

• • •

Increase efforts to improve the health of residents by addressing high percentages of survey respondents who list high blood pressure, asthma, diabetes and obesity among their top health problems. Improved access to social services in neighborhoods, convenient to residents Increase children’s activities at local public recreational facilities

Physical

• • • • •

Improve quality of service provided by healthcare practitioners Address homelessness/loitering issue Improve street/community cleaning services Reduce vehicular carbon footprint Reduce mortality due to accidents

Economic

• • •

Increased access to and awareness of business start-up capital and loan opportunities Increased access to training including IT (Information Technology), childcare, and healthcare Increase employment prospects for residents

219

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 5 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

220

2012 Community Needs Assessment

221

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 5 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report Social Impact Data

The following chart briefly outlines the demographic, income, housing, and other characteristics of this Ward. Ward 5 Population1 Population Totals 2010

74,104

Population Totals 2011

75,632

Population Totals 2016

78,978

Demographic1 Population by Race and Ethnicity 2011 White Alone

12,384

Black Alone

57,601

American Indian Alone

289

Asian Alone

1,026

Pacific Islander Alone

Some Other Race Alone

2,268

Two or More Races

2,034

Hispanic Origin (Any Race)

4,852

Income2 Households by Income Income <$15,000

5,383

Income $15,000-$24,999

2,886

Income $25,000-$34,999

2,819

Income $35,000-$49,999

3,969

Income $50,000-$74,999

5,674 222

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Income $75,000-$99,999

3,809

Income $100,000-$149,999

4,083

Income $150,000-$199,999

1,499

Income >$200,000

1,086

Unemployed

12,025

Poverty3 Poverty Levels # Individuals in Poverty

14,337

% Individuals in Poverty

19.20%

% Families in Poverty

15.00%

% Under 18 years in Poverty

29.40%

Education4 Percent high school graduate or higher

81.2%

Percent bachelor's degree or higher

28.90%

Housing5 Housing Units

33,036

Owner Occupied Housing Units

41.7%

Renter Occupied Housing Units

44.3%

Vacant Housing Units

14.00%

Unemployment6 Unemployment Rate

15.5%

223

• • • • • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The average ward population in the District of Columbia is approximately 75,914 and Ward 5 is not far from that at 75, 632 The ward is predominantly Black and African American with 57,601 residents identifying themselves under that ethnicity. There are two major income groups. The first group closely resembles Ward 4; 5,674 of the households earning an income of $50,000 - $74,999. The close second is a group of individuals living in poverty earning less than $15,000 annually numbering 5,383. Ward 5 has the median number of families living in poverty at 15% Only 28.9% of the residents of Ward 5 have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher There are about an even number of families renting and buying their homes in Ward 5. The one item that would stand out would be the fact that the ward is 3rd in vacant housing units at 14% The unemployment rate in this area is high at 15.5%s

Education

The following section details the performance of the K – 12 schools in this ward on the standardized District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS). DC CAS is used to measure academic proficiency using the DC Content Standards as the model. Ward 5 CAS Proficiency Rates and Tiers by School for 2008, 2012 and 2016 Projections Overall

Overall

Projected

School Proficiency Proficiency Math Math Reading Reading Reading Tier Math Rank Sector Type 2008^ 2012^ (2016)* 2008^ 2012^ School Name * 20012^ (2016)* 2008^ Mamie D. Lee School 1 DCPS EC 90.0% 100.0% 90.0% 100.0% 100.0% 90.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1 Langdon EC 2 DCPS EC 72.6% 56.4% 75.9% 55.4% 69.2% 69.9% 57.4% 63.6% 2 Burroughs EC 3 DCPS EC 62.1% 54.0% 59.8% 55.0% 22.8% 64.3% 53.0% 22.6% 4 Friendship PCS - Woodridge 4 PCS EC 53.1% 50.2% 54.4% 48.9% 47.3% 51.8% 51.5% 44.6% 2 Hope Community PCS - Tolson Campus 5 PCS EC 30.8% 47.7% 24.5% 50.6% 58.2% 37.1% 44.8% 45.2% 2 Center City PCS - Trinided Campus 6 PCS EC 41.1% 41.5% 76.2% 40.7% 77.2% 2 Langley EC 7 DCPS EC 38.9% 36.7% 41.2% Mary McLeod Bethume PCS - Slowe Campus 8 PCS EC 27.4% 38.4% 26.7% 36.6% 49.8% 28.0% 40.1% 73.5% 2 Brookland EC at Bunker Hill 9 DCPS EC 59.7% 37.4% 61.3% 37.6% 0.7% 58.0% 37.1% 8.9% 4 William E. Doar Jr (WED) Northeast PCS 10 PCS EC 37.8% 27.8% 38.8% 53.1% 33.1% 34.1% 44.9% 2 Tree of Life PCS 11 PCS EC 30.5% 36.4% 57.7% 33.2% 36.0% 61.5% 31.6% 38.5% 3 Noyes EC 12 DCPS EC 59.6% 32.4% 14.1% 30.4% 31.4% 15.6% 25.6% 28.1% 4 Wheatley EC 13 DCPS EC 14.9% 28.0% 25.0% 19.8% 29.9% 30.7% 4 Community Academy PCS - Amos 111 14 PCS EC 27.4% 25.0% 21.8% 20.4% 27.2% 19.4% 25.9% 4 Browne EC 15 DCPS EC 26.1% 20.6% 65.3% 55.8% 2 D.C. Preparatory Academy PCS - Edgewood Elementar 1 PCS ES 32.9% 73.4% 21.1% 71.9% 100.0% 44.7% 75.0% 100.0% 1 Washington Yu Ying PCS 2 PCS ES 67.4% 62.5% 72.2% Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS 3 PCS ES 57.2% 61.0% 60.0% 62.3% 87.0% 54.4% 59.8% 80.3% 1 Potomac Lighthouse PCS 4 PCS ES 47.3% 50.9% 48.6% 51.4% 97.2% 45.9% 50.5% 73.0% 1 Community Academy PCS - Rand Tech 5 PCS ES 37.7% 30.6% 37.1% 25.8% 42.3% 38.3% 35.5% 29.0% 3 Marshall EC 6 DCPS ES 40.4% 25.9% 35.8% 22.2% 26.4% 45.0% 29.6% 52.9% 3 McKinley Technology HS 1 DCPS HS 67.2% 91.4% 62.6% 92.1% 100.0% 71.8% 90.8% 100.0% 1 Washington Math Science Technology (WMST) PCS 2 PCS HS 70.0% 58.9% 75.0% 56.8% 29.6% 65.0% 61.1% 47.7% 2 Phelps Architecture, Construction, & Engineering HS 3 DCPS HS 52.6% 47.4% 57.7% Dumber SHS 4 DCPS HS 21.7% 23.1% 19.4% 19.0% 21.6% 23.9% 27.1% 33.4% 4 Luke C. Moore Academy HS 5 DCPS HS 11.6% 15.1% 7.7% 7.9% 40.4% 15.4% 22.2% 71.6% 3 Springam SHS 6 DCPS HS 22.0% 13.2% 20.2% 12.8% 0.9% 23.8% 13.5% 13.7% 4 D.C. Preparatory Academy PCS - Edgewood Middle Ca 1 PCS MS 56.9% 80.4% 59.7% 88.8% 100.0% 54.1% 71.9% 100.0% 1 Perry Street Prep PCS 1 PCS 39.6% 37.9% 38.0% 39.9% 75.3% 41.2% 36.0% 100.0% 1 Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 2 PCS 34.6% 23.1% 46.2% Dumbar Pre-Engineering 3 DCPS 33.3% 25.0% 41.7% ^Soumya Bhat. (2013, March 13). An uphill climb for DC schools: A look at DC CAS test score trends. DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-13-13-Final-Test-Score-Paper.pdf *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

224

• • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Mamie D. Lee School, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 100% overall proficiency for an educational campus. D.C. Preparatory Academy PCS, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 73.4% overall proficiency for an elementary school. McKinley Technology HS, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 91.4% overall proficiency for a high school. DC Preparatory Academy PCS, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 80.4% overall proficiency for a middle school.

School Type and Tier SY 2011* School Type T1 T2 T3 T4 Totals EC = Educational Campus (K-12) 1 7 1 5 14 ES = Elementary School 3 2 5 HS = High School 1 1 1 2 5 MS = Middle School 1 1 Other 1 1 Totals 7 8 4 7 26 % 27% 31% 15% 27% 100% *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• • •

% 53.8% 19.2% 19.2% 3.8% 3.8% 100.0%

The majority of schools in Ward 5 are educational campuses with (53.8%). 58% of schools in Ward 5 are Tier 1 and Tier 2 performing schools. 42% of schools in Ward 5 are tier 3 and tier 4 underperforming schools.

Focus Group Results Focus Group No. 1 August 14, 2013 Masjid Muhammad 11:00 am – 1:00 pm Focus Group No. 2 August 20, 2013 Masjid Muhammad 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm Group Demographics

Two focus groups were held in Ward 5. Both focus groups were conducted at Masjid Muhammad. One on August 14, 2013, in the afternoon between 11:00 am - 1:00 pm and another focus group was held on August 20, 2013, from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm. There were seven Ward 5 focus group participants. Four of the participants were men, and three were women. Three of the participants were between the ages of 58 and 64, two were 65 or older, one was between 35 and 42, and one participant was between 43 and 49. Five of 225

2012 Community Needs Assessment

the participants were African American, one was Caucasian, and one did not provide information regarding his/her ethnic group. Key Findings

The first two questions concerned civics. Participants were first asked whether they thought leaders in their community (political, religious, and community organizations) ensure that their needs are met. One participant stated that political leaders are fairly responsive to the needs of the community, stating that “they come when called.” The group did express the need for personal responsibility in political affairs. One participant said that “we need to be more organized and deliberate in identifying our needs so as to force the politicians to do more for us, we can hold them accountable by tracking whether they have delivered on services and programs requested by the community.” The focus group expressed that the needs of the “disenfranchised go unmet” while the more organized citizens “get the services they request,” added one participant. With respect to whether religious leaders ensure that needs are met, the group expressed that “religious organizations in the community, be it Christian, Muslim, or other, have dropped the ball when it comes to serving our youth.” Finally, the focus groups discussed whether community organizations are ensuring that needs are met. One focus group expressed that UPO does a poor job at outreach and “drop(s) the ball.” Participants from the other focus group stated the community groups need to do more to articulate the needs of the community and they need to capture the thoughts of the people to see that these needs are resolved. The group expressed concern that many leaders of community organizations either do not reside in the communities they serve or do not look like the communities they serve. Participants were next asked if they were included in the future design of their neighborhood. One focus group participant said, “Absolutely not, we are totally unaware of the process.” The focus group agreed. The group expressed that the developers are in control of future developments, and they decide who gets invited to any meeting to discuss future plans. Social

Next, the focus group was asked questions regarding social issues. In response to what social supports they thought people in their community needed, the group stated: • Trade schools • Education • Classes on how to produce/create products • Courses on entrepreneurship • Apprentice programs • Head Start programs

226

• • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Senior/community centers Affordable housing Transportation for seniors UPO in every Ward

With respect to education the participants stated that education was “lopsided” and children only receive quality education if they attend certain schools, such as charter schools, in the District. The group also expressed that many adults were illiterate and need resources to learn how to read. The group also said that the community had to get involved and “take care of their public schools.” Physical

Two questions regarding the physical environment were posed to the focus group. When asked whether they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago the group expressed feeling safer, and cited the following factors: • Wealthier families moving in resulting in more businesses and greater police presence • Resourceful residents who organize and demand greater police presence The group did express a concern about an increase in bars and drunkenness; a cab driver stated that he’s seen more instances of intoxicated individuals being robbed. The top health and environmental concerns cited by the group were: • Stress, diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure • Mental health concerns • Poor eating habits, no access to farmers markets that provide fresh fruit and vegetables • Rodents • Water quality • Dogs • Lead pipes in older homes Economic

Finally, focus group participants were asked three questions related to economic conditions. Participants stated the following support services were necessary for individuals in their community who desired to start a business: • Financing programs • Business education • Community support The group stated the following training programs should be offered: • Life skills • Vocational programs/job skills – manufacturing, farming, engineering, entrepreneurial, and hospitality • Nutrition programs 227

2012 Community Needs Assessment

In discussing vocational programs, the group stated that those programs were necessary to provide residents with good paying jobs and to help them become self-sufficient. UPO’s weatherization program was cited as an example of a good training program. Finally, participants stated that young families with limited income desiring to rent or purchase a home need: • First-time homebuyers • Voucher programs to help with purchasing expensive homes • Substantial savings • Rent to buy options for renters

Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 UPO 2012 Community Needs Assessment Survey Results 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Gender

40.2%

Male

56.7%

Female

No Responses

3.1%

228

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Marital Status

41.5%

Never Married/Single

22.3%

Married

12.1%

Divorced

11.2%

Separated

1.8%

Domestic Partnership

7.6%

Widowed

3.6%

No Responses

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Age Range

7.1%

12 -19 years-old

14.3%

20 - 27 years-…

13.4%

28 - 34 years-… 35 - 42 years-…

12.9%

43 - 49 years-…

12.9% 17.4%

50 - 57 years-… 58 - 64 years-…

10.3%

65+ years-old

10.3%

No Responses

1.3%

229

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Race/Ethnicity

74.1%

African American 8.5%

Hispanic

9.8%

Caucasian Asian Native American

1.3% 0.4%

Other

2.7%

No Responses

3.1%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Annual Household Income

28.6%

$0 - $9,999

14.7%

$10,000 -…

17.9%

$25,000 -…

11.6%

$35,000 -…

7.6%

$45,000 -… $55,000 -…

4.5%

$65,000 -…

3.1%

$75,000 -…

3.1%

$100,000 +

4.5%

No Responses

4.5%

230

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Household Age Range

18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Highest Educational Level Earned Master's Degree or greater Earned Bachelor's Degree Earned Associate's Degree Some College Completed Technical School Some Technical School Completed High School Some High School Completed Middle School Some Middle School No Responses

8.9% 12.5% 5.8% 27.2% 4.5% 3.1% 16.5% 13.4% 3.1% 1.8% 3.1%

231

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Employment Status

37.1%

Employed full-time

12.5%

Employed part-time

8.0%

Self-employed Unemployed, looking for work Unemployed, not looking for work

18.3% 2.7% 4.0%

Student Retired Homemaker Military Other No Responses

9.8% 0.9% 1.3% 3.1% 2.2%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Military Veteran Status

11.2%

Yes

81.7%

No No Responses

7.1%

232

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Hosuehold Needs

15.0% 10.0%

12.1%

11.7% 9.0%

8.8% 8.2%

7.8%

3.3%

5.0%

4.9% 2.3%

3.3%

4.3%

6.1% 2.9%

1.6%

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Household Health Conditions 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

16.2% 13.0%

13.6% 11.3% 7.0%

3.8%

4.6% 2.3%

4.3% 0.6%

233

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Resources Received Last Year

38.6%

40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%

16.8%

14.1% 4.7%

0.3%

4.7%

3.4%

6.0%

2.0%

4.4% 3.4% 1.7%

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Roadblocks to Your Needs 12.0%

10.3%

11.0%

9.9%

10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0%

3.7%

2.9% 2.6% 2.2%

4.8%

4.4% 2.6%

4.0%

1.1%

0.0%

234

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Neighborhood Safer In 2012

Strongly Agree

12.5% 0%

10%

Agree

Undecided

25.0% 20%

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

27.2%

30%

40%

50%

No Responses

20.1% 60%

70%

12.5% 80%

2.7%

90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Inclusion in Neighborhood Decisions To a Great Extent

16.1% 0%

10%

Somewhat

Very Little

29.9% 20%

30%

Not at All

No Responses

26.3% 40%

50%

22.3%

60%

70%

80%

5.4% 90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Quality Schools in My Neighborhood Strongly Agree

Agree

11.6%

10%

Undecided

Disagree

29.5%

20%

30%

Strongly Disagree

32.6%

40%

50%

60%

No Responses

14.3%

70%

80%

7.6%

90%

4.5%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 5 - Confidence in the City's Ability to Provide Jobs Very Confident Not Very Confident

7.6% 0%

Somewhat Confident Uncertain of my Confidence

24.6% 10%

20%

20.1% 30%

40%

Confident No Responses

34.4% 50%

60%

70%

9.4% 80%

90%

4.0% 100%

235

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 5 Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard CIVIC

LEADERSHIP Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inclusion in future design of neighborhoods

B-

COLLABORATION Community Group Engagement

OVERALL

B+ SOCIAL

EDUCATION Quality of Education in Public Schools

C+

Access to Educational Institutions & libraries

B-

DC CAS Math Proficiency

DC CAS Reading Proficiency

Access to Childcare Centers

C+

CULTURE Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities by Childcare Centers

B+

Access to DC Public Parks and Recreation Centers

B+

HEALTH Residents in Excellent Health

Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers)

B+

OVERALL

D PHYSICAL

SAFETY Perception of Safety

C-

Mortality Due to Accidents

C-

Violent and Property Crimes

B-

ENVIRONMENT Vacant Housing Units

Vehicle Registrations

B-

Trees in Good/Excellent Condition

C-

OVERALL

C ECONOMIC

Confidence in City's Ability to Provide jobs

Access to affordable Childcare

Net worth

B-

Unemployment

Poverty level

C+

OVERALL

C+

236

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The highest grade earned by Ward 5 was a B+ for civics, and the lowest grade was a D in Social. •

Civic: There are a great number of community groups for Ward 5 enabling residents to join an engage in advocacy.

•

Social: Ward 5 scored a C+ in terms of whether they thought their public schools offered a quality education, yet schools in that ward fell far below proficiency in math and reading having scored an F in both categories.

•

Physical: Ward 5 had one of the highest rates of death due to accidents in the District.

•

Economic: Though somewhat confident in the District’s ability to provide jobs, the unemployment rate is higher than the national average as is the poverty level.

237

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy Daily Needs

• • • •

Increase access to and the availability of food, especially for low-income residents Increase access to affordable housing. Increase access to and the availability of clothing, especially for low-income residents Improve communication of available social services to residents, so they may know where to go for help.

Education

• • •

Continue to ensure residents have access to performing Tier 1 and Tier 2 public schools and increase proficiency scores in underperforming Tier 3 and Tier 4 public schools Increase access to childcare facilities. Improve DC CAS math and reading proficiency scores.

Civics

• • •

Increase faith-based engagement activities to improve access to social services. Improve engagement efforts between elected representatives and residents to effect greater confidence in elected officials’ ability to meet the needs of constituents. Improve engagement efforts between developers/planners and residents to effect greater inclusion in decision that affect the future design of their neighborhoods.

Social

• • •

Physical

• • • • • • •

Improve safety at neighborhood parks and recreation centers, addressing gang-related activity and presence Reduce alcohol/drug related crimes including public drunkenness. Improve environmental conditions including water quality and lead abatement. Reduce rodent infestations. Reduce mortality due to accidents. Increase police presence in neighborhoods. Increase the number of trees in good/excellent condition.

Economic

• • •

Increase access to training programs (finance, engineering, entrepreneurial, hospitality). Increase access to and awareness of business start-up capital and business training opportunities. Increase access to first-time homebuyer programs. 238

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Increase access to affordable childcare. Improve unemployment rate.

239

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 6 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

240

2012 Community Needs Assessment

241

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 6 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report Social Impact Data

The following chart briefly outlines the demographic, income, housing, and other characteristics of this Ward. Ward 6

Population1

Population Totals 2010

76,598

Population Totals 2011

78,260

Population Totals 2016

82,484 Demographic1

Population by Race and Ethnicity 2011 White Alone

38,788

Black Alone

32,421

American Indian Alone

315

Asian Alone

3,401

Pacific Islander Alone

Some Other Race Alone

1,100

Two or More Races

2,196

Hispanic Origin (Any Race)

3,840 Income2

Households by Income Income <$15,000

7,102

Income $15,000-$24,999

2,628

Income $25,000-$34,999

2,700

Income $35,000-$49,999

3,883

Income $50,000-$74,999

5,913 242

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Income $75,000-$99,999

4,339

Income $100,000-$149,999

5,185

Income $150,000-$199,999

3,090

Income >$200,000

2,840

Unemployed

10,017 Poverty3

Poverty Levels # Individuals in Poverty

13,162

% Individuals in Poverty

17.60%

% Families in Poverty

15.80%

% Under 18 years in Poverty

30.60% Education4

Percent high school graduate or higher

81.2%

Percent bachelor's degree or higher

28.9%

Housing5 Housing Units

39,890

Owner Occupied Housing Units

35.4%

Renter Occupied Housing Units

53.1%

Vacant Housing Units

11.4% Unemployment6

Unemployment Rate

11.5%

243

• • • • • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 6 is the second largest in the city with 78,260 residents. Even though Ward 6 is predominantly White (49.6%), there are numerous Black (41.4%) residents as well. The two demographics make up for 49.6% and 41.4% respectively. Unfortunately, the largest group of households in this ward earns an income of $15,000 or less. The second largest group would be families earning between $50,000 - $74,999. The District average percentage of families in poverty is 14.9%, and Ward 6 is not far above with 15.8%. A little more than one in four of Ward 6 residents have earned a bachelor’s degree or better. More than half of Ward 6 residents rent their homes. Average unemployment rate in the District during the study period was 12.94%. Ward 6 was a little below that average with an unemployment rate of 11.5%.

Education The following section details the performance of the K – 12 schools in this ward on the standardized District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS). DC CAS is used to measure academic proficiency using the DC Content Standards as the model. Ward 6 CAS Proficiency Rates and Tiers by School for 2008, 2012 and 2016 Projections Overall

Overall

Projected

Math Reading Reading Reading Secto School Proficiency Proficiency Math Math Rank r Type 2008^ 2012^ 2008^ 2012^ School Name 2008^ 20012^ (2016)* (2016)* Tier * Two Rivers Middle PCS 1 PCS EC 69.2% 69.2% 100.0% 69.2% 86.4% 1 Center City PCS - Capitol Hill Campus 2 PCS EC 48.9% 48.1% 95.3% 49.6% 63.7% 2 Friendship PCS - Chambertain 3 PCS EC 33.8% 47.6% 31.8% 53.9% 60.3% 35.8% 41.4% 40.4% 2 Walker-Jones EC 4 DCPS EC 21.1% 30.3% 18.0% 31.3% 52.1% 24.2% 29.2% 36.4% 3 Prospect LLC 5 DCPS EC 1.4% 13.9% 0.0% 20.0% 64.5% 2.8% 7.8% 20.7% 4 Options PCS 6 PCS EC 14.6% 6.0% 17.2% 6.7% 8.7% 12.0% 5.2% 6.2% 4 Two Rivers Elementary PCS 1 PCS ES 46.4% 73.3% 39.6% 72.6% 100.0% 53.2% 74.1% 100.0% 1 Brent ES 2 DCPS ES 45.7% 71.8% 47.5% 71.8% 96.8% 43.8% 71.8% 85.0% 1 Watkins ES (Capitol Hill Cluster) 3 DCPS ES 59.2% 62.3% 56.6% 65.4% 89.5% 61.7% 59.2% 82.2% 1 Montessori School @ Logan 4 DCPS ES 61.1% 44.4% 77.8% Ludlow-Taylor ES 5 DCPS ES 53.6% 60.4% 54.6% 59.7% 83.6% 52.6% 61.0% 51.6% 2 Payne ES 6 DCPS ES 25.0% 43.5% 19.7% 46.4% 40.9% 30.3% 40.6% 41.1% 3 Wilson J.O. ES 7 DCPS ES 63.4% 43.0% 59.0% 39.5% 75.5% 67.7% 46.5% 62.6% 2 Maury ES 8 DCPS ES 56.5% 41.1% 56.5% 44.6% 48.6% 56.5% 37.5% 12.4% 3 Miner ES 9 DCPS ES 44.2% 35.7% 39.5% 36.6% 41.5% 48.9% 34.9% 32.1% 3 Eagle Academy PCS - New Jersey Ave. 10 PCS ES 31.1% 24.3% 37.8% Tyler ES 11 DCPS ES 33.7% 29.4% 31.6% 21.6% 1.3% 35.7% 37.3% 0.0% 4 Amidon-Brown ES 12 DCPS ES 22.9% 19.3% 22.5% 16.8% 12.6% 23.3% 21.8% 9.0% 4 Cesar Chavez PCS - Capitol Hill Campus 1 PCS HS 31.1% 48.0% 31.5% 56.0% 83.0% 30.6% 40.0% 50.3% 2 Stuart-Hobson MS (Capitol Hill Cluster) 1 DCPS MS 61.2% 60.0% 56.3% 61.2% 98.0% 66.1% 58.9% 79.9% 1 Jefferson MS Academy 2 DCPS MS 44.6% 47.6% 41.7% Jefferson MS 3 DCPS MS 48.4% 42.6% 49.1% 51.2% 63.7% 47.6% 34.0% 31.8% 3 Eliot-Hine MS 4 DCPS MS 32.9% 30.8% 36.2% 37.3% 81.1% 29.5% 24.4% 62.2% 2 ^Soumya Bhat. (2013, March 13). An uphill climb for DC schools: A look at DC CAS test score trends. DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-13-13-Final-Test-Score-Paper.pdf *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• •

Two Rivers Middle PCS, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 69.2% overall proficiency for an educational campus. Two Rivers Elementary, a Tier 1 school, has improved its overall proficiency 2008-2012 from 46.4% to 73.3%. 244

• •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Stuart – Hobson MS, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 60% overall proficiency for a middle school. Cesar Chavez PCS, a Tier 2 school is the only high school in Ward 6 with an overall proficiency of 48%.

School Type and Tier SY 2011* School Type T1 T2 T3 T4 Totals % EC = Educational Campus (K-12) 1 2 1 2 6 30.0% ES = Elementary School 3 2 3 2 10 50.0% HS = High School 1 1 5.0% MS = Middle School 1 1 1 3 15.0% Other 0 0.0% Totals 5 6 5 4 20 100.0% % 25% 30% 25% 20% 100% *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, envery neighborhood

• •

45% of the schools in Ward 6 are Tier 3 and Tier 4 underperforming schools. 50% of Ward 6 schools are elementary schools.

Focus Group Results Focus Group No. 1 August 15, 2013 Trinidad Baptist Church 11:00 am – 1:00 pm Focus Group No. 2 August 15, 2013 Mt. Moriah Baptist Church 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm Group Demographics

Two focus groups were held in Ward 6. Both focus groups were conducted on August 15, 2013, a morning session at Trinidad Baptist Church and an evening session at Mt. Moriah Baptist Church. There were a total of eleven participants for the two Ward 6 focus groups. Two of the participants were men, and eight were women. One participant was between the ages of 35 and 42, three were from 50 and 57, two were 58 and 64, and four were 65 or older. All of the participants were African-American. The participants’ yearly income ranged from $0-$54,999. None of the participants had earned a college degree.

245

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Key Findings

The first two questions concerned civics. Participants were first asked whether they thought leaders in their community (political, religious, and community organizations) ensure that their needs are met. Both focus groups stated that political leaders only come around during election time. One participant stated that political leaders are “not physically available.” The group did cite several examples where a political leader ensured needs were met. For instance, Eleanor Holmes Norton provides a newsletter that is helpful, and the group expressed a desire that other political leaders provide that information. One participant also provided a personal example of a political leader assisting in getting a failing D.C. Charter School closed. While overall the group expressed that political leaders do not ensure needs are met, there are instances where politicians meet the needs of their constituency. With respect to religious leaders, participants said that the church does help the community by giving out free food and other services. The group expressed that people still need to take personal responsibility because as one participant stated, “They do their part but can only do so much.” Participants were next asked if they were included in the future design of their neighborhood. The focus group participants agreed that they were not included in future designs of their neighborhood. The overall sentiment was that the city was being designed to attract young white professionals and “not for us.” Participants stated that, even if they voiced their opinions on future plans, it would not matter, because the “agenda is already made up” and any meeting is “just a formality” added one participant. Further, the group stated that ANC members have a direct impact, but they seem largely unresponsive to their constituents. The change in traffic at 17th Street NE was cited as an example of not being included in future designs. The change created a safety hazard for pedestrians, but the neighborhood was not involved in the traffic change. Social

Next, the focus group was asked questions regarding social issues. In response to what social supports they thought people in their community needed, the group stated: • Reentry programs for people returning from prison • After school programs • Mentorship program • Training programs for trades 246

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Mentoring programs were discussed heavily in both focus groups. The participants said that partnerships need to be developed with colleges and universities for mentorship programs. Another participant stated that shadowing programs should be created so youth get to see first-hand what a job or profession is like. A participant added that mentorship programs are key because “success breeds success and in order to be successful you have to be around successful people.” With respect to education, one focus group, in commenting on K-12 expressed that Ward 6 schools were unstructured, the students were not disciplined, and the schools lacked diversity. The participants in that focus group were unaware of any adult educational programs. The participants in another focus group expressed that though there may be some faults, quality education was available in the District. One participant stated that “nobody who is really reaching out for education can say they can’t find some sort of training.” The group expressed that there was a need for community responsibility when it comes to education because the “systems starts with us.” Physical

Two questions regarding the physical environment were posed to the focus group. When asked whether they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago, the group stated that they feel about the same. Overall, participants said that things are better than a number of years ago but still not completely safe. One woman cited an incident where youth tried to rob her while she was walking to her apartment. Another participant stated that there are now more rowdy youth hanging around his building because police do not have the presence they had a few years ago. The group stated that there is only a police presence when there is an event, like a murder, but overall police presence is inconsistent. When one participant was asked what factors contributed to his lack of safety, he responded, “it just ain’t safe, no way no how.” The top health and environmental concerns cited by the group were: • Trash on the streets • Lack of clinics • Lack of exercise facilities, especially for adults with heart disease or diabetes. • Poor water quality In discussing trash, one participant stated there is “garbage everywhere on the streets” and the streets are not cleaned with any frequency. One participant expressed that people often do not use the trash can and cannot understand why people would “trash someplace you’re going to be every day.” Economic

• •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Business planning programs/classes Grant writing classes

The group stated the following training programs should be offered: • Training for trades, such as construction • Training for how to apply and interview for jobs and proper behavior in the workplace • Computer training • Adult education • Higher education classes Job training should only be focused on “realistic jobs” that can actually be obtained by those in the program. Finally, participants stated that young families with limited income desiring to rent or purchase a home need: • Leaders that are willing to provide assistance • First-time homebuyers programs • People that will help individuals walk through the process

248

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Needs Assessment Survey Results

Ward 6 UPO 2012 Community Needs Assessment Survey Results

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Gender

33.8%

Male

65.0%

Female

No Responses

1.3%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Martial Status

47.5%

Never Married/Single 28.8%

Married 11.3%

Divorced

Separated 3.8% Domestic Partnership 1.3% Widowed

6.3%

No Responses 1.3%

249

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Age Range

12 -19…

2.5% 3.8%

20 - 27…

12.5%

28 - 34…

20.0%

35 - 42…

17.5%

43 - 49…

18.8%

50 - 57… 11.3%

58 - 64…

12.5%

65+ years-… No…

1.3%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Race/Ethnicity

91.3%

African… Hispanic Caucasian Asian

1.3% 6.3% 0.0%

Native… 0.0% Other

0.0%

No Responses

1.3%

250

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Annual Household Income

25.0%

$0 - $9,999

11.3%

$10,000 -…

12.5%

$25,000 -…

15.0%

$35,000 -…

7.5%

$45,000 -…

6.3%

$55,000 -… $65,000 -…

3.8% 10.0%

$75,000 -… $100,000 + No Responses

18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

3.8% 5.0% 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Household Age Range

251

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Highest Level of Education

Earned Master's…

10.0%

Earned Associate's… Completed Technical…

1.3%

No Responses

12.5%

5.0%

Completed High School Completed Middle…

15.0%

12.5%

1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

21.3% 21.3%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Employment Status 33.8%

Employed full-time

11.3%

Employed part-time

12.5%

Self-employed

11.3%

Unemployed, looking for work

5.0%

Unemployed, not looking for…

3.8%

Student Retired Homemaker Military Other No Responses

16.3% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0%

252

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Military Veteran Status

Yes

3.8%

88.8%

No 7.5%

No Responses

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Household Needs 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

14.0% 9.9% 7.6%

9.4% 6.4%

8.2%

6.4% 2.3%

1.2%

6.4% 2.9%

4.7%

3.5% 0.6%

253

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Household Health Conditions

20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

19.2%

10.4% 7.2% 3.2%

12.0%

13.6%

5.6% 3.2%

1.6%

3.2%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Resources Received Last Year 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

40.4%

19.2%

14.4% 8.7% 1.0%

0.0%

1.9%

2.9%

5.8% 0.0%

4.8%

1.0%

254

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Roadblocks to Your Needs

18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

17.0%

15.2%

13.4%

6.3%

4.5% 0.0%

1.8%

3.6%

2.7%

5.4%

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Neighborhood Safer In 2012

13.8%

21.3%

35.00%

10%

20%

Strongly Agree

30% Agree

40% Undecided

50% Disagree

60%

21.3%

70% Strongly Disagree

80%

2.5% 6.3%

90%

100%

No Responses

255

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Inclusion in Decisions

To a Great Extent

12.5% 0%

10%

Somewhat

Very Little

32.5% 20%

30%

Not at All

23.8% 40%

50%

No Responses

26.3%

60%

70%

80%

5.0% 90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Quality Schools in My Neighborhood

Strongly Agree 12.5%

10%

Agree

32.5%

20%

30%

Undecided 35.0%

40%

50%

60%

10.0%2.5%7.5%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 6 - Confidence in the City's Ability to Provide Jobs Very Confident Not Very Confident

12.5% 0%

10%

Somewhat Confident Uncertain of my Confidence

18.8% 20%

17.5% 30%

40%

Confident No Responses

36.3% 50%

60%

70%

12.5% 2.5% 80%

90%

100%

256

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 6 Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard CIVIC

LEADERSHIP Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inclusion in future design of neighborhoods

B-

COLLABORATION Community Group Engagement

C-

OVERALL

C SOCIAL

EDUCATION Quality of Education in Public Schools

Access to Educational Institutions & libraries

B-

DC CAS Math Proficiency

DC CAS Reading Proficiency

Access to Childcare Centers

B-

CULTURE Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities by Childcare Centers

B+

Access to DC Public Parks and Recreation Centers

HEALTH Residents in Excellent Health

Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers)

OVERALL

CPHYSICAL

SAFETY Perception of Safety

Mortality Due to Accidents

B+

Violent and Property Crimes

ENVIRONMENT Vacant Housing Units

Vehicle Registrations

Trees in Good/Excellent Condition

OVERALL

C+ ECONOMIC

Confidence in City's Ability to Provide jobs

C+

Access to affordable Childcare

B-

Net worth

C+

Unemployment

B-

Poverty level

B-

OVERALL

C+

257

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The highest grade earned by Ward 6 was a C+ for both Physical and Economic. The lowest grades were C’s in Civic and in Social. •

Civic: There are a good number of community groups for Ward 6 available residents to join an engage in advocacy.

•

Social: Ward 6 scored a B in terms of whether they thought their public schools offered a quality education, yet schools in that ward fell far below proficiency scoring a D in math and scoring an F in reading.

•

Physical: Ward 6 had one of the lowest rates of death due to accidents in the District earning a B+ in the category.

•

Economic: Though somewhat confident in the DC’s ability to provide jobs, the unemployment rate is lower than the national average as is the poverty level.

258

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy Daily Needs

• • • • •

Increase access to and the availability of food, especially for low-income residents Increase access to and the availability of clothing, especially for low-income residents Improve access to employment services Improve operating hours available to residents seeking social services Improve communication of available social services to residents, so they may know where to go for help

Education

• •

Civics

• •

Improve engagement efforts between elected representatives and residents to effect greater confidence in elected officials’ ability to meet the needs of constituents Increase the number of community groups that engage public officials

Social

• • •

Increase efforts to improve the health of residents by addressing high percentages of survey respondents who list high blood pressure, asthma, diabetes, and obesity among their top health problems Increase access to reentry programs for ex-offenders Increase community support programs that offer cultural and educational activities to residents

Physical

• • • •

Increase police presence in neighborhoods Increase access to fitness/recreational facilities Improve water quality Increase access to health clinics

Economic

• •

Increase access to training/vocational opportunities Increase access to first-time homebuyers programs

259

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 7 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

260

2012 Community Needs Assessment

261

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 7 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

Social Impact Data The following chart briefly outlines the demographic, income, housing, and other characteristics of this ward. Ward 7

Population1

Population Totals 2010

71,596

Population Totals 2011

71,250

Population Totals 2016

71,574 Demographic1

Population by Race and Ethnicity 2011 White Alone

1,305

Black Alone

67,644

American Indian Alone

220

Asian Alone

137

Pacific Islander Alone

Some Other Race Alone

755

Two or More Races

1,175

Hispanic Origin (Any Race)

1,672 Income2

Households by Income Income <$15,000

6,451

Income $15,000-$24,999

3,085

Income $25,000-$34,999

3,140

Income $35,000-$49,999

4,304

Income $50,000-$74,999

5,400

Income $75,000-$99,999

3,349

Income $100,000-$149,999

2,701 262

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Income $150,000-$199,999

1,002

Income >$200,000

567

Unemployed

12,683 Poverty3

Poverty Levels # Individuals in Poverty

19,250

% Individuals in Poverty

26.40%

% Families in Poverty

24.00%

% Under 18 years in Poverty

40.00% Education4

Percent high school graduate or higher

80.5%

Percent bachelor's degree or higher

16.9%

Housing5 Housing Units

34,946

Owner Occupied Housing Units

35.2%

Renter Occupied Housing Units

50.0%

Vacant Housing Units

14.8% Unemployment6

Unemployment Rate

19.5%

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

The second smallest ward in terms of population behind Ward 8, Ward 7 has remained and is project to remain relatively static in terms of population growth Ward 7 has the most densely concentrated population of Black residents in the District of Columbia with nearly 95% of the population classified as Black or African American. 263

• • • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Similar to Ward 6, 6,451 families, the largest group of income earners, make less than $15,000. The second largest group makes $50, 000 - $74,999 and totals 5,400 families Unfortunately, approximately one in four families in Ward 7 lives in poverty Only 16.9% of those living in Ward 7 have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher Half of those living in Ward 7 rent their homes. Ward 7 is also second in the city with respect to vacant housing units at 14.8%. The unemployment rate in Ward 7 is extremely high at 19.5%.

Education The following section details the performance of the K – 12 schools in this ward on the standardized District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS). DC CAS is used to measure academic proficiency using the DC Content Standards as the model. Ward 7 CAS Proficiency Rates and Tiers by School for 2008, 2012 and 2016 Projections Overall

Overall

Projected

School Proficiency Proficiency Math Math Reading Reading Reading Tier Math 2008^ 2012^ 2008^ 2012^ (2016)* School Name Rank Sector Type * 2008^ 20012^ (2016)* St. Coletta Special Education PCS 1 PCS EC 86.3% 94.0% 85.7% 91.6% 100.0% 86.9% 96.4% 100.0% 1 Friendship PCS - Blow-Pierce 2 PCS EC 45.3% 40.0% 40.4% 47.9% 55.2% 50.2% 32.1% 35.5% 3 Winston EC 3 DCPS EC 41.3% 24.7% 40.8% 25.0% 32.6% 41.8% 24.5% 48.8% 3 Plummer ES 1 DCPS ES 34.5% 50.0% 31.0% 55.7% 51.6% 38.0% 44.4% 41.0% 3 Beers ES 2 DCPS ES 44.7% 47.0% 37.4% 46.1% 41.6% 52.0% 47.8% 44.2% 3 Thomas ES 3 DCPS ES 41.2% 43.6% 37.4% 48.8% 51.9% 44.9% 38.4% 28.9% 3 KIPP DC Promise Academy PCS 4 PCS ES 40.2% 28.4% 52.0% Randle Highlands ES 5 DCPS ES 43.9% 37.5% 40.8% 35.0% 67.8% 46.9% 40.0% 32.9% 3 Burrville ES 6 DCPS ES 45.9% 35.4% 47.5% 34.6% 71.3% 44.2% 36.2% 43.1% 2 Arts and Technology PCS 7 PCS ES 47.5% 34.9% 49.1% 30.7% 52.0% 45.8% 39.0% 57.6% 2 Houston ES 8 DCPS ES 40.4% 34.9% 33.6% 34.2% 48.8% 47.1% 35.5% 66.6% 3 River Terrace ES 9 DCPS ES 37.2% 31.3% 30.0% 29.2% 35.1% 44.4% 33.3% 42.9% 3 Davis ES 10 DCPS ES 34.4% 29.9% 33.0% 25.4% 4.6% 35.7% 34.3% 8.3% 4 Kimball ES 11 DCPS ES 37.2% 28.4% 35.4% 29.5% 61.6% 38.9% 27.3% 42.8% 3 Smothers ES 12 DCPS ES 25.6% 27.3% 21.6% 30.7% 53.6% 29.5% 24.0% 28.0% 3 Nalle ES 13 DCPS ES 22.3% 26.0% 20.4% 29.2% 36.5% 24.1% 22.9% 20.9% 3 Kenilworth ES 14 DCPS ES 26.6% 23.7% 25.8% 26.3% 67.3% 27.4% 21.1% 40.4% 3 Alton ES 15 DCPS ES 58.2% 19.1% 57.9% 20.6% 7.5% 58.4% 17.5% 0.0% 4 C.W. Harris ES 16 DCPS ES 28.2% 17.4% 25.0% 19.4% 6.3% 31.4% 15.3% 11.5% 4 Drew ES 17 DCPS ES 10.2% 12.9% 7.6% 4.8% 28.0% 12.7% 21.0% 40.3% 4 Friendship PCS - Collegiate 1 PCS HS 27.8% 46.8% 29.1% 52.8% 78.0% 26.5% 40.7% 45.0% 2 Woodson H.D. HS 2 DCPS HS 22.4% 19.1% 17.3% 16.3% 21.8% 27.4% 21.9% 21.8% 4 Maya Angelou PCS - Evans Campus 3 PCS HS 20.5% 14.3% 13.6% 18.6% 26.9% 27.3% 10.0% 17.4% 4 KIPP DC KEY Academy PCS 1 PCS MS 82.0% 72.5% 91.1% 78.4% 68.5% 72.8% 66.7% 70.6% 1 Sousa MS 2 DCPS MS 19.6% 43.2% 16.6% 48.1% 100.0% 22.6% 38.3% 78.8% 2 Kelly Miller MS 3 DCPS MS 23.2% 31.3% 23.0% 38.5% 40.4% 23.3% 24.0% 25.1% 4 Maya Angelou PCS - Middle School Campus 4 PCS MS 21.5% 28.4% 20.8% 28.1% 72.2% 22.2% 28.6% 31.8% 3 Ron Brown MS 5 DCPS MS 23.4% 27.1% 19.8% 36.5% 91.6% 26.9% 17.8% 31.8% 2 SEED PCS 1 PCS 52.3% 68.4% 55.8% 79.3% 100.0% 48.8% 57.6% 61.0% 1 Cesar Chavez PCS - Parkside Campus 2 PCS 27.2% 49.2% 26.6% 55.7% 100.0% 27.8% 42.7% 65.1% 2 Integrated Design Electronics Academy 3 PCS 43.4% 35.2% 42.2% 35.2% 42.4% 44.6% 35.2% 46.6% 3 Richard Wright PCS for Journalism and Media A 4 PCS 28.3% 33.3% 23.3% ^Soumya Bhat. (2013, March 13). An uphill climb for DC schools: A look at DC CAS test score trends. DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-13-13-Final-Test-Score-Paper.pdf *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

•

St. Coletta Special Education PCS, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 94% overall proficiency for an educational campus. 264

• • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Plummer ES, a Tier 3 school, has improved its overall proficiency 2008-2012 from 34.5% to 50%. KIPP DC KEY Academy PCS, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 72.5% for a middle school. Friendship PCS, a Tier 2 school, has improved its overall proficiency 2008-2012 from 27.8% to 46.8%. Friendship PCS ranked #1 for a high school. 2 out of 3 high schools in Ward 7 are underperforming.

School Type and Tier SY 2011* School Type T1 T2 T3 T4 Totals % EC = Educational Campus (various grades K-12) 1 2 3 10.0% ES = Elementary School 2 10 4 16 53.3% HS = High School 1 2 3 10.0% MS = Middle School 1 2 1 1 5 16.7% Other 1 1 1 3 10.0% Totals 3 6 14 7 30 100.0% % 10% 20% 47% 23% 100% *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• • •

14 out of 16 elementary schools are underperforming Tier 3 and Tier 4 level schools. 70% of the schools in Ward 7 are underperforming Tier 3 and Tier 4. Majority of schools in Ward 7 are elementary schools with 53.3%.

Focus Group Results Focus Group No. 1 Francis A. Gregory Library July 30, 2013 Group Demographics

One focus group was held in Ward 7 consisting of 21 individuals. The focus group was conducted in the afternoon, between 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. at Francis A. Gregory Library. Nine of the participants were men and 12 were women. Nineteen of the participants identified as African-American, one as Native American and one as “other”. Over half of the participants had an annual household income of less than $10,000. Four had attained master’s degrees, and eight had bachelor’s degrees. Key Findings

Civics

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The first two questions concerned civics. Participants were first asked whether they thought leaders in their community (political, religious, and community organizations) ensure that their needs are met. With regard to political leaders one participant said that “we only see our elected officials when it’s time to vote again.” This sentiment was shared by the entire group. The overall consensus was that council members need greater participation in the wards they represent. The group felt like since the economic downturn several years ago, there has been leadership shown by community agencies. Also, most of the group expressed that community churches are stepping up and making sure people are fed and “needs are met.” Churches are “filling the gap” for many in need, added one participant. Participants were next asked if they were included in the future design of their neighborhood. The group had a mixed reaction to this issue. Several participants see their neighborhoods gentrifying forcing longtime residents to leave their homes. One participant stated that because of the use of eminent domain, her “voice doesn’t really count.” On the other hand, one participant recalled a personal experience when tenants of her former apartment complex were heavily involved in the decision to convert the building to condominiums and improvements that were made to the building. One participant stated that residents in her neighborhood often complain to each other regarding new developments or other changes but do not attempt to formally voice their opinions to elected officials or other decision makers. Social

Next, the focus group was asked questions regarding social issues. In response to what social supports they thought people in their community needed, the group stated: • Job readiness centers/employment training programs • Parenting classes • Additional police stations In terms of job readiness centers participants expressed that current centers are not centrally located or easy to access. The overwhelming response to what social services are needed was affordable childcare; “it’s hard to get off public assistance if you can’t find childcare,” added one participant. With respect to education, overall the group felt that quality education was not available. In terms of K-12, the group expressed “kids aren’t being taught.” One participant has a grandchild with disabilities who was getting left behind because teachers did not pay attention to him and his special needs. The participants also shared that parents were not ensuring that their children focused on education, intimating that parents should take greater responsibility over their children’s education. Many participants also stated that there were no satellite campuses of community colleges east of the river for adults to attend. One participant stated that there are many world class institutions in DC but they “don’t serve east of the river residents to build adults.” 266

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Physical

Two questions regarding the physical environment were posed to the focus group. When asked whether they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago, many participants stated “no” and that they felt unsafe in their neighborhoods. The focus group participants cited the following factors as contributing to their lack of safety: • Witnessing kids stealing from stores • Seeing drugs being sold in broad daylight • The increasing presence of attack dogs The top health and environmental concerns is the lack of health facilities. Participants stated that the clinics that do exist have “substandard conditions.” Economic

Finally, focus group participants were asked three questions related to economic conditions. Participants stated the following support services were necessary for individuals in their community who desired to start a business: • Government funding, grants, or loans • Business resource library • Business centers where computers can be used, faxes sent, copies made, etc. The group stated the following training programs should be offered: • Relevant job training that resulted in an actual career path for graduates of the program • Parenting classes • Financial literacy courses • Credit counseling With respect to the need for relevant job training, participants expressed that residents sign up for job training but there is no counseling provided regarding what the growing industries are and participants are not given a good sense of what the result of the training will be. Finally, participants stated that young families with limited income desiring to rent or purchase a home need first time homebuyers programs as well as great access to information on resources such as assistance researching options for purchasing a home, for instance, possible locations and programs that will be helpful.

267

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Needs Assessment Survey Results

Ward 7 UPO 2012 Community Needs Assessment Survey Results 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Gender

37.6%

Male

61.0%

Female

No Responses

1.4%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Marital Status

54.0%

Neverâ&#x20AC;Ś 16.4%

Married

13.1%

Divorced Separated

6.1%

Domesticâ&#x20AC;Ś 2.8% Widowed

5.6%

No Responses 1.9%

268

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Age Range

9.4%

12 -19…

17.4%

20 - 27… 10.3%

28 - 34…

10.8%

35 - 42…

13.6%

43 - 49…

16.9%

50 - 57… 9.9%

58 - 64…

11.7%

65+ years-… No… 0.0% 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Race/Ethnicity

88.3%

African… Hispanic Caucasian Asian

0.9% 2.8% 0.5%

Native…

2.3%

Other

2.8%

No Responses

2.3%

269

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Annual Household Income

28.2%

$0 - $9,999

14.1%

$10,000 -…

18.8%

$25,000 -…

8.9%

$35,000 -…

8.0%

$45,000 -… $55,000 -… $65,000 -… $75,000 -… $100,000 + No Responses

3.3% 5.2% 4.2% 5.6% 3.8%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward7 - Household Age Range

16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

270

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Employment Status

34.3%

Employed full-time

10.8%

Employed part-time

4.7%

Self-employed Unemployed, looking for work Unemployed, not looking forâ&#x20AC;Ś

22.5% 2.8% 7.0%

Student Retired Homemaker Military Other No Responses

13.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.9% 1.4%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Military Veteran Status

Yes

6.1%

89.7%

No No Responses

4.2%

271

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Household Needs

20.0%

17.8%

15.0% 10.0%

8.5%

10.7% 10.8%

10.1% 7.1%

3.0% 2.4% 3.4% 2.6%

5.0%

4.7%

2.8%

3.9% 0.8%

0.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Household Health Conditions 19.2%

20.0% 15.0%

11.0%

10.0%

12.2%

8.8%

7.6% 5.5%

5.0%

3.0%

3.4% 0.9%

0.0%

272

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Resources Received Last Year

35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

33.1%

20.6% 15.2% 9.5% 3.0%

0.7%

4.7%

3.0%

1.7%

3.7%

3.0%

1.7%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Roadblocks to Your Needs 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

14.3% 10.9%

9.2% 5.5% 3.1% 3.4%

6.5%

6.1% 2.7%

0.7%

4.4%

0.3%

273

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Safer Neighborhood In 2012

Strongly Agree Disagree 13.6%

10%

Agree Strongly Disagree

28.6%

20%

Undecided No Responses

26.8%

30%

40%

50%

15.5%

60%

70%

12.7% 2.8%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Inclusion in Neighborhood Decisions

To a Great Extent

13.1% 0%

10%

Somewhat

20.7% 20%

Very Little

Not at All

26.3% 30%

40%

50%

No Responses

35.7% 60%

70%

4.2%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Quality Schools in My Neighborhood

Strongly Agree Disagree 13.6%

10%

Agree Strongly Disagree

23.5%

20%

27.2%

30%

40%

50%

Undecided No Responses 16.9%

60%

70%

14.1% 4.7%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 7 - Confidence in the City's ability to provide jobs

Very Confident Not Very Confident

9.4%

16.0%

10%

20%

Somewhat Confident Uncertain of my Confidence

16.4%

30%

Confident No Responses

42.7%

40%

50%

60%

10.8% 4.7%

70%

80%

90%

100%

274

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 7 Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard CIVIC

LEADERSHIP Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inclusion in future design of neighborhoods

COLLABORATION Community Group Engagement

OVERALL

D SOCIAL

EDUCATION Quality of Education in Public Schools

Access to Educational Institutions & libraries

DC CAS Math Proficiency

DC CAS Reading Proficiency

Access to Childcare Centers

CULTURE Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities by Childcare Centers

C+

Access to DC Public Parks and Recreation Centers

B+

HEALTH Residents in Excellent Health

Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers)

A-

OVERALL

D PHYSICAL

SAFETY Perception of Safety

Mortality Due to Accidents

Violent and Property Crimes

ENVIRONMENT Vacant Housing Units

Vehicle Registrations

C+

Trees in Good/Excellent Condition

OVERALL

C+ ECONOMIC

Confidence in City's Ability to Provide jobs

C-

Access to affordable Childcare

C-

Net worth

Unemployment

Poverty level

C-

OVERALL

275

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The highest grade scored by Ward 7 was a C+ in the physical principle. •

Civic: Though Ward 7 has a considerable number of community groups which conceivably would provide an avenue for advocacy, residents do not feel included in the future design of their neighborhood.

•

Social: There is a gap between the perception and reality of education in Ward 7 where residents scored a C in perception of the quality of public schools, but students fell far below proficiency rates in reading and math. Ward 7 scored an F in both reading and math proficiency. Ward 7 also scored an F though their perception of their own health was excellent. Notably, Ward 7 boasts a low number of heavy drinkers.

•

Physical: Ward 7 scored a C in resident’s perception of safety but a B in actual violent and property crimes.

•

Economic: The average net worth is far below the District average, and the unemployment rate is far higher than the national average. Also, Ward 7 residents pay almost half the District average for monthly childcare, indicating that many may receive subsidies or assistance in paying for childcare costs.

276

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy Daily Needs

• • • • • • •

Increase access to and the availability of food, especially for low-income residents. Improve access to and the availability of transportation, especially for low-income residents. Improve access to employment services. Increase access to affordable housing. Improve communication of available social services to residents, so they may know where to go for help. Improve eligibility requirements for residents seeking social services, including for lowincome individuals and families with employed individuals. Improve operating hours available to residents seeking social services.

Education

• •

Continue to ensure residents have access to performing Tier 1 and Tier 2 public schools and increase proficiency scores in underperforming Tier 3 and Tier 4 public schools. Improve DC CAS math and reading proficiency scores.

Civics

• •

Improve engagement efforts between elected representatives and residents to effect greater confidence in elected officials’ ability to meet the needs of constituents. Improve engagement efforts between developers/planners and residents to effect greater inclusion in decisions that affect the future design of their neighborhoods.

Social

• • •

Physical

• •

Increase police presence in neighborhoods. Improve overall sense of security and confidence in policing efforts.

Economic

• • • •

Improve access to government-supported asset development, including business training programs. Increase access to affordable childcare. Improve unemployment rate. Reduce poverty rate.

277

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 8 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

278

2012 Community Needs Assessment

279

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 8 Needs Assessment and Healthy Neighborhood Report

Social Impact Data The following chart briefly outlines the demographic, income, housing, and other characteristics of this ward. Ward 8

Population1

Population Totals 2010

70,240

Population Totals 2011

70,509

Population Totals 2016

71,510 Demographic1

Population by Race and Ethnicity 2011 White Alone

2,652

Black Alone

65,907

American Indian Alone

147

Asian Alone

262

Pacific Islander Alone

Some Other Race Alone

353

Two or More Races

1,168

Hispanic Origin (Any Race)

1,328 Income2

Households by Income Income <$15,000

7,699

Income $15,000-$24,999

3,278

Income $25,000-$34,999

2,926

Income $35,000-$49,999

3,694

Income $50,000-$74,999

3,761

Income $75,000-$99,999

2,344

Income $100,000-$149,999

1,931 280

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Income $150,000-$199,999

510

Income >$200,000

505

Unemployed

17,486 Poverty3

Poverty Levels # Individuals in Poverty

25,120

% Individuals in Poverty

34.70%

% Families in Poverty

30.40%

% Under 18 years in Poverty

47.90% Education4

Percent high school graduate or higher

79.2%

Percent bachelor's degree or higher

10.4%

Housing5 Housing Units

31,643

Owner Occupied Housing Units

18.5%

Renter Occupied Housing Units

63.7%

Vacant Housing Units

17.8% Unemployment6

Unemployment Rate

28.3%

• • •

Ward 8 has the fewest residents in DC with 70, 509 inhabitants Ward 8 is also predominantly Black with the second largest concentration of African Americans, 65, 907 residents, in the District behind Ward 7. The largest group of income earners in Ward 8 among those employed earns less than $15,000 annually and totals 7,699 families. Nearly one in three of the families in Ward 8 live in poverty. 281

• •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Only 10.4 % of the residents in Ward 8 have earned a bachelor’s degree or better. The unemployment rate nearly triples that of the District average at 28.3%.

Education

Ward 8 CAS Proficiency Rates and Tiers by School for 2008, 2012 and 2016 Projections Overall

Overall

Projected

School Proficiency Proficiency Math Math Math Reading Reading Reading Tier School Name Rank Sector Type 2008^ 20012^ 2008^ 2012^ (2016)* 2008^ 2012^ (2016)* * Center City PCS - Congress Heights Campus 1 PCS EC 33.9% 33.6% 12.3% 34.3% 21.5% 4 Excel Academy PCS 1 PCS ES 58.1% 62.8% 53.5% Friendship PCS - SouthEast Academy 2 PCS ES 29.6% 40.0% 27.0% 48.7% 90.8% 32.2% 31.4% 47.4% 2 Hendley ES 3 DCPS ES 47.2% 39.6% 46.2% 43.8% 34.4% 48.1% 35.4% 33.2% 3 Leckie ES 4 DCPS ES 40.0% 38.1% 35.2% 38.1% 51.7% 44.8% 38.1% 28.5% 3 Imagine Southeast PCS 5 PCS ES 34.8% 32.9% 54.7% 36.7% 1.0% 4 Septima Clark PCS 6 PCS ES 34.8% 34.8% 34.8% Simon ES 7 DCPS ES 36.7% 33.9% 29.8% 34.4% 31.3% 43.5% 33.3% 32.4% 4 Early Childhood Academy PCS - Walter Wash 8 PCS ES 32.3% 32.3% 32.3% Martin Luther King ES 9 DCPS ES 34.8% 28.8% 23.2% 31.1% 46.4% 26.5% Ketcham ES 10 DCPS ES 30.7% 25.6% 26.2% 27.3% 70.5% 35.2% 23.9% 52.2% 2 Orr ES 11 DCPS ES 39.9% 24.5% 37.3% 20.4% 50.8% 42.5% 28.6% 18.7% 3 Stanton ES 12 DCPS ES 13.8% 23.4% 12.4% 28.1% 11.7% 15.2% 18.8% 6.6% 4 Patterson ES 13 DCPS ES 28.8% 23.3% 23.7% 18.4% 7.6% 33.9% 28.2% 23.5% 4 Turner ES at Green 14 DCPS ES 27.2% 22.3% 29.9% 22.3% 84.0% 24.5% 22.3% 71.3% 2 Howard Road Academy PCS - Main Campus 15 PCS ES 41.6% 21.8% 39.0% 21.3% 0.0% 44.1% 22.3% 0.0% 4 MC Terrell ES 16 DCPS ES 24.6% 20.8% 22.8% 19.4% 26.2% 26.3% 22.2% 20.1% 4 Ferebee Hope ES 17 DCPS ES 31.9% 20.3% 30.4% 21.9% 18.5% 33.3% 18.8% 12.1% 4 Moten ES at Wilkinson 18 DCPS ES 13.8% 20.0% 10.5% 20.9% 35.2% 17.0% 19.1% 30.7% 4 Savoy ES 19 DCPS ES 42.5% 17.7% 38.4% 16.0% 4.4% 46.5% 19.4% 0.0% 4 Malcolm X ES 20 DCPS ES 21.5% 16.7% 15.1% 18.5% 20.5% 27.9% 14.8% 11.2% 4 Garfield ES 21 DCPS ES 26.1% 10.6% 24.9% 11.8% 0.0% 27.2% 9.4% 0.0% 4 Thurgood Marshall Academy (TMA) PCS 1 PCS HS 65.4% 75.8% 60.6% 79.1% 100.0% 70.2% 72.5% 89.7% 1 KIPP DC- College Preparatory PCS 2 PCS HS 63.7% 75.8% 51.6% National Collegiate Academy PCS 3 PCS HS 46.8% 40.3% 53.2% Ballou SHS 4 DCPS HS 20.5% 21.4% 18.4% 22.8% 40.8% 22.6% 20.0% 47.3% 3 Anacostia SHS 5 DCPS HS 17.1% 14.5% 13.8% 12.0% 22.1% 20.4% 16.9% 21.5% 4 Achievement Preparatory Academy PCS 1 PCS MS 76.9% 86.0% 98.1% 67.9% 74.3% 1 KIPP DC- AIM Academy PCS 2 PCS MS 56.7% 72.1% 64.5% 85.0% 100.0% 48.9% 59.0% 82.5% 1 Howard Road Academy PCS - MLK Campus 3 PCS MS 45.4% 51.7% 39.2% Friendship PCS - Tech Prep 4 PCS MS 42.4% 50.8% 100.0% 34.1% 74.9% 1 Hart MS 5 DCPS MS 16.4% 26.1% 15.2% 29.0% 49.6% 17.6% 23.2% 42.8% 3 Kramer MS 6 DCPS MS 22.8% 21.2% 25.1% 25.4% 35.4% 20.5% 16.9% 25.1% 4 Johnson, John Hayden MS 7 DCPS MS 15.6% 20.5% 11.8% 23.3% 30.3% 19.3% 17.7% 27.1% 4 ^Soumya Bhat. (2013, March 13). An uphill climb for DC schools: A look at DC CAS test score trends. DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-13-13-Final-Test-Score-Paper.pdf *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

282

2012 Community Needs Assessment

• • • • •

Center City PCS, a Tier 4 school, is the only educational campus in Ward 8. Friendship PCS, a Tier 2 school, is ranked second in overall proficiency with 40%. Thurgood Marshall Academy, a Tier 1 school, improved its overall proficiency between 2008 and 2012 from 65.4% to 75.8%. Achievement Preparatory Academy PCS, a Tier 1 school, tops the list with 76.9% overall proficiency for a middle school. Anacostia SHS, a Tier 4 school, is on the bottom of the list with 14.5% overall proficiency for a high school.

School Type and Tier SY 2011* School Type T1 T2 T3 T4 Totals % EC = Educational Campus (K-12) 1 1 3.7% ES = Elementary School 3 3 11 17 63.0% HS = High School 1 1 1 3 11.1% MS = Middle School 3 1 2 6 22.2% Other 0.0% Totals 4 3 5 15 27 100.0% % 14.8% 11.1% 18.5% 55.6% 100.0% *2011 data from: IFF. (2012, January). Quality schools: Every child, every school, every neighborhood

• • • •

The majority of schools in the ward (74.1%) are underperforming schools. 11 out of 17 elementary schools are Tier 4. 20 out of 27 schools in this ward are underperforming and in Tier 3 or Tier 4. The majority of schools in this ward (63%) are elementary schools.

Focus Group Results Focus Group No. 1 July 29, 2013 William Lockridge Library 11:00 am – 1:00 pm Focus Group No. 2 August 1, 2013 William Lockridge Library 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm Group Demographics

Two focus groups were held in Ward 8 with a total of twenty-four participants. One focus group was conducted on July 29, 2013, in the afternoon between 11:00 am-1:00 pm at William Lockridge Library, and another focus group was held at the same location on August 1, 2013, between 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm.

283

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 8 focus group participants were all under the age of 57. The majority of the participants were between the ages of 35-42. Twenty-three participants were African American, and one was Hispanic. Most of the participants had an annual income of $45,000 or less, and seven did not report their annual income. Eleven of the participants were unemployed and currently looking for work. Key Findings

The first two questions concerned civics. Participants were first asked whether they thought leaders in their community (political, religious, and community organizations) ensure that their needs are met. The group discussed political and church leaders and expressed that neither ensured that needs were met. With respect to elected officials, one participant stated that “we only see the elected officials when it’s time to vote again.” That sentiment was shared by the entire group. Participants said that elected officials often send their representatives to events instead of personally attending. Participants also expressed that even if a representative held meetings they do not always listen and implement feedback. The group specified housing as an area where elected officials do not ensure needs are met because “they keep building condos that we can’t afford and we are forced just to make do.” The group expressed that the church leaders do not seem interested in helping the community, just in increasing their membership to boost the amount of money coming into the church. One participant said that “many churches in my neighborhood want you to become a member of their church before they help you.” Strikingly, the focus group participants did not provide any example of leaders – political, religious or community – who they felt ensured needs were met. Participants were next asked if they were included in the future design of their neighborhood. The focus group participants unanimously agreed that they were not included in future designs of their neighborhood. One person stated that it seems like “the blueprints are laid or in the works” prior to holding any sort of community meeting to elicit feedback. The group expressed concern over the purpose of the new soccer stadium being planned and Homeland Security headquarters which they fear would displace many residents and provide good construction jobs that they would be unable to obtain. The focus group participants also stated that developers are given whatever they want from the politicians with no input from the citizens. Social

Next, the focus group was asked questions regarding social issues. In response to what social supports they thought people in their community needed, the group stated: •

More Boys & Girls Clubs 284

• • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Programs that reinforce curfews Mentoring programs like Big Brother Big Sister Assistance paying rent Assistance for working class families

In discussing mentoring programs, one participant stated that, “We need mentors to help young brothers like me…somebody who looks like me but wear[s] a suit and tie and who can be a good influence, we don’t see many brothers like that”. The group also expressed concerns that if mentoring programs do exist they are unaware of them, and organizations need to be more effective in advertising those programs. With respect to education, one focus group stated that the quality of education was ok, but stressed that “you have to want the education,” as stated by one participant. The group expressed that residents have to take more personal responsibility for education. Another focus group expressed that the quality of education in their neighborhoods was not good. A participant from that focus group stated that, “we need better teachers, especially when they work with special needs.” The focus group participants also cited good programs for adults desiring education at Ballou Stay and P.R. Harris, but that many education programs lack proper advertisement. Also, the group stated parenting classes are lacking in the area. Overall, neither of the focus groups expressed great confidence in the quality of available education. Physical

Two questions regarding the physical environment were posed to the focus group. When asked whether they felt safer in their neighborhoods than a year ago several focus group participants stated that they felt less safe because of rising substance abuse, housing developments closing down, youth displaying a lack of respect for elders, teen pregnancy, and a lack of control over guns on the streets. The group found the police to be ineffective in creating a safe environment and stated that a greater police presence was needed. There was also concern expressed over residents who suffer from mental illness that are perpetrators of some crimes. Those individuals add to lack of safety, and “they need counselors to make home visits, to come to the community to help people,” added one participant. The top health and environmental concerns cited by the group were: • • • • • • •

Lack of clinics and urgent care locations No access to fresh food Bed bugs Lack of parks Rat infestations Deer overpopulation Unclean parks

In discussing the lack of clinics, one participant stated that they are always overcrowded, and “customer service is always slow.” 285

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Economic

Finally, focus group participants were asked three questions related to economic conditions, stating that the following support services were necessary for individuals in their community who desire to start a business: •

Loan services

•

Business education

•

Money management

•

Training on how to run a business

One participant stated that they did not know where to go for assistance in starting a business, and those programs should be advertised. Also, a participant said “we need more mentors . . . and we need community support . . . if people in the community don’t buy from us, we can’t survive.” The group stated the following training programs should be offered: • • • •

Programs that assist with self-esteem and self-awareness Programs that assist individuals in finding employment that do not have felonies or criminal records. Job placement programs. Job training for trades.

Participants felt that many job programs were geared toward youth, single parents, the homeless population, or felons, and many people need assistance that do not fall into those categories. One participant cited Project Empowerment as a good program that, “does work if you apply yourself.” Finally, participants stated that young families with limited income desiring to rent or purchase a home need: • • • • •

Money management skills First time homebuyers programs Credit management skills that assist in building credit Assistance locating affordable housing Lending programs

286

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Needs Assessment Survey Results

Ward 8 UPO 2012 Community Needs Assessment Survey Results

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Gender

30.8%

Male

66.6%

Female

2.6%

No Responses

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Marital Status Never Married/Siâ&#x20AC;Ś

56.5% 17.4%

Married 7.8%

Divorced Separated Domestic Partnership Widowed No Responses

6.4% 2.1% 6.4% 3.5%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

287

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Age Range 3.8%

12 -19 years-…

13.9%

20 - 27…

10.6%

28 - 34…

12.2%

35 - 42…

17.6%

43 - 49…

24.0%

50 - 57…

11.3%

58 - 64…

6.4%

65+ years-old No Responses

0.2%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Race/Ethnicity 88.9%

African… Hispanic

1.6%

Caucasian

2.4%

Asian

0.7%

Native…

1.6%

Other

2.6%

No Responses

2.1%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

288

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Annual Household Income

36.0%

$0 - $9,999

20.2%

$10,000 - $24,999

16.0%

$25,000 - $34,999

7.8%

$35,000 - $44,999

4.9%

$45,000 - $54,999 $55,000 - $64,999 $65,000 - $74,999

4.0% 3.1%

$75,000 - $100,000

2.1%

$100,000 +

2.4%

No Responses

3.5%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

16.0%

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Household Ages Range

14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 Over 50 years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old years-old

None

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

289

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Highest Educational Level 4.2%

Earned Master's Degreeâ&#x20AC;Ś

7.3%

Earned Bachelor's Degree

4.2%

Earned Associate's Degree

26.6%

Some College

3.1%

Completed Technicalâ&#x20AC;Ś

4.0%

Some Technical School

31.1%

Completed High School

11.8%

Some High School

2.4%

Completed Middle School Some Middle School

1.4% 4.0%

No Responses

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Employment Status 25.6%

Employed full-time

13.4%

Employed part-time

5.6%

Self-employed

29.4%

Unemployed, looking for work

5.4%

Unemployed, not looking for work

4.9%

Student

7.8%

Retired Homemaker Military Other No Responses

1.9% 0.0% 3.5% 2.4%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

290

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Military Veteran Status 4.2%

Yes

88.0%

No 7.8%

No Responses

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Household Needs 20.0%

18.5%

15.0% 10.7% 10.0% 5.0%

9.7%

11.4% 8.1%

9.3% 4.7%

3.4% 1.4%

3.8% 3.6% 3.1%

4.7% 1.7%

0.0%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

291

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Health Conditions in Household

25.0%

20.1%

20.0% 15.0% 10.0%

5.5%

6.4%

2.8%

1.4%

5.0%

11.3% 10.7% 10.7%

7.5%

2.5%

0.0%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Resources Received Last Year 22.6%

25.0% 20.0%

20.5%

17.1%

15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

6.6%

6.1% 3.0%

8.1% 4.0%

6.1% 1.3%

2.7%

2.1%

0.0%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

292

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 Roadblocks to Meet Basic Needs

25.0%

20.3%

20.0% 15.0% 8.7%

10.0%

4.1% 4.3%

5.0%

9.2%

7.5% 4.6% 3.6%

1.7%

5.8% 1.9%

3.2%

0.0%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Safer Neighborhood In 2012 Strongly Agree 15.3%

10%

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

27.8%

20%

30%

Strongly Disagree

25.6%

40%

50%

60%

17.9%

70%

80%

No Responses 8.2% 5.2%

90%

100%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

293

2012 Community Needs Assessment 2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Inclusion in Decisions

To a Great Extent 18.6%

10%

Somewhat

Very Little

24.2%

20%

30%

Not at All

No Responses

24.2%

40%

50%

27.8%

60%

70%

80%

5.2%

90%

100%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Quality Public Schools in Neighborhood Strongly Agree 10.6%

10%

Agree

Undecided

26.4%

20%

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

29.2%

30%

40%

50%

15.5%

60%

No Responses 12.0%

70%

80%

6.4%

90%

100%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

2012 Needs Assessment Survey Results Ward 8 - Confidence in City's Ability to Provide Jobs

11.1%

10%

Very Confident

Somewhat Confident

Confident

Not Very Confident

Uncertain of my Confidence

No Responses

22.8%

20%

11.3%

30%

40%

40.7%

50%

60%

70%

8.0%

80%

90%

6.1%

100%

UPO, 2012 Community Needs Assessment, Office of Strategic Positioning, Division of Planning and Research October 2013.

294

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Ward 8 Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard CIVIC

LEADERSHIP Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inclusion in future design of neighborhoods

COLLABORATION Community Group Engagement

OVERALL

C SOCIAL

EDUCATION Quality of Education in Public Schools

Access to Educational Institutions & libraries

DC CAS Math Proficiency

DC CAS Reading Proficiency

Access to Childcare Centers

CULTURE Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities by Childcare Centers

Access to DC Public Parks and Recreation Centers

B+

HEALTH Residents in Excellent Health

Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers)

B-

OVERALL

D PHYSICAL

SAFETY Perception of Safety

Mortality Due to Accidents

Violent and Property Crimes

ENVIRONMENT Vacant Housing Units

B+

Vehicle Registrations

B+

Trees in Good/Excellent Condition

C-

OVERALL

C+ ECONOMIC

Confidence in City's Ability to Provide jobs

Access to affordable Childcare

C-

Net worth

Unemployment

Poverty level

OVERALL

295

2012 Community Needs Assessment

The highest grade scored by Ward 8 was a C+ in the physical principle. •

Civic: Ward 8 has an average level of community groups and residents that believe that they are included in future neighborhood plans.

•

Social: There is a gap between the perception and reality of education in Ward 8 where residents scored a C in perception of the quality of public schools but students fell far below proficiency rates in reading and math. Ward 8 scored an F in both reading and math proficiency. Ward 8 also scored an F in terms of their perception of their own health as excellent.

•

Physical: Ward 8 scored a C in residents’ perception of safety but a B in actual violent and property crimes. There are fewer vehicles registered in Ward 8, indicating that residents may take public transportation more and have a lower carbon footprint as compared to other wards.

•

Economic: The average net worth is far below the District average, and the unemployment rate is far higher than the national average. Also, Ward 8 residents pay almost half the District average for monthly childcare, indicating that many may receive subsidies or assistance in paying for childcare costs. Though scoring a C in confidence in the city’s ability to provide jobs, Ward 8 has the highest unemployment rate in the city and scored an F in this category.

296

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Recommendations for Programming and Advocacy Daily Needs

• • • • • • •

Increase access to and the availability of food, especially for low-income residents. Improve access to employment services. Increase access to affordable housing, including rental assistance. Improve communication of available social services to residents, so they may know where to go for help. Increase access to and the availability of clothing, especially for low-income residents. Increase assistance for residents seeking help with paying their utility bills. Improve eligibility requirements for residents seeking social services, including lowincome individuals and families with employed individuals.

Education

• • •

Continue to ensure residents have access to high performing Tier 1 and Tier 2 public schools and increase proficiency scores in underperforming Tier 3 and Tier 4 public schools Improve DC CAS math and reading proficiency scores. Increase access to childcare facilities.

Civics

• •

Social

• • • • •

Increase efforts to improve the health of residents by addressing high percentages of survey respondents who list high blood pressure, asthma, diabetes, and obesity among their top health problems. Increase community support programs that offer cultural and educational activities to residents. Increase access to fresh foods. Increase access to acute healthcare. Increase access to parks.

Physical

• • •

Improve cleanliness of parks. Increase police presence in neighborhoods. Increase the number of trees in good/excellent condition.

Economic

•

Increase access to and awareness of business start-up capital and business training opportunities 297

• • • •

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Increase access to soft skills training (self-esteem, job readiness, etc). Increase access to affordable childcare Reduce unemployment rate Reduce poverty rate

298

2012 Community Needs Assessment

299

2012 Community Needs Assessment

300

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Appendix

301

2012 Community Needs Assessment Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard

Sources and Related Information WARD

REFERENCES

CIVIC LEADERSHIP

Residents’ inclusion in future design of neighborhoods

From UPO Needs Assessment Survey Results. Respondents were asked to what degree they felt included in the decisions of the future design of their neighborhoods.

COLLABORATION

Community Group Engagement

Based on the number of community groups listed on the Mayor's Office of Community Engagement website. Retrieved 8/26/2013 from http://one.dc.gov/page/ward-1-community-groups

SOCIAL EDUCATION

Quality of Education in Public Schools

Access to Educational Institutions & libraries

DC CAS Math Proficiency (70% Goal)

DC CAS Reading Proficiency (70% Goal)

Access to Childcare Centers

From UPO Needs Assessment Survey Results. Respondents were asked to what degree they agreed with the following statement: “Public Schools in my neighborhood offer quality education.”

Ratios based upon the number of educational institutions and libraries per 1,000 people. Source: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. Esri Population Forecasts for 2012.

Source: District of Columbia Public Schools Office of Data and Accountability, District of Columbia Public Schools DC CAS Results 2013. Retrieved from http://www.dcpcsb.org/Data-Center/2013-School-DC-CAS-Results.aspx

Ratio based on the number of child development centers and children under 5-years-old per 1,000 persons. Source: Development Center Reach Data-Ward Level, 2011" Rothernburg, L, and Sidorowitcz, K (1011). District of childhood risk and reach assessment: Fiscal year 2011

the population of "Table 4. Child in Moodie, S, Columbia early

CULTURE 302

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities offered by Childcare Centers

University of the District of Columbia, Center for Applied Research (2010). 2010 District of Columbia childcare market rates and capacity utilization.

Access to Parks and Recreation Centers

Based on the number of recreation centers and pools listed on the DC Department of Parks and Recreation’s website. Retrieved 9/26/2013 from http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=5&query=AND{'11'.EX.'8'

HEALTH

Residents in Excellent Health

Data on the percentage of respondents who rated their health as “excellent” are from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey in the District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment, Volume 1. District of Columbia Department of Health (2013, 15 March). The national rate of 32.7% was used as a benchmark for comparisons. National rate source: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-133.pdf

Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers)

Heavy drinkers are defined as men having two or more drinks per day and women having one or more drinks per day. Data on the percentage of respondents identified as “heavy drinkers” are from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The national rate of 5.1% was used as a benchmark for comparison. Source: District of Columbia Community Health Needs Assessment, Volume 1. District of Columbia Department of Health (2013, 15 March).

PHYSICAL SAFETY

Perception of Safety

Mortality Due to Accidents

Violent and Property Crimes

From UPO Needs Assessment Survey Results. Respondents were asked their level of agreement with the following statement: “I feel safer in my neighborhood than I did last year.”

Mortality rates source: District of Columbia Department of Health (2013, 15 March). District of Columbia Community health needs assessment, Volume 1.

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. Number of Crimes that Occurred Between 01/01/2012 and 12/30/2012. Retrieved September 6, 2013 http://crimemap.dc.gov/Report.aspxfrom

ENVIRONMENT

Vacant Housing Units

"Vacant" property is described as not vacant due to being: waiting to be rented; rented and not occupied; for sale; sold and not occupied; vacant between seasonal/recreational use; or for migrant workers. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1

303

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Vehicle Registrations

Rates of vehicle registrants over 18. Source: Comey, J. Narducci, C. & Tatian, P. A. (2010). State of Washington, DC's neighborhoods, 2010. Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/publications/412333.htmlRetrieved from

Trees in Good/Excellent Condition

Source: Comey, J. Narducci, C. & Tatian, P. A. (2010). State of Washington, DC's neighborhoods, 2010. Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/publications/412333.htmlRetrieved from

ECONOMIC

Confidence in City's Ability to Provide jobs

From UPO Needs Assessment Survey Results. Residents were asked to rank their level of confidence in the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to provide jobs.

Access to affordable Childcare

Based on the expenditures households spend on childcare against the District average of $654. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1

Net worth

Net worth against the average net worth in the District of $447,984. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1

Employment

Poverty level

Based on a calculation of unemployment rates against the national rate of 7.1%. Unemployment rate source: DC Department of Employment Services Office of Labor Market Research and Information. District of Columbia Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment, and Unemployment Rate by Ward (2012). Retrieved from http://does.dc.gov/page/unemployment-data-dc-wards. National rate source: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000.

Ward data against the national rate of 15%. Ward data source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005-2009) from the American Community Survey (ACS). http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/DC+Data+and+Maps/DC+Data/Tables/Dat a+by+Geography/Wards/DC+Ward+Data+2005-2009+ACS . National poverty rate source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf

304

2012 Community Needs Assessment

2012 Community Needs Assessment Methodology and Approach

Presented in the following table are indicators used throughout this report to examine social impacts and healthy neighborhoods. All of the quantitative data used in the report fall within the study period of 2010 through 2012 or were the newest data available at the time the report was

prepared.

Social Impact Indicators Population Urban Population Household characteristics Age & Gender Racial/Ethnic Composition Housing Foreclosures Vacancies

Income Household Income

Employment Employment

Education DC CAS

Poverty Childhood Poverty

Unemployment

School Tier Education Quality

Income Disparity Safety Mortality Violent Crime

Homelessness Property Crime Housing Affordability Domestic Violence Healthy Neighborhoods Report Civic Social Leadership Services (Health) Collaboration Education Culture

Health Health Insurance AIDS/HIV

Early Education

Drug/Alcohol/ Tobacco Obesity Physical Safety Environment Housing

Economic Economy

Review of Literature Methodology

All data were collected with an emphasis on primary sources for the most up-to-date data and were scrutinized based on dates (especially when comparisons were made), source relevance, and type of data provided; secondary sources were used to buttress primary and other data and analyses. Careful attention was made to avoid any data that could not be sourced; thus, all data are supported with footnoted citations in APA format. The literature review includes citations from various sources including institutional and governmental data bases; U.S. Census; established think tanks; newspaper and journal articles; sponsored research papers and studies; and interviews of primary sources, among others.

Review of Literature Limitations

The findings in this review are in no way to be construed as complete and exhaustive of all of the indicators including sub-indicators; rather, the review is a sampling of the research that UPO conducted and represents an ongoing effort to make contributions to the literature review throughout the research process until its completion. Regarding data synchronization, not all 305

2012 Community Needs Assessment

agencies and non-governmental institutions have fiscal years that end at the same time; when comparing year-to-date data, UPO relied on sources that make their own comparisons, which are assumed to be synchronized (by fiscal year or calendar year). Notations are included for comparisons based on partial-year dates.

Needs Assessment Survey Methodology

More than 1,200 residents of the District of Columbia were surveyed to obtain the demographic, needs assessment, and healthy neighborhoods data presented in this report. Less than 1% of the surveys were excluded from final calculations because they were substantially incomplete. Respondents were randomly invited to complete the surveys and were offered incentives for doing so, including a free meal at the International House of Pancakes (IHOP) and a chance to win season passes to Six Flags America. To ensure the randomness of potential respondents, surveyors were deployed to conduct face-to-face paper surveys in high pedestrian traffic areas, including DC Safeway stores, strip malls, public transit areas, and some public/private gatherings. Respondents also submitted surveys online through a third-party vendor that offers survey services. Online survey participation was promoted through social media, email, and via an online survey link on the UPO homepage. Margin of Error

The table below lists sample sizes and margins of error for individual wards and the Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total margin of error. Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

Ward 7

Ward 8

Size

224

213

425

1231

MOE

10.0%

18.5%

11.9%

9.9%

6.5%

10.9%

6.7%

4.7%

2.8%

Analysis: Based on the dataset, we conducted both individual-ward analyses and cross-ward analyses. The distributions of resident opinions and responses to survey questions were analyzed relative to residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs and Likert scaled responses to healthy neighborhood statements. Those data are presented in table and chart/graph form throughout the assessment. In particular, significance tests were performed to discover substantial variations in demographic, needbased, and healthy neighborhood data. As for the cross-ward analysis, comparisons are made between the percentages of needs assessment and healthy neighborhood data from each of the eight wards. Also, the topmost frequent responses are presented, and in many cases, the needs most often given by respondents are identified. The healthy neighborhood data report displays a cross section of the demographics of respondents with their respective opinions regarding their sentiments for what makes for healthy neighborhoods. Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard Methodology To better understand the health of wards, a Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard is displayed that assigns letter grades derived from appropriate quantitative data analysis of civic, social, physical 306

2012 Community Needs Assessment

and economic indicators of the level of well-being of those wards. These data are sourced from primary data (UPO needs assessment survey) and other sources including the Census Bureau, the District of Columbia website, and other reputable studies. Grades were calculated using the following rubrics: 1) Provided that a goal of a particular category was available (i.e., 70% DC CAS (Comprehensive Assessment System) score that measures proficiency of public school students), a value was assigned to that goal, such as 93 points or greater, which would establish that goal as an A. Grade average ranges were then calculated using standard deviations from the goal value. The following is an example of grade distributions with 93 or greater as a goal value: F (0-59)

D (6069)

C(7072)

C (7376)

C+ (7779)

B(8082)

B (8386)

B+ (8789)

A(9092)

A (93100)

2) In cases where a national rate was readily available, then a value was assigned to that datum and used as a benchmark from which standard deviations and grade ranges were created. For instance, a typical national rate in a category may be rated at 83 points and assigned a letter grade of B. 3) Where there was no established national rate or goal rate to use as a benchmark, the data was treated as normally distributed and the mean and standard deviation were computed. The table below lists the distribution of grades from U.S. academic institutions. Grades were distributed based upon these percentages using the mean value and standard deviation from that mean as a benchmark. F 3%

D 2%

C10%

C 15%

C+ 10%

B10%

B 20%

B+ 15%

A10%

A 5%

4) The total grade of each section was calculated in the same way an academic Grade Point Average (GPA) is calculated. The weight of each subcategory in a particular section determined how much it would potentially affect the overall grade for that section. According to each subcategoryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s weight and grade, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;GPAâ&#x20AC;? of the section was determined; hence, each section has an overall weighted letter grade point average based upon the weighted grades of its respective subcategories. Healthy Neighborhood Focus Group Methodology and Limitations The healthy neighborhood focus group was designed to give District residents the opportunity to articulate their needs and concerns in a discussion format relative to civic, social, physical, and economic aspects that make for healthy neighborhoods. The focus groups also served as a 307

2012 Community Needs Assessment

mechanism to solicit details that further articulate responses and give meaning to the healthy neighborhood questions in the needs assessment survey. These discussions also coincided with many of the social impact indicators, as they are interrelated. Participants were incentivized to attend a focus group by awarding them with IHOP gift cards, and in some cases, Safeway gift cards and an IHOP gift card. Each participant was also required to complete a paper survey, which referred them to a website where they could register for a free IHOP meal. Focus groups were advertised by the sponsoring hosts on the UPO website (where participants could also register to attend), through social media and email notifications, at events, and by flyers distributed by the surveyors and others. Every effort was made to have a randomized sample of the population in each ward to attend the focus group sessions to include a broad spectrum of participants of varying ages, genders, and ethnicities/races. Focus groups were held during daytime and evening sessions at local public libraries, community centers, and faith-based institutions. In most cases, two focus group sessions were held per ward and averaged about 11 attendees per session with each session lasting about one and a half to two hours. Three special population focus groups were conducted specifically for the Hispanic population, District youth, and persons with disabilities. Each focus group had the support of a facilitator to guide the discussion and a scribe to record the responses of the participants. In most instances a voice recorder was available for use as a backup record of the session. Facilitators were instructed to remain â&#x20AC;&#x153;disinterestedâ&#x20AC;? in the discussions and to simply guide the discussions by encouraging participants to elaborate on some of their responses when warranted. The design of the focus group inquiry included nine questions within the four categories of the healthy neighborhood principles. The questions presented to the participants for discussion are as follows: 1. Civic a. Do leaders in your community (political, religious and community organizations) ensure that your needs are met? b. Are you included in the future design of your neighborhood? Why or why not? 2. Social a. What social supports (human, recreational, etc.) do you think people need in your community? b. Is quality education available to residents of all ages in your community? If so, how? If not, why? 3. Physical a. What are the factors that make your neighborhood more (or less) safe than it was a year ago? 308

2012 Community Needs Assessment

b. What are some of the top health and environmental concerns in your community? 4. Economic a. What types of support services do you believe someone might need to start a new business in your community? b. What types of training programs do you think need to be offered in your community? c. What type of support do you think a young family (with limited income) would need in order to purchase or rent a home in your neighborhood?

Healthy Neighborhood Focus Group Limitations

There were significant challenges soliciting residents to attend scheduled focus group sessions in wards 1, 2, and 3. On several occasions scheduled focus group sessions in these wards were cancelled and rescheduled due to lack of attendance. Some surveyors who actively solicited participants for the ward focus groups in these three wards reported that potential participants indicated they did not have “needs” or that the event “was not for [them].” To remedy this situation, individual interviews were conducted of at least three residents from each of wards 1, 2 and 3 and the focus group questions were presented to them individually for their reaction and feedback. The results are included in this assessment.

Adult Education Focus Group Methodology & Limitations

The purpose of this targeted focus group research project was to query a cross-section of participants that included primarily community members and providers regarding adult educational needs and services. The focus group research project was designed with scripted questions asked by a facilitator of three types of audiences: community, which included parents (or guardians) who represented youth between the ages of 16 and 24, and youth between the ages of 16 and 24 years-old; providers, which included representatives of establishments that provide adult education programs to youth, 16 – 24-years-old, including GED, ABE, vocational skills training, and support services; and employees of UPO (also a provider organization), who represented various adult education programs offered by UPO including vocational training and GED educational services (among others) that also serve 16-24 year-old youth. The target audience for these specialized focus groups included Ward 8 residents and providers; more precisely, those who lived in or provided adult educational services in the Congress Heights neighborhood. The study included three focus group sessions, which took place on November 7, 2012 at the Petey Green Center in Southeast, Washington, DC. Each session lasted approximately two hours including a fifteen-minute break. A total of eight open-ended questions were asked in each session. Each question allotted approximately ten minutes of discussion. Facilitators remained “disinterested” so as to avoid influencing or steering responses from participants. Each session was recorded by a scribe and electronically by audio/video. The staff of the UPO Office of Strategic Positioning recruited participants by telephone and 309

2012 Community Needs Assessment

email correspondence. Every effort was made to recruit participants who represented the intended age cohort (16-24) including those who had dropped out of high school and who had not received either a GED or vocational training, or who were in the process of receiving either a GED or vocational training certificate, or both. Participants received a $25 stipend (community focus group participants), and a $50 stipend (provider focus group participants), respectively. UPO employees were not offered and did not receive a stipend. Participants were also served breakfast, boxed lunches, and warm food, according to the time they were scheduled to participate. Because of the small sample size and non-random selection of participants, the findings are less useful when drawing cause and effect relationships of a much wider population in Congress Heights; rather, the findings give voice to a niche community of residents and providers who share widely held views and themes on issues related to adult education.

310

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard Data

Civic Leadership: % Feel they are Included in future design of neighborhoods Collaboration: # of Community Groups (per 1,000 residents) Social % Agree that DC Public Schools offer Quality Education Educational Institutions & libraries (per 1000 residents) Education: DC CAS Proficiency (math) Education: DC CAS Proficiency (reading) Childcare Centers (per 1000 children under 5) Culture: % of Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities by Childcare Centers Culture: # of Parks and Recreation Centers (per 1000 residents) Health: % Residents in Excellent Health v. National Rate Health: Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers) v. National Rate Physical Safety: % Feel Safer Over Last Year Safety: Mortality Rates Due to Accidents Safety: Total Violent and Property Crimes Environment: # of Vacant Housing Units (per 1000 residents) Environment: % of Vehicle Registrations Environment: % Trees in Good/Excellent Condition Economic % Confident in City's Ability to Provide jobs Childcare expenditures Net worth Unemployment Rate v. National Rate Poverty level v. National Rate

Type Benchmark % 55.8% Ratio 0.48

Ward 1 49.0 % 0.35

Ward 2 50.0% 0.26

Ward 3 55.9% 0.27

Ward 4 46.4% 0.31

% Ratio % % Ratio % Ratio % %

57.0% 4.7 70% 70% 21.10 99% 0.24 32.7% 5.1%

51.0% 1.7 50.0% 42.2% 5.10 45.1% 0.20 26.8% 5.2%

46.4% 5.9 64.9% 63.7% 28.11 100.0% 0.11 32.2% 6.4%

60.3% 2.5 80.5% 80.5% 6.46 30.9% 0.18 36.8% 8.6%

36.1% 1.7 47.3% 45.3% 8.51 34.0% 0.21 4.1% 4.1%

% % # Ratio % %

57.5% 6.5% 2,154 0.037 26.8% 87.5 %

57.3% 11.4% 5,047 0.091 34.0% 83.5%

53.6% 8.5% 6,517 0.086 30.0% 72.9%

51.5% 7.1% 1,780 0.031 60.0% 83.2%

44.3% 14.7% 2,994 0.045 51.0% 82.5%

% Avg. $ Avg. $ % %

65.4% $1,020 $842,923 7.3 15%

62.5% 60.7% 61.8% 42.3% $626 $870 $1,110 $633 $256,521 $470,638 $949,000 $673,122 7.0 4.0 2.1 6.6 16.5% 14.9% 7.1% 9.7%

*Benchmarks represent the grade of A. UPO Office of Strategic Positioning, Community Planning and Research Division (2013).

311

2012 Community Needs Assessment

Healthy Neighborhood Scorecard Data (continued)

Civic Leadership: % Feel they are Included in future design of neighborhoods Collaboration: # of Community Groups (per 1000 residents) Social % Agree that DC Public Schools offer Quality Education Educational Institutions & libraries (per 1000 residents) Education: DC CAS Proficiency (math) Education: DC CAS Proficiency (reading) Childcare Centers (per 1000 children under 5) Culture: % of Out-of-School Arts & Crafts Activities by Childcare Centers Culture: # of Parks and Recreation Centers (per 1000 residents) Health: % Residents in Excellent Health v. National Rate Health: Alcohol Consumption (Heavy Drinkers) v. National Rate Physical Safety: % Feel Safer Over Last Year Safety: Mortality Rates Due to Accidents Safety: Total Violent and Property Crimes Environment: # of Vacant Housing Units (per 1000 residents) Environment: % of Vehicle Registrations Environment: % Trees in Good/Excellent Condition Economic % Confident in City's Ability to Provide jobs Childcare expenditures Net worth Unemployment Rate v. National Rate Poverty level v. National Rate

Type Benchmark* % 55.8% Ratio 0.48

Ward 5 46.0% 0.54

Ward 6 45.0% 0.14

Ward 7 33.8% 0.34

Ward 8 42.8% 0.19

% Ratio % % Ratio % Ratio % %

57.0% 4.7 70% 70% 21.10 99% 0.24 32.7% 5.1%

41.1% 2.1 39.1% 39.8% 6.95 77.8% 0.20 17.3% 3.4%

45.0% 2.3 46.4% 42.7% 8.33 77.7% 0.17 26.6% 7.8%

37.1% 1.4 33.5% 28.8% 5.15 54.8% 0.21 18.0% 2.4%

36.9% 1.2 24.0% 21.5% 4.54 72.7% 0.21 14.0% 5.5%

% % # Ratio % %

57.5% 6.5% 2,154 0.037 26.8% 87.5 %

37.5% 17.5% 4,737 0.086 44.0% 62.2%

48.8% 9.0% 5,486 0.062 39.0% 70.2%

42.3% 15.2% 4,322 0.070 45.0% 77.9%

43.1% 15.6% 4,388 0.059 34.0% 66.0%

% Avg. $ Avg. $ % %

65.4% $1,020 $842,923 7.3 15%

52.2% 48.8% 41.8% 45.2% $479 $603 $384 $374 $380,310 $363,595 $254,903 $114,286 11.1 8.2 13.7 20.7 19.2% 17.6% 26.4% 34.7%

*Benchmarks represent the grade of A. UPO Office of Strategic Positioning, Community Planning and Research Division (2013).

312

2012 Community Needs Assessment Acknowledgements

UPO Staff Ademola Adepetu, Media & Graphic Design Specialist Clement Idun, Head of Quality Assurance Division Daniel Ofori, Outcomes and Reporting Dgessey Major, Research Assistant Dionne Clemons, Director, Communications and Community Engagement Division Kevin D. Bryant, Community Planner (Lead) LaWanda Sanders, Research Assistant O. Xavier Hixon, Head, Community Planning and Research Division Paul Gordon, Research Assistant Shannon Johnson-El, Research Assistant Shirley Price Ayana Bias Shavon Smith, Research Assistant Syreeta Anderson, Office Coordinator Vanessa Rawls, Director, Office of Strategic Positioning Commission On Needs Assessments Brandon Andrews Delores Millhouse Donald Curtis Hakim Rashid Helene Krauthamer Keenan Keller Kevin Bryant (Chair) Linda Holifield (Co-Chair) Marque Green Paul Gordon (Secretary) Rodney Burton Saadia Abdu Xavier Hixon

UPO Summer Youth Interns Barrell Barnett Carmen Chatman Darnisha Martin Gabrielle Peete Shirdell Sellman (Internship Coordinator) Tanisha Tate Tralicia Robinson

Volunteers/Interns Cynthia Gaskins, Executive Assistant Intern Dorothy Egbufour, Research Assistant Intern Earline Wright, Research Assistant Intern Jessica Williams Kiasha Bryant, Volunteer Pamela Bryant, Volunteer Tyler Thompson, Research Assistant Intern Partners, supporters, contributors Banneker Ventures Carecen CHANGE Inc. Commissioner Rickey Williams, Ward 4 ANC DC Public Libraries Freedom Baptist Church IHOP Restaurants, Alabama Ave, SE Jiao Yu, Statistical Consultant Laurence Covington Masjid Muhammad Mt. Moriah Baptist Church Safeway Stores, Washington, DC Thurgood Marshal Center Trinidad Baptist Church

313

2012 Community Needs Assessment

301 Rhode Island Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 * (202) 238-4609 * www.upo.org * CFC # 90524 * DC One Fund Campaign # 9881

314 301 Rhode Island Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 * (202) 238-4609 * www.upo.org * CFC # 90524 * DC One Fund Campaign # 9881