A COUNTY-BY-COUNTY LOOK AT QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR STATE A report commissioned by Arkansas Community Foundation
October 2013
A Tool for Community Leaders ........................... 1 What’s New in the Second Edition? .................. 2 Numbers Tell Stories.............................................. 2 About the Data .................................................... 3 Aspirations for Arkansas’s Communities ............ 4 Uncovering the Stories Behind the Numbers .... 5 Aspire Education .................................................. 6 Aspire Health ...................................................... 22 Aspire Families .................................................... 36 Aspire Communities ........................................... 54 Definition and Sources....................................... 60 Map Notes .......................................................... 62 Footnotes ............................................................ 63
A Tool for Community Leaders At Arkansas Community Foundation, we’re in the business of providing resources to make charitable giving in our state more effective. That’s why we have commissioned research from the University of Arkansas at Li le Rock to produce Aspire Arkansas. This report presents county-by-county data on measures of community well-being, from economics and education to health and community engagement. We consider Aspire Arkansas one of the most important tools in our toolkit. The report is both a yardstick to measure where our state currently stands and a compass to help you and your neighbors determine where we should go. Equipped with this tool, we hope you’ll have the information you need to begin to identify the local needs you will address with your time, talent and treasure. Pu ing Aspire Arkansas to work may mean starting a new program in your community, as our Conway County affiliate did when they partnered with local healthcare professionals and the Conway County Community Center on a nutrition and fitness program aimed at improving their county’s health numbers. It might also mean supporting an existing program, as our Hot Springs Area affiliate did when they helped fund a summer program for at-risk youth to improve high school graduation rates. In every case, using this data will likely involve a li le research, a li le creativity, a li le innovation and a lot of partnership. Since we released the first edition of Aspire Arkansas in May 2011, it has been so gratifying to hear from people around the state who have found the report useful in their daily work. We’ve heard from public officials who keep a copy on their desk for quick reference. We’ve heard from students who’ve used the report in their research and classroom discussions. We’ve heard from nonprofit organizations that are using it to track the charitable needs they serve. And most importantly, we’ve heard from everyday philanthropists — regular Arkansans who care deeply about our state and want to make smart decisions about their own charitable giving and community advocacy. This tool is for all of us. Let’s get to work!
Heather Larkin, JD, CPA Arkansas Community Foundation President and CEO 1
Numbers Tell Stories ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ¢ Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ¢ Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ dz ǵȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱ ȱȮȱ ȱ ȱŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢Ȭ ¢Ȭ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ¢ Ȃ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ ȱ ȱ¢ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯ ȱ¢ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ¢ Ȃ ȱę ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ę ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ¡ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱȮȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ę ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ¡ ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ȱřǰȱŞȱ ȱŗŗȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ ȱ ȱŘŖŖŝȱȯȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ Ƿ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ¡ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȯȱȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǵȄȱȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ¢ȱ ǵȄ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ę ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȃ Ȅȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȃ ǯȄȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ǯȱ Aspire Arkansasȱ ȱ ȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ
2
What’s New in the Second Edition? ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱę ȱ ȱ ȱAspire Arkansasȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱŘŖŗŗǰȱ Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŘŖŗřȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ Ȋȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯ ǯȱ Ȋȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯ Ȋȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Ȧ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ Ȋȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ě ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱAspire Actionsǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ě ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ Aspire Actions,ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ arcf@arcf.orgǯ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ www.arcf.org/AspireArkansasǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ ǯȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱAspire Arkansasȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ £ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĝ ǯ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱAspire Arkansas ȱ ȱę ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢Ȭ ¢Ȭ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢Ȭ Ȭ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ £ ǯ
ȱ¢ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ¢ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȃ ǰȄȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ę ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱŝśȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ¢£ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ
3
Aspire Education: Arkansans will have the education and training needed to compete in today’s economy. Aspire Health: Arkansans will be healthy. Aspire Families: Families will be stable, nurturing and economically secure. Aspire Communities: People will be engaged in their communities. 4
Now What? After you take a look at the information presented in Aspire Arkansas and see where your community stands on each issue, you may wonder what you can do to help address your community’s challenges and build on its successes. Aspire Arkansas was designed to be a conversation starter — a tool to help citizens choose the most important local priorities to support with time, funding and advocacy. It’s through these conversations that you’ll uncover the stories behind the numbers — the unique local histories that shape our communities and the stories ȱ ȱ ȱ ě ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ
Looking for data for your county? Visit www.arcf.org/aspirearkansas for a comprehensive fact sheet for each of Arkansas’s 75 counties. Historical data from previous years is also available online.
Uncovering the Stories Behind the Numbers Here are a few questions to explore as you work with others in your community to uncover the stories behind the numbers presented in Aspire Arkansas: 1. What seem to be the greatest challenges in your community? What data surprised you? Řǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ę ȱ £ ȱ Ȧ ȱȱȱ government agencies are working on key issues in your community? Is there a need for a new program or organization to address an issue? Is more manpower, ȱ ę ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ organizations already working on this issue? 3. How do neighboring counties compare on key issues? If another nearby county seems to be having greater success in a particular area, why? Whom can you contact to learn more? Is there potential for partnership? 4. Who else in your community might be interested in addressing a key issue? How can you reach out to potential partners? How can you inform others about the need? 5. Who else needs to know about these key issues? Who has connections, resources or talents that could be useful in developing solutions? How can you get these ȱ £ Ȧ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǵ
5
Top-notch education from pre-K to career: Arkansas students deserve it, and our state’s economic future demands it.
ꛜÂ?ȹŽÂ?Â’Â?Â’Â˜Â—ČąÂ˜Â?ČąÂ?‘ŽȹAspire Arkansas report (data from 2005-2009 American Community Survey vs. 2007-2011 American Community Survey).
What happens in the classroom from the very earliest ŠÂ?ÂŽÂœČąÂ–ÂŠÄ´ÂŽÂ›ÂœČąÂ?Â˜ČąÂ’Â—Â?Â’Â&#x;Â’Â?ÂžÂŠÂ•ÂœÇ°ČąÂ?ÂŠÂ–Â’Â•Â’ÂŽÂœČąÂŠÂ—Â?ČąÂŒÂ˜Â–Â–ÂžÂ—Â’Â?Â’ÂŽÂœČąÂŠÂœČą a whole. By third grade, children who lack basic reading skills are four times more likely to leave school without a high school diploma, according to a study commissioned by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.Ĺż Without a high school degree, they are likely to earn four times less than workers with a professional degree, according to 2012 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.²
ÂŽÂ?Ç°ČąÂŠČąÂœÂ’Â?—’ęŒŠ—Â?ČąÂŠÂŒÂ‘Â’ÂŽÂ&#x;Ž–Ž—Â?ČąÂ?Š™ȹ‹ŽÂ? ŽŽ—ȹ ‘’Â?ÂŽČą students and students of some minority backgrounds persists, and Arkansas remains 50th among the 50 states Š—Â?ČąÂ?‘Žȹ Â’ÂœÂ?›’ŒÂ?ČąÂ˜Â?Čą Â˜Â•ÂžÂ–Â‹Â’ÂŠČąÂ?Â˜Â›ČąÂŒÂ˜Â•Â•ÂŽÂ?ÂŽČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹŠĴŠ’—ment.
Â˜Â ČąÂŽÂ?žŒŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—ÂŠÂ•ČąÂŠÄ´ÂŠÂ’Â—Â–ÂŽÂ—Â?ČąÂ?Â˜ÂŽÂœÂ—Č‚Â?ČąÂ“ÂžÂœÂ?ČąÂŠÄ›ÂŽÂŒÂ?ČąÂ?‘Žȹ Â™ÂŽÂ›ÂœÂ˜Â—ÂŠÂ•ČąÄ™Â—ÂŠÂ—ÂŒÂŽÂœČąÂ˜Â?ȹ’—Â?Â’Â&#x;Â’Â?ÂžÂŠÂ•ÂœÇ˛ČąÂ’Â?ČąÂŠÂ•ÂœÂ˜ČąÂœÂ•Â˜Â ÂœČąÂŽÂŒÂ˜Â—Â˜Â–Â’ÂŒČą growth for entire regions. In fact, the Georgetown Center for Education and the Workforce notes that the entire Southern United States lags 10 years behind the rest of the country in terms of education and the availability of ‘’Â?‘Ž›ȏ™Š¢’—Â?ČąÂ“Â˜Â‹ÂœČąÂ?‘ŠÂ?ȹ›Žšž’›ŽȹÂ?›Š’—’—Â?ČąÂ‹ÂŽÂ˘Â˜Â—Â?ȹ‘’Â?‘ȹ school.3ȹȹ Â‘Â’ÂœČąÂ?›žœÂ?›ŠÂ?’—Â?ČąÂ™ÂŠÄ´ÂŽÂ›Â—ČąÂ˜Â?ČąÂ•Â˜Â ČąÂŽÂ?žŒŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—ČąÂŠÂ—Â?Čą Â•Â˜Â ČąÂ?Ž–Š—Â?ČąÂ?Â˜Â›ČąÂŽÂ?žŒŠÂ?ÂŽÂ?ČąÂ Â˜Â›Â”ÂŽÂ›ÂœČąÂ’ÂœČąÂ?’ĜŒž•Â?ČąÂ?Â˜ČąÂ‹Â›ÂŽÂŠÂ”Ç°Čą but Arkansas has made modest gains in the past few years. Student scores on state benchmark tests in grades 3, 8 and 11 have increased consistently each year since 2007. The percentage of Arkansans with a bachelor’s degree or higher has grown from 18.9 to 19.6 since the release of the
6
Â˜ČąÂ‹Â›ÂŽÂŠÂ”ČąÂ˜ÂžÂ?ČąÂ˜Â?ČąÂ˜ÂžÂ›ČąÂ™Â•ÂŠÂŒÂŽČąÂŠÂ?ČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂ‹Â˜Ä´Â˜Â–ČąÂ˜Â?ČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂœÂ?ŠÂ?ÂŽČą ranking charts and help all Arkansas students achieve, we must build on proven strategies already creating progress in schools around the state. For example, in the Cross County School District, a challenging curriculum Â?‘ŠÂ?ČąÂžÂœÂŽÂœČąÂ?ŽŒ‘—˜•˜Â?¢ȹŠ—Â?ČąÂ™Â›Â˜Â“ÂŽÂŒÂ?ČŹÂ‹ÂŠÂœÂŽÂ?ȹ•ŽŠ›—’—Â?ȹ’—ȹŽÂ&#x;Ž›¢ȹ class is boosting career readiness. The state’s Coordinated School Health program is creating on-campus clinics and wellness programs to keep kids healthy enough to learn. At the college level, mentoring programs like UALR’s African American Male Initiative are supporting students to help them navigate the educational system and stay in school. Meanwhile, programs like Arkansas Career Pathways are addressing out-of-class needs like childÂŒÂŠÂ›ÂŽÇ°ČąÂ?›Š—œ™˜›Â?ŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—ČąÂŠÂ—Â?ȹ‘Ž•™ȹ ’Â?Â‘ČąÄ™Â—ÂŠÂ—ÂŒÂ’ÂŠÂ•ČąÂŠÂ’Â?ČąÂ?Â˜ČąÂ›ÂŽÂ–Â˜Â&#x;ÂŽČą the barriers that often keep students from graduating. ž™™˜›Â?’—Â?Čą Â›Â”ÂŠÂ—ÂœÂŠÂœČąÂœÂ?žÂ?Ž—Â?ÂœČąÂŠÂ?ȹŠ••ȹ•ŽÂ&#x;ÂŽÂ•ÂœČąÂ›ÂŽÂšÂžÂ’Â›ÂŽÂœČąÂŠÂ•Â•ČąÂ˜Â?Čą ÂžÂœČąČŻČąÂœÂ?žÂ?Ž—Â?ÂœÇ°ČąÂ?ÂŠÂ–Â’Â•Â’ÂŽÂœÇ°ČąÂœÂŒÂ‘Â˜Â˜Â•ÂœÇ°ČąÂ—Â˜Â—Â™Â›Â˜Ä™Â?ČąÂ˜Â›Â?Š—’£ŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—ÂœČą and government — to work together.
A scholarship for every student? It’s doable. Communities throughout Arkansas are leading the way for education and workforce development by establishing promise scholarships – programs that guarantee college scholarships for ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ In 2011, Arkansas Community Foundation hosted a conference where people from 32 communities across the state came together to learn about how to create this kind of scholarship program in their own towns. At the conference, participants heard the inspiring story of the Sparkman Scholarship Foundation. Like many rural communities throughout Arkansas, Sparkman (population 586) has lived under the shadow of potential school closure for more than a decade. Then, in 2010, the neighboring Arkadelphia School District announced a new promise scholar ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱę ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĝ ȱ for Sparkman’s school. Residents feared students would be ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ the Arkadelphia Promise. Without any wealthy benefactors or large corporations to fund a promise scholarship for the Sparkman school, local residents £ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ¢Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ do it themselves. ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ campaign to create the Sparkman Scholarship Foundation. By reaching out to local businesses and the school’s small but loyal ȱ ǰȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱǞśŖǰŖŖŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ months — enough to fund scholarships for the four graduates ȱ ę ȱ ȱŘŖŗŗȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ę ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ could be sustained. The results were immediate. During the 2011-2012 school year roughly 25 new students enrolled (a 12 percent increase in enrollment). Though the program is still young, there’s even some indication that the scholarship may help to improve the college-going rates of Sparkman’s graduates. “This year we had several students who said they might not have gone to college if they hadn’t known those funds were available,” said fourth grade teacher and Sparkman Scholarship Foundation advocate Stephanie Harmon. Bolstered by their success, the members of the Sparkman Schol ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ę ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱ ȱ anywhere. And if they can do it, they say, any town can. It’s doable. 7
grade 3 literacy ȱ ę ȱ ȱ Dz ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŗŘ Carroll
Benton
Fulton
Baxter
Boone Marion
Sharp
Izard Washington Madison
Franklin Crawford
Searcy
Newton
Stone
Van Buren
Johnson
Sebastian
Independence
Cross
White
Perry
Woodruff
Lee
Pulaski Montgomery
Garland
Lonoke
Saline
Monroe Phillips
Hot Spring
Howard
Crittenden
St. Francis
Prairie
Scott
Polk
Mississippi
Jackson
Faulkner Yell
Craighead
Poinsett
Cleburne
Conway
Greene Lawrence
Pope Logan
Clay
Randolph
Grant
Jefferson
Arkansas
Pike Clark
Sevier
Little River
Dallas
Cleveland
Lincoln Desha
State 82%
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita
44 - 71%
Drew
Calhoun Bradley
Miller Columbia
Union
map notes on page 62
72 - 84%
Chicot Ashley
85 - 100%
Lafayette
Source: Arkansas Department of Education, http://www.arkansased.org/divisions/learning-services/student-assessment/test-scores
students scoring proficient or advanced
100%
80% 81
79
82 76
74 67
60%
87
85
84 71
64 59
40%
20%
0%
math 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Grade 3 Test Scores on ACTAAP Arkansas 8
literacy
grade 3 math
Grade 3 Literacy and Math by Race and Ethnicity
ȱ ę ȱ ȱ Dz ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŗŘ
Boone
Fulton
Baxter Marion
Sharp
Izard Washington Madison
Franklin Crawford
Searcy
Newton
Stone
Van Buren
Johnson
Independence
Garland
Saline
Lonoke
Crittenden
St. Francis Lee
Monroe Phillips
Hot Spring
Howard
Cross Woodruff
Prairie Pulaski
Montgomery
Polk
Grant
Jefferson
Arkansas
Pike Clark
Sevier Little River
White
Perry
Scott
Mississippi
Jackson
Faulkner Yell
Craighead Poinsett
Cleburne
Conway
Logan
Greene Lawrence
Pope Sebastian
Clay
Randolph
Dallas
Cleveland
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita
Desha
Columbia
Union
Ashley
State 87% 32 - 73%
Bradley
Miller Lafayette
Lincoln
Drew
Calhoun
students scoring proficient or advanced
Carroll
Benton
100%
Chicot
74 - 88% 89 - 100%
91
91 80%
85
79 81 70
60%
94 88 81
73
86 79
40%
20%
0%
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
literacy
Asian
Two or more races
Latino
math
Source: Arkansas Department of Education, http://www.arkansased.org/divisions/learning-services/student-assessment/test-scores
9
grade 8 literacy ȱ ę ȱ ȱ Dz ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŗŘ Carroll
Benton
Fulton
Baxter
Boone Marion
Sharp
Izard Washington Madison
Franklin Crawford
Searcy
Newton
Stone
Van Buren
Johnson
Sebastian
Independence
White
Perry
Cross Woodruff
Lee
Pulaski Montgomery
Garland
Lonoke
Saline
Monroe Phillips
Hot Spring
Howard
Crittenden
St. Francis
Prairie
Scott
Polk
Mississippi
Jackson
Faulkner Yell
Craighead
Poinsett
Cleburne
Conway
Greene Lawrence
Pope Logan
Clay
Randolph
Grant
Jefferson
Arkansas
Pike Clark
Sevier
Little River
Dallas
Cleveland
Lincoln Desha
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita
Bradley
Miller Columbia Lafayette
48 - 68%
Drew
Calhoun
Union
Chicot Ashley
State 80% 69 - 81% 82 - 97%
Source: Arkansas Department of Education, http://www.arkansased.org/divisions/learning-services/student-assessment/test-scores
10
grade 8 math
Grade 8 Literacy and Math by Race and Ethnicity
ȱ ę ȱ ȱ Dz ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŗŘ
Boone
Fulton
Baxter Marion
Izard Washington Madison
Franklin Crawford
Searcy
Newton
Stone
Van Buren
Johnson
Logan
Sebastian
Independence
Cleburne
Woodruff
Prairie Pulaski
Montgomery
Polk
Garland
Crittenden
St. Francis Lee
Lonoke
Monroe Phillips
Hot Spring
Howard
Arkansas
Jefferson
Grant
Pike Clark
Sevier Little River
Cross
White
Saline
Mississippi
Jackson
Perry
Scott
Craighead Poinsett
Faulkner Yell
Greene Lawrence
Pope Conway
Clay
Randolph Sharp
students scoring proficient or advanced
Carroll
Benton
100%
Cleveland
84
87
85
78
78 66
60%
40%
71
70
66
43
20%
White White
Lincoln Desha
17 - 52%
Bradley
Miller Union
Black Bla laccck or African Afriican American
State 68%
Drew
Calhoun
Columbia
85
85
0% Dallas
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita
Lafayette
80%
53 - 70%
Chicot
Ashley
American Am meeric rican an Indian I Ind and Alaska Native
math
71 - 92%
Asian As sisian an
Two T o or more moore ore races
Laat atino ino Latino
literacy
Source: Arkansas Department of Education, http://www.arkansased.org/divisions/learning-services/student-assessment/test-scores
students scoring proficient or advanced
80% 70%
71
68
67 63
60%
61
80
77
76
63
63
56 50% 48 40% 30% 20% 10% math 0%
2 007 2007
2 008 2008
2009 2009
2 010 2010
2 011 2011
literacy
2 012 2012
Grade 8 Test Scores on ACTAAP Arkansas
11
grade 11 literacy
students scoring proficient or advanced
Grade 11 Literacy by Race and Ethnicity
77
74
Boone
60%
74
Searcy
Newton
50%
Franklin Crawford
Van Buren
Johnson
Yell
30% Montgomery
Polk
Black or Black African Afr American
Ame erican American Indian Ind dian and Alaska Native
Asian As sian
Two Tw wo or more m races
Latino La atino
Saline
Lonoke
Crittenden
St. Francis Lee
Monroe Phillips
Grant
Jefferson
Arkansas
Pike Clark
Sevier Little River
Garland
Cross Woodruff
Prairie
Hot Spring
Howard
0%
White
Pulaski
Mississippi
Poinsett
Perry
Scott
Craighead
Jackson
Faulkner
43
10%
Independence
Cleburne
Conway
Logan
Greene Lawrence
Pope Sebastian
20%
Stone
Clay
Randolph Sharp
Izard Washington Madison
57
40%
Fulton
Baxter Marion
66
White
12
Carroll
Benton
80% 70%
ȱ ę ȱ ȱ Dz ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŗŘ
Dallas
Cleveland
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita
Desha
Bradley
Miller Columbia
Union
Ashley
State 68% 19 - 50%
Drew
Calhoun
Lafayette
Lincoln
Chicot
51 - 70% 71 - 92%
Source: Arkansas Department of Education, http://www.arkansased.org/divisions/learning-services/student-assessment/test-scores
students scoring proficient or advanced
By Tom W. Kimbrell, Ed.D., Arkansas Commissioner of Education
80% 70%
50%
68
65
60% 57 51
51
Q:
Where are you seeing the greatest gains in K-12 education in Arkansas? What methods seem to be having the greatest success?
60
40%
A:
30% 20% 10% 0% 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Grade 11 Literacy, 2007 - 2012
While we continue to experience consistent gains on our current assessments, we are in the middle of transitioning to our new Common Core learning standards. These standards will 1) better align with college and work expectations, 2) include rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher-order skills and 3) build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards. We know that engaging students in real-world experiences and including the use of technology are, by far, two of the best methods to help students achieve the greatest success.
Q:
In communities where schools are struggling, how can parents help schools and students succeed?
A: The pace of change in education has accelerated at all
levels with a focus on ensuring that all students, no matter where they live, graduate from high school ready to enter the workplace and succeed or enter institutions of higher education in entry-level, credit-bearing college courses without the need for remediation. Now, more than ever before, a student’s success, as well as a school’s success, is dependent upon strong support from parents and community stakeholders. Parents are encouraged to work closely with the school to learn more about how they can best support their child at home. One of the best ways to be involved is through the local parent-teacher associations. Community stakeholders are also encouraged to become actively involved in partnering with their local schools. Several communities across Arkansas have become actively involved with a strong job-shadowing program between businesses and the local high school, focusing on the goal of all students being college and career ready.
Q:
What has been the biggest change in the area of K-12 education over the past five to seven years? Are the numbers generally moving in a positive or negative direction?
A: Overall we have seen positive growth of student
academic performance in our state-mandated assessments over the past several years. In particular, our English Language Learner population has seen significant gains. More education data is available on the website of the Arkansas Department of Education: www.arkansased.org.
13
graduation rates Arkansas by School District, 2011 Carroll
Benton
Boone
Fulton
Baxter Marion
Sharp
Izard Washington Madison
Franklin Crawford
Searcy
Newton
Stone
Van Buren
Johnson
Sebastian
Independence
Yell
Montgomery
Polk
Perry
Garland
Cross Woodruff
Prairie
Saline
Lonoke
Crittenden
St. Francis Lee
Monroe Phillips
Hot Spring
Howard
Grant
Jefferson
Arkansas
Pike Clark
Sevier Little River
White
Pulaski
Mississippi
Jackson
Faulkner
Scott
Craighead Poinsett
Cleburne
Conway
Greene Lawrence
Pope Logan
Clay
Randolph
Dallas
Cleveland
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita
Desha
State 80.7% 60.8 - 76.5%
Drew
Calhoun Bradley
Miller Columbia Lafayette
Lincoln
Union
Ashley
Chicot
76.6 - 87.2% 87.3 - 100.0%
Source: Arkansas Department of Education, ADE Statewide Longitudinal Data System
Graduation Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2011 100%
80%
85.0
84.1
81.5
79.9 72.9
76.8
60% 50.8 40%
20%
0%
14
White
Native Nat tive Black Black or Amerricann Afric African can American American A i
Asian Asiaan
Hawa Hawaiian aiian Paci Pacific ific IIslander l d
Twoo or More Mo ore RRaces
Latino
remediation rate Arkansas by County, 2012 Fall Term Carroll 45.1
Benton 45.8
Madison 34.2
Washington 44.4
Boone 45.1
Newton 39.0
Crawford 41.9 Franklin Johnson 54.9 65.9 Logan 48.2
Sebastian 41.6
Yell 59.1
Scott 48.3 Polk 48.8
Montgomery 46.2
Howard Sevier 51.4 60.9 Little River 46.0
Pike 47.9
Stone 55.4
Van Buren 52.6 Conway 56.3
Perry 36.7
Garland 52.5
Clark 50.0
Grant 42.5
Dallas 60.7
Lafayette 65.2
Columbia 59.0
Lonoke 47.5
Woodruff 56.8
Prairie 73.5
Monroe 66.0
Arkansas 63.4
Jefferson 66.4
Cleveland 39.4
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 78.6 67.1 58.6 Calhoun 71.9 Miller 42.2
White 40.0
Pulaski 58.5
Saline 35.8
Hot Spring 55.1
Independence 58.1 Jackson Cleburne 57.0 45.0
Faulkner 41.3
Clay 52.6
Randolph 70.1
Sharp 55.0 Lawrence 56.2
Izard 51.8
Searcy 48.9
Pope 51.3
Fulton 45.3
Baxter 56.5
Marion 65.4
Lincoln 57.3
Craighead 42.5
Ashley 71.3
Union 66.6
Mississippi 68.4
Poinsett 52.9 Cross 45.1 St. Francis 75.6
female 50.8%
Crittenden 66.8
Lee 75.0 Phillips 71.9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Remediation Rate by Gender, 2011 Desha 64.8
State 52.4%
Drew 65.3 Bradley 74.2
male 47.6%
Greene 58.1
34.2 - 48.9 49.0 - 60.9
Chicot 69.2
61.0 - 78.6
Source: Arkansas Department of Higher Education
Remediation Rates by Race and Ethnicity 2011
100%
80%
80.2 74.2
60% 56.3
52.4
40%
39.7
35.9 20%
0%
Asian only
African American only
Latino
American Indian/Alaska Native only
Wgite
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander ony
15
high school degree or higher Percent of Population 25 Years and Older with High School Diploma or Higher; Arkansas by County, 2007-2011 Carroll 80.4
Benton 85.0
Washington 82.1
Madison 75.3
Boone 84.7
Newton 79.8
Crawford 78.9 Franklin Johnson 83.7 76.4 Logan 78.2
Sebastian 82.2
Yell 70.8
Scott 76.0 Polk 81.6
Montgomery 81.3
Howard Sevier 77.1 70.0 Little River 82.1
Pike 78.8
Van Buren 81.3 Conway 82.3
Perry 81.5
Garland 85.1
Clark 84.1
Pulaski 88.8
Saline 88.6
Hot Spring 81.2
Lafayette 77.6
Columbia 84.4
Sharp 83.0 Lawrence 75.8
Independence 81.5 Jackson Cleburne 75.3 81.5
Grant 84.0
Dallas 80.0
Union 81.6
White 82.5
Faulkner 87.6
Lonoke 85.6
Woodruff 72.9
Prairie 76.7
Jefferson 82.6
Cleveland 85.5
Clay 74.5
Randolph 80.0
Stone 79.2
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 76.4 80.5 Calhoun 83.2 79.6 Miller 83.0
16
Izard 80.1
Searcy 72.9
Pope 82.2
Fulton 81.0
Baxter 85.3
Marion 84.8
Lincoln 70.9
Monroe 71.5
Arkansas 80.8
Craighead 84.1
Ashley 81.6
Mississippi 75.7
Poinsett 72.8 Cross 77.8 St. Francis 74.1
Crittenden 77.2
84.3
78.1
81.5
81.8
78.5 61.1
40%
43.0
0%
State 82.7%
Whitee
Americcan Asiann Nativee Somee Black or o American Indiann/ n Hawaiian/ Hawaiiaan/ a otherr African African Indian/ race Pacificc American Americaan Alaskaa Native Islander
68.7 - 77.2% Chicot 70.7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
49.1
20%
Phillips 72.9
Desha 75.5
80% 60%
Lee 68.7
Drew 81.9 Bradley 73.8
100%
Greene 82.2
High School Degree Completion by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2011
77.3 - 82.6% 82.7 - 88.8%
map notes on page 62
o Latinoo Two or moree originn racess (of any race)
90.2 91.0
91.6
91.4
91.2
91.9 90.3
90.3
90.6
%
82.7
top 10 91.4
High School Degree Completion by State percent completing high school
High School Degree Completion by Gender 2007-2011
TOTAL ARKANSAS GRADUATES 82.7%
MALE GRADUATES 81.8%
FEMALE GRADUATES 83.5%
0
20
40
60 percent
80
100
1 2 3 3 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 13 13 16 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Wyoming Minnesota Alaska Montana New Hampshire Vermont Utah Iowa Nebraska Maine Hawaii North Dakota South Dakota Washington Wisconsin Colorado Kansas Massachusetts Oregon Connecticut Idaho Michigan Maryland Pennsylvania Ohio New Jersey Delaware
91.9 91.6 91.4 91.4 91.2 91.0 90.6 90.3 90.3 90.2 90.1 90.0 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.7 89.5 88.9 88.9 88.6 88.5 88.4 88.2 87.9 87.8 87.6 87.4
28 29 30 30 30 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
District of Columbia Missouri Illinois Indiana Virginia Oklahoma Florida Arizona New York Rhode Island Nevada North Carolina Georgia South Carolina Tennessee New Mexico
87.1 86.8 86.6 86.6 86.6 85.9 85.5 85.2 84.6 84.3 84.2 84.1 84.0 83.6 83.2 83.1
45 46 47 48 49 50 51
West Virginia Alabama Kentucky Louisiana California Texas Mississippi
82.6 81.9 81.7 81.6 80.8 80.4 80.3
United States
85.4
44
Arkansas
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
82.7
17
associate’s degree* Percent of Population 25 years and older Arkansas by county, 2007-2011 *highest level of education completed Carroll 5.1
Benton 6.2
Washington 4.8
Crawford 7.7
Madison 3.3
Logan 5.9 Yell 2.5
Scott 5.1
Montgomery 7.7
Howard Sevier 3.4 5.6 Little River 7.1
Newton 4.9
Franklin Johnson 6.0 2.9
Sebastian 7.5
Polk 6.8
Boone 6.6
Pike 5.9
Stone 6.6
Van Buren 6.2 Conway 4.2
Perry 4.9
Garland 7.6
Saline 6.6
Hot Spring 9.1 Clark 6.3
Pulaski 6.3
Grant 5.5
Dallas 5.8
Lafayette 4.1
Columbia 7.5
Union 8.2
White 5.8
Lonoke 7.8
Woodruff 3.3
Prairie 4.0
Jefferson 4.9
Cleveland 7.9
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 4.1 7.1 6.3 Calhoun 7.4 Miller 6.0
Independence 5.3 Jackson Cleburne 5.1 6.5
Faulkner 6.3
Clay 5.0
Randolph 6.9 Sharp 6.0 Lawrence 5.7
Izard 5.1
Searcy 5.2
Pope 4.6
Fulton 4.8
Baxter 7.0
Marion 5.8
map notes on page 62
Lincoln 3.5
Greene 4.3 Craighead 4.7 Poinsett 4.0 Cross 5.4
St. Francis 5.6
Ashley 4.2
Desha 4.3
female 7.1% 0
State 5.9% 2.4 - 4.6%
Chicot 2.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
18
Crittenden 4.4
Phillips 10.1
Drew 5.0 Bradley 3.1
male 4.7%
Lee 3.5
Monroe 7.7 Arkansas 6.3
total 5.9% Mississippi 5.2
4.7 - 6.6% 6.7 - 10.1%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Percent of Population 25 Years and Older with Associate's Degree* by Gender, 2007-2011 (*highest level of education completed)
8
Associate’s Degree Completion by State percent of population highest level of eductation 2007-2011
Rank 1 2 2 4 4 6 7 8 9 9 11 12 13 13 15 16 16 18 18 20 20 22 22 24 24 26 27 28 29 29 31 31 31 34 34 34 37 38 39 40 40 40 43 44 45 46 47 47
State North Dakota Iowa Wyoming Hawaii Minnesota South Dakota New Hampshire Washington Nebraska Utah Wisconsin Maine Florida Idaho North Carolina South Carolina Vermont Michigan New York Arizona Oregon Alaska Montana Colorado Rhode Island Mississippi California Massachusetts Indiana Ohio Delaware Kansas Pennsylvania Connecticut Illinois New Mexico Nevada Alabama Oklahoma Kentucky Missouri Virginia Georgia Texas Maryland New Jersey Tennessee West Virginia
Percent 12.3 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.5 9.4 9.2 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.0 6.0
50 51
Louisiana District of Columbia
4.9 2.9
49
Arkansas
United States Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
5.9
7.6 19
Bachelor’s Degree Completion by State
bachelor’s degree or higher
% of population, highest level of eductation 2007-2011
Percent of Population 25 years and older Arkansas by county, 2007-2011
Rank 1 Fulton Randolph Carroll Benton Boone Baxter 11.5 11.5 17.1 27.6 Marion 2 14.2 14.9 Sharp 14.5 Greene Izard 12.8 Lawrence 3 12.1 12.7 Madison 9.4 Washington 12.2 Newton 4 Searcy 27.6 Mississippi Stone Craighead 12.6 8.5 12.6 11.8 23.7 Independence 5 13.2 Van Crawford Jackson 6 Franklin Poinsett Johnson Buren Cleburne 13.2 8.0 12.4 9.4 16.0 12.7 16.3 Pope 7 20.4 Cross White Conway 8 12.0 Crittenden Logan Sebastian 18.4 14.0 Faulkner 13.5 Woodruff 11.2 19.0 9 25.9 St. 9.6 Francis Yell Perry 10 10.2 Prairie 10.5 Scott 11.5 9.9 Lee 11.1 Pulaski Lonoke 11 6.5 31.3 Monroe 17.3 Saline 12 13.7 22.9 Garland Polk Phillips 20.6 Montgomery 10.6 13 12.2 11.3 Hot Arkansas Grant Jefferson Spring 13.0 14 15.1 16.9 12.3 Pike 15 Howard 11.3 Clark Sevier 12.7 Dallas Lincoln 22.3 16 9.2 Cleveland 12.7 9.0 Desha 14.0 17 State 19.6% 13.4 Little Hempstead Nevada River Ouachita 18 Drew 10.3 14.5 12.5 13.2 Calhoun 19.8 6.5 - 11.8% 19 6.7 Bradley Miller 11.4 20 11.9 18.4% Chicot 12.9 Columbia Ashley 13.2 Union 20.5 21 12.5 Lafayette 16.5 18.5 - 31.3% 12.8 22 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 23 24 25 26 Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Race and Ethnicity 50% 27 2007-2011 27 29 40% 41.0 30 31 31 30% 33 34 34 36 % 20.7 20% 37 16.1 16.1 38 13.0 39 10% % 9.1 40 7.5 40 42 2.2 0% % 42 Latino Lati ino Hawaiiiann/ Some Two or o White Native ve Asia Asian an Hawaiian/ Blackk orr Nativ origin origgin Pacif Pacific fic Moree other American/ can/ African Africaan Americ 44 ((off an any IIslander l d R race Races Al Alaska k American A i 45 race) Native 46 47 Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Gender, 2007-2011 48 49 Total 19.6% 50 Clay 9.3
Male Female 0
20
51
19.8% 19.4% 5
State District of Columbia Massachusetts Colorado Maryland Connecticut New Jersey Virginia Vermont New Hampshire New York Minnesota Washington Illinois Rhode Island California Kansas Utah Hawaii Oregon Montana Delaware Nebraska Georgia Alaska Maine Pennsylvania North Carolina North Dakota Arizona Texas Florida Wisconsin South Dakota Missouri New Mexico Michigan Iowa Idaho Ohio South Carolina Wyoming Oklahoma Tennessee Indiana Nevada Alabama Louisiana Kentucky Mississippi
Percent 50.5 38.7 36.3 36.1 35.7 35.0 34.4 33.8 33.1 32.5 31.8 31.4 30.7 30.6 30.2 29.7 29.6 29.5 29.0 28.2 28.0 27.8 27.5 27.2 27.1 26.7 26.5 26.5 26.4 26.1 26.0 26.0 25.8 25.4 25.4 25.3 24.9 24.6 24.5 24.2 24.2 23.0 23.0 22.7 22.2 22.0 21.1 20.6 19.7
West Virginia
17.6
Arkansas
United States 10
15
19.6 28.2
20
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
Graduate or Professsional Degree Completion by State percent of population, highest level of eductation, 2007-2011 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 15 16 17 18 19 19 21 22 23 23 25 26
State District of Columbia Massachusetts Maryland Connecticut Virginia New York Vermont New Jersey Colorado New Hampshire Rhode Island Illinois Delaware Washington California New Mexico Oregon Minnesota Kansas Pennsylvania Hawaii Georgia Maine Michigan Arizona Alaska
Rank 26 28 29 30 31 31 33 33 35 35 37 38 39 39 41 42 43 43 43 46 47 47 49 50
Percent 28.1 16.6 16.1 15.6 14.2 14.0 13.3 13.1 13.0 12.1 12.0 11.6 11.3 11.3 11.0 10.8 10.6 10.3 10.2 10.2 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.5
51
State Utah Missouri Florida Ohio Nebraska North Carolina Montana Wisconsin South Carolina Texas Kentucky Wyoming Indiana Tennessee Alabama Iowa Idaho Oklahoma South Dakota Nevada Louisiana Mississippi North Dakota West Virginia
Percent 9.5 9.4 9.2 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.0 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.8
United States
10.5
Arkansas
graduate degree or professional degree
map notes on page 62
Percent of Population 25 years and older Arkansas by county, 2007-2011 Carroll 5.6
Benton 8.6
Washington 10.1
Madison 3.6
Boone 4.9
Newton 3.1
Crawford Franklin Johnson 4.6 3.4 4.7 Logan 2.9
Sebastian 6.4
Yell 2.7
Scott 3.3 Polk 3.5
Montgomery 4.0
Howard Sevier 4.0 2.8 Little River 3.8
Pike 4.9
Stone 3.9
Van Buren 4.3 Conway 5.4
Perry 4.3
Garland 7.4
Saline 6.7
Hot Spring 4.0 Clark 10.1
Pulaski 11.5
Grant 5.9
Dallas 3.3
Lafayette 4.9
Columbia 6.6
Union 5.0
Lonoke 5.3
Cross 3.1
Woodruff 2.6
St. Francis 3.3
Lincoln 2.2
Phillips 4.2
0 Desha 4.2
Ashley 3.5
State 6.6% 1.4 - 4.1%
Drew 5.8 Bradley 2.6
Crittenden 3.3
Total
6.6%
Male
6.7%
Female
6.4%
Lee 1.4
Monroe 3.2 Arkansas 5.0
Mississippi 3.7
Poinsett 2.7
Prairie 2.4
Jefferson 5.0
Cleveland 2.6
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 3.6 3.3 3.7 Calhoun 1.6 Miller 3.5
White 6.6
Professional Degree Completion by Gender 2007-2011
Greene 4.2 Craighead 8.9
Independence 4.4 Jackson Cleburne 2.9 5.2
Faulkner 8.3
Clay 3.0
Randolph 2.9 Sharp 5.1 Lawrence 2.9
Izard 4.4
Searcy 2.7
Pope 6.7
Fulton 4.5
Baxter 4.5
Marion 4.4
6.6
Chicot 4.1
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Percent of Population 25 Years and Older with Graduate or Professional Degree by Gender, 2007-2011
4.2 - 6.7% 6.8 - 11.5%
21
Healthy people build healthy communities, but the opposite is true as well: when individuals are unhealthy, we all suffer. Arkansas loses around $17 billion each year in healthcare expenses and lost productivity due to chronic disease, according to the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement.4 In fact, the agency reports that the increased healthcare costs from obesity alone total more than $1.5 billion per year in Arkansas.
A 2009 study by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health5 says that smoking, high blood pressure and obesity are the top three preventable causes of death in the United States.6 In Arkansas, the smoking rate is holding steady at around 23 percent. Obesity rates have increased over the last half-decade. When we break down the data by gender, we see noticeable differences in the behaviors of men and women in these areas. Men are more likely to be obese and to smoke cigarettes, and women are more likely to report low physical activity levels. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that for infants, the leading causes of death in the United States are birth defects, low birth weight, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and accidental injuries.7 These risk factors can be improved greatly through prenatal care and safety education for parents. Here in Arkansas, infant mortality has been on a slow but steady decline since 2006. Our state has also made progress in the number of births to women who had no prenatal care. It is worth noting,
22
though, that African American mothers are more likely to have babies with a low birth weight than white mothers. This disparity can affect the future health and development of these children. While individuals are ultimately responsible for their own health, there is much we can do at the community level to create environments that help each other make healthy choices.
School districts around the state are using grant funding from the Arkansas Department of Education to create joint use agreements – partnerships that enable schools and communities to share recreational spaces so more people have a place to be active. In Arkansas County, the Cooperative Extension Service brings nutrition information straight into grocery stores to help families make better dietary choices. In Conway and Batesville, new trails and bike lanes make it easier for people to walk or bike as a part of their daily routine. Programs like “Baby Safety Showers� (which teach expectant mothers about home safety for infants) and the Happy Birthday Baby Book (which encourages women to seek prenatal care) are helping to improve the health and well-being of the very youngest Arkansans. (See more in the Trends to Watch feature on page 27.) As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. By supporting programs that promote healthy lifestyles and prevent chronic disease, Arkansas communities can create a higher quality of life for all.
Communities Break Down Barriers to Healthy Food When we think about “healthcare,” our minds often go to doctors’ offices, diagnostic tests and prescription drugs. But an even larger part of healthcare is the steps we take in our daily lives to care for ourselves. From that perspective, there are many ways ordinary citizens without medical training can help their neighbors and communities become healthier.
For example, in the summer of 2012, the Main Street Helena Farmer’s Market instituted a new program to increase access to healthy fruits and vegetables for low-income residents. Through a grant from Arkansas Community Foundation’s Arkansas Delta Endowment, the farmer’s market purchased an electronic payment system that will allow shoppers to use food assistance benefits (through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) to purchase fresh, nutritious produce at the farmer’s market.
“The closest grocery store is two miles from Court Square” where the market is located, explained Julia Nordsieck, president of the Main Street Helena board of directors. “For people who don’t have transportation, the only access to food is at the gas stations, which serve fried chicken, soda pop and other less healthy options. We see accepting SNAP benefits as a great way to break down some of those barriers to fresh healthy food.”
Across the state, a growing number of farmers’ markets have begun to accept SNAP benefits. Heather Friedrich, a professor in the department of horticulture at the University of Arkansas, has worked with a cooperative of nine farmers’ markets in Northwest Arkansas to implement SNAP payment systems, funded through a USDA Farmers’ Market Promotion Program grant. Friedrich noted that participation in the program has been especially strong in larger communities like Fayetteville and Bentonville. Outreach work has been key in encouraging SNAP recipients to visit the farmers markets. “We created brochures and flyers and took them to Head Start programs, libraries, food pantries and other public spaces. We also created a website,” Friedrich said.
$17 billion – the annual
fast fact
“It’s one piece of the larger picture of what we can do to help fight obesity and end food deserts,” said Friedrich. “We’ve got to do whatever we can do to increase access for lower income people and everyone in general. Everybody needs access to fruits and vegetables.” cost to Arkansas’s economy for treatment expenditures and lost productivity related to chronic diseases.
Source: Arkansas Center for Health Improvement
23
infant mortality Rate per 1000 live births Arkansas by County, 2011 Carroll 3.3
Benton 4.9
Washington 6.2
Madison 0.0
Boone 4.4
Newton 14.5
Crawford 10.8 Franklin Johnson 0.0 11.6 Logan 0.0
Sebastian 7.3
Yell 6.9
Scott 7.1 Polk 0.0
Montgomery 0.0
Howard Sevier 11.2 11.1 Little River 0.0
Pike 7.9
map notes on page 62
Izard 17.9
Searcy 0.0
Pope 3.8
Conway 7.7
Saline 9.3
Hot Spring 0.0 Clark 8.0
Pulaski 8.2
Grant 0.0
Dallas 0.0
Lafayette 48.4
Columbia 3.4
White 7.3
Faulkner 8.5
Lonoke 6.0
Woodruff 11.1
Prairie 12.8
Jefferson 3.2
Cleveland 0.0
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 5.9 0.0 6.3 Calhoun 0.0 Miller 6.5
Sharp 29.4 Lawrence 5.6
Independence 6.2 Jackson Cleburne 14.9 7.9
Van Buren 4.9
Clay 0.0
Randolph 0.0
Stone 7.7
Perry 9.2
Garland 2.7
Fulton 9.2
Baxter 17.6
Marion 7.0
Lincoln 7.8
Monroe 0.0
Arkansas 20.0
Desha 5.5
Greene 5.1 Craighead 6.6
Mississippi 9.1
Poinsett 9.4 Cross 8.8 St. Francis 8.0
Crittenden 13.6
Lee 9.4 Phillips 7.0
State 7.0
Drew 4.4 Bradley 0.0 Ashley 3.7
Union 8.1
0.0 - 5.1 5.2 - 20.0
Chicot 6.1
20.1 - 48.4
Source: Arkansas Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics
Infant Mortality Rate Arkansas, 2006-2011 8.5
350 300
7.7 350 317
250
7.4 301
7.4 6.9
7.0
264
267
2010
2011
292
200 150 100 50 0 24
2006
2007
2008
Rate per 1000 live births
2009
Infant Deaths
Low Birth Weight Babies, 2006-2011 9.3
9.3
9.2
4,000
8.9
3,500
3,809
3,802
3,755
3,548
3,000
9.1 8.8 3,366
3,499
2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Low birth weight babies born
Percent of all births
low birth weight Percent of all births Arkansas by County, 2011 Carroll Carroll 28.0 8.6
Benton 23.8 6.8
Madison Washington Washington 38.5 7.8 25.5 8.2
Boone Boone 26.3 5.3
Newton 10.1 22.4
Crawford Franklin Johnson 27.4 Crawford 20.1 9.3 5.5 25.6 9.7 Logan 6.4 23.8
Sebastian 6.6 28.5
Yell Yell 9.4 26.0
Scott 8.5 28.2
Polk 6.9 28.5
Montgomery Montgomery 9.4 23.1
Howard Howard Sevier 8.4 Sevier 24.7 10.4 32.4 Little Little River River 9.4 30.6
Pike 8.7 25.9
Fulton Fulton 20.3 11.0
Baxter Marion Baxter Marion 27.3 8.5 28.2 4.2 Searcy Searcy 25.4 5.9
Izard Izard 24.1 11.6
Independence Independence 25.1 10.6 Jackson Jackson Cleburne Cleburne 9.9 31.9 10.2 25.0
Pope Pope 25.2 8.6 Conway Conway 26.8 8.0 Faulkner Faulkner 8.2 28.1 Perry Perry 11.0 19.4
Garland Garland 8.2 27.1
Saline Saline 27.7 8.4
Hot Hot Spring Spring 12.4 26.8 Clark Clark 10.0 23.0
Pulaski Pulaski 10.4 31.6
Grant Grant 27.6 4.9
Dallas Dallas 14.6 25.7
Sharp Sharp 25.0 Lawrence 8.8 Lawrence 26.4 10.0
Stone Stone 28.2 8.5
Van Van Buren Buren 7.4 26.7
White White 28.0 6.7
Woodruff Woodruff 8.9 24.5
Prairie Prairie Lonoke Lonoke 12.8 32.6 Monroe 7.3 Monroe 28.9 10.6 30.9
Jefferson Jefferson 13.0 22.2
Cleveland Cleveland 8.8 22.3
Lincoln Lincoln 8.5 26.7
Hempstead Nevada Hempstead Nevada Ouachita Ouachita Drew 10.7 12.4 Drew 27.8 24.8 10.0 Calhoun Calhoun 24.6 8.7 29.0 2.4 32.3 Bradley Bradley Miller 14.3 Miller 24.8 10.7 Columbia 28.5 Columbia Ashley Union Ashley 13.1 Union 32.2 13.4 Lafayette 9.3 27.8 29.9 22.6
Clay Clay 24.8 10.3
Randolph Randolph 22.4 6.6
Arkansas Arkansas 12.8 34.5
Desha Desha 16.5 28.9
Greene Greene 28.1 7.1 Craighead Craighead 26.5 8.6
Mississippi Mississippi 11.8 25.2
Poinsett Poinsett 23.3 7.2 Cross Cross 8.8 34.3 St. St. Francis Francis 12.1 21.4 Lee Lee 5.7 14.5
Crittenden Crittenden 13.8 26.9
Phillips Phillips 14.4 21.2
State 9.1% 2.4 - 7.4%
Chicot Chicot 13.3 24.6
Source: Arkansas Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics
7.5 - 11.6% 11.7 - 22.6% 25
no prenatal care ȱę ȱ ǻ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ǽ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢DZȱŘŖŗŗ
Grant 12.6
Dallas 29.2
Lafayette 25.8
Columbia 33.2
Union 18.9
Prairie 20.5
Monroe 10.6
Arkansas 13.6
Jefferson 18.7
Cleveland 6.9
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 17.0 21.2 25.9 Calhoun 9.8 Miller 36.1
Lonoke 8.9
Lincoln 10.9
St. Francis 12.9
Crittenden 26.6
Lee 15.1 Phillips 1.8
Ashley 14.5
31.6
27.8
20% 10%
17.7
20.1
18.2
14.9
State 18.3% 1.8 - 15.9% 16.0 - 26.6%
Chicot 13.3
Source: Arkansas Department of Health, Arkansas Health Statistics Branch Query System
26.7 - 45.2%
Source: Arkansas Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics
No Prenatal Care During First Trimester, 2006-2011 21.8
10,000 8,000
20.5 8,400
8,970
21.2
21.8
19.4 8,586
8,659
18.3 7,429
6,000
7,019
4,000 2,000 0 26
2006
20.1
0% Desha 15.9
Drew 7.8 Bradley 5.7
30%
2007
2008
Percent of all births
Other Asian/Pacific Islander
Hot Spring 21.8 Clark 18.8
Pulaski 9.8
Saline 10.9
Woodruff 14.4
Cross 12.3
40%
Hawaiian
Perry 16.5
Garland 20.7
White 12.2
Faulkner 10.1
Poinsett 18.4
50.0
Filipino
Pike 25.4
Conway 10.0
50%
Mississippi 14.6
Craighead 20.2
Japanese
Howard Sevier 24.2 29.6
Van Buren 10.8
Independence 32.2 Jackson Cleburne 12.9 14.2
Chinese
Montgomery 20.0
Stone 36.2
Greene 27.4
Native American
Yell 25.7
Scott 30.5
Little River 24.8
Pope 18.4
Logan 29.2
Sebastian 45.2
Polk 12.9
Searcy 9.4
Sharp 29.4 Lawrence 17.8
Izard 31.3
No Prenatal Care in First Trimester by Race and Ethnicity, 2011
Clay 30.9
Randolph 18.1
African American
Newton 17.4
Crawford 33.6 Franklin Johnson 24.7 15.9
Fulton 31.2
Baxter Marion 34.6 23.9
White
Washington 19.5
Madison 21.5
Boone 9.6
percent of all births
Carroll 19.1
Benton 12.9
2009
2010
Number of births
2011
TRENDS TO WATCH By Jonathan Bates, M.D., retired president and CEO of Arkansas Children’s Hospital
Q: ȱ ȱ ȱ Ě ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ǵ A: ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱę ȱŗŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ě ȱ ȱ
ȱę ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭȱ ȱŗŘȬ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱę ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ Ĵ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ǯȱȃ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ Ȅȱ ǻ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ Ǽȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŗŗȱ ȱ ǯ
Q: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǵ A: ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯ
Q: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ǵȱ
A:
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱǻ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ǽȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱ Ȃ ȱ Ȃ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ Dzȱ ȱ ȱ ȱę ȱ ¡ ǯ
Q:ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ ě ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǵȱ
A:
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯ
27
overweight/obese students
Percent of Students Who are Overweight or Obese by Race and Ethnicity 2011-2012 (grades K, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
Grades K, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 Arkansas by County, 2011-2012
Logan 40.9
Sebastian 36.1
Yell 43.2
Scott 40.2 Polk 39.4
Montgomery 42.3
Howard Sevier 43.1 45.8 Little River 41.6
Pope 39.0
Pike 37.1
Stone 34.6
Van Buren 41.3 Conway 40.1
Perry 37.5
Garland 35.5
Clark 44.1
Grant 37.3
Dallas 43.8
Lafayette 38.9
Columbia 42.9
Union 39.7
Lonoke 35.4
Woodruff 47.3
Prairie 44.0
Jefferson 41.2
Cleveland 37.5
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 40.3 41.6 45.5 Calhoun 44.3 Miller 38.4
White 40.2
Faulkner 34.2
Pulaski 36.8
Saline 35.2
Hot Spring 39.5
Independence 41.3 Jackson Cleburne 46.6 36.3
Lincoln 44.5
Monroe 38.3
Arkansas 41.8
Desha 39.3
Drew 40.4 Bradley 45.0 Ashley 39.1
48
Greene 38.7
40% Mississippi 42.2
Craighead 38.1 Poinsett 46.2 Cross 40.5 St. Francis 41.6
Crittenden 40.0
41
30%
31
20% 10%
Lee 46.7
0%
Phillips 45.2
Percent of Students Who are Overweight or Obese by Gender 2011-2012 (grades K, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
State 38.0% 33.1 - 37.7%
Chicot 41.6
37
36
37.8 - 42.3%
Total 38%
42.4 - 47.3%
Source: Arkansas Center for Health Improvement, Year Nine Assessment of Childhood and Adolescent Obesity in Arkansas
Male 39% Female 38%
fast fact
In 2011, less than 15 percent of Arkansas’s high school students reported eating vegetables three or more times daily. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System
Latino
Crawford 34.4 Franklin Johnson 38.2 41.7
Searcy 41.6
Sharp 41.6 Lawrence 38.6
Native American
Newton 38.3
Izard 36.5
50%
Clay 43.0
Randolph 43.3
Asian
Madison 33.1
Fulton 41.1
Baxter 34.9
Marion 37.7
African American
Washington 35.8
Boone 34.7
White
Carroll 42.0
Benton 33.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Overweight or Obese Students 2006-2011 (Grades K, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
50%
40%
40.3 37.7
37.6
38.1
38.3
38.0
30%
20%
10%
0% 28
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
student drug usage Grades 6,8,10,12 Percent of Students with Any Drug Use in Lifetime; Arkansas by County, 2011 Carroll 28.0
Benton 23.8
Madison 38.5
Washington 25.5
Boone 26.3
Newton 22.4
Crawford Franklin Johnson 27.4 20.1 25.6 Logan 23.8
Sebastian 28.5
Yell 26.0
Scott 28.2 Polk 28.5
Montgomery 23.1 Pike 25.9
Howard Sevier 24.7 32.4 Little River 30.6
Stone 28.2
Independence 25.1 Jackson Cleburne 31.9 25.0
Van Buren 26.7 Conway 26.8
Perry 19.4
Garland 27.1
Clark 23.0
Pulaski 31.6
Saline 27.7
Hot Spring 26.8
Grant 27.6
Dallas 25.7
Lafayette 21.4
Columbia 32.2
Lonoke 28.9
Woodruff 24.5
Prairie 32.6
Monroe 30.9
Arkansas 34.5
Jefferson 22.2
Cleveland 22.3
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 27.8 24.8 Calhoun 24.6 32.3 Miller 28.5
White 28.0
Faulkner 28.1
Clay 24.8
Randolph 22.4
Sharp 25.0 Lawrence 26.4
Izard 24.1
Searcy 25.4
Pope 25.2
Fulton 20.3
Baxter 27.3
Marion 28.2
Lincoln 26.7
Desha 28.9
Greene 28.1 Craighead 26.5 Poinsett 23.3 Cross 34.3 St. Francis 21.4
Ashley 27.8
Union 29.9
Total 27%
Crittenden 26.9
Lee 14.5
Male 26.2%
Phillips 21.2
Female 27.7%
0
State 27.0%
Drew 29.0 Bradley 24.8
Percent of Students with Any Drug Use in Lifetime by Gender, 2011 (grades 6, 8, 10, 12)
Mississippi 25.2
5
10
15
20
25
30
14.5 - 24.1% 24.2 - 29.0%
Chicot 24.6
29.1 - 38.5%
Source: Arkansas Prevention Needs Assessment Student Survey, 2011. Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division of Behavioral Health Services, Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention
35%
Percent of Students with Any Drug Use in Lifetime, 2006-2011 Grades 6, 8, 10, 12
30% 25%
30.6 28.5
30.0
27.4
26.8
27.0
2010
2011
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2006
2007
2008
2009
29
adult obesity
Overweight or Obese Adults, 2010
Percent of Overweight or Obese Adults; Arkansas by County, 2010 Benton 62.4
Washington 64.2
Carroll 61.4 Madison 65.5
Newton 58.1
Crawford Franklin Johnson 64.0 63.0 60.2
Sebastian 57.3
Logan 53.1
Boone 59.7
Pope 52.9
Marion 62.2
Fulton 69.3
Baxter 66.3
Izard 68.3
Searcy 56.8
Sharp 72.9 Lawrence 70.3
Independence 74.5 Jackson Cleburne 75.5 75.0
Faulkner 69.8
White 76.7
Clay 66.2
Randolph 71.7
Stone 67.9
Van Buren 62.9 Conway 62.5
percent of population
Woodruff 81.2
Greene 66.9 Craighead 67.8
Mississippi 67.4
Poinsett 71.6 Cross 81.0
Crittenden 73.8
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9 Yell Perry 10 55.0 Scott 67.7 Prairie Lee 61.1 Pulaski Lonoke 75.9 11 70.9 68.8 Monroe 69.3 Saline 11 73.6 Garland 69.6 Polk Phillips 64.8 Montgomery 13 82.3 65.9 64.2 Hot Arkansas Grant 14 Jefferson Spring 71.2 71.8 68.9 69.9 Pike 15 Howard 66.9 Clark Sevier 78.1 16 Dallas Lincoln 69.2 86.6 Cleveland 75.2 69.8 Desha 16 77.4 60.7 Little State 67.1% 18 Hempstead Nevada River Ouachita Drew 70.7 63.7 65.7 72.6 Calhoun 67.6 52.9 - 64.2% 18 75.2 Bradley 20 Miller 72.4 Chicot 64.3 - 72.9% 54.0 Columbia 21 Ashley 66.4 Union 75.5 71.9 Lafayette 73.5 73.0 86.6% 22 61.6 23 Source: Arkansas Department of Health, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey 23 25 26 The increased healthcare costs 27 associated with obesity are 28 figured to be between $1.5 and 29 30 $1.9 billion per year in Arkansas. 31 Source: Arkansas Center for Health 32 Improvement 33 33 35 36 Percent of Overweight or Obese Adults by Race, 2010 37 37 39 Total 67.2% 40 41 42 43 White 66% 44 45 46 47 African American 82.7% 48 49 0 20 40 60 80 100 50 51 Source: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office
fast fact
St. Francis 78.6
30
of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Public Health Surveillance Program Office http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/
State Alabama Mississippi West Virginia Tennessee Kentucky South Carolina Oklahoma
Percent 70.0 68.8 67.9 67.8 67.5 67.4 67.3
Michigan Texas Louisiana Indiana Iowa Maryland Alaska Pennsylvania Missouri South Dakota Ohio Georgia North Carolina Florida Nebraska Arizona North Dakota Kansas Delaware Wyoming Maine Wisconsin Rhode Island Illinois New Hampshire Minnesota Idaho Washington New Jersey California New York Montana Virginia Oregon New Mexico Connecticut Nevada Massachusetts Vermont Utah Colorado Hawaii District of Columbia
66.8 66.5 66.4 66.4 66.2 66.1 65.9 65.8 65.8 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.3 65.0 64.9 64.9 64.7 64.5 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.6 63.5 63.2 63.1 63.1 62.9 61.8 61.6 61.6 61.4 61.3 61.2 60.9 60.7 60.5 60.2 60.1 58.5 57.7 57.6 57.2 56.2
United States
63.7
Arkansas
67.2
TRENDS TO WATCH By Daniel Rahn, M.D., chancellor of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) and Dan Raczynski, Ph.D., dean of the UAMS College of Public Health
Percent of Overweight or Obese Adults by Gender, 2010 Total 67.2%
Male 71.2% Daniel Rahn, M.D. Dan Raczynski, Ph.D.
Q: What do you think is the most important public health risk factor for Arkansans?
A: Data unquestionably support that tobacco use and
Female 62.6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Source: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Public Health Surveillance Program Office http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/
obesity are the leading preventable causes of death and disability, and hence should be the leading public health risk factors of importance for Arkansans. Of these two, tobacco use is the greater risk for producing death and ¢ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ě ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ of Arkansans, suggesting the importance of addressing both of these risk factors for Arkansans.
80%
Percent of Overweight or Obese Adults
70%
Q: What’s the best way to educate people about
64.7
making healthy choices?
65.7
65.7
66.6
67.1
63.9
A: Most people already know what their risk factors
are and that they should reduce them. The key to prompting risk-factor reduction is educating people about how to make changes — how to quit smoking, how to cook in more healthful ways, how to begin and sustain a physical activity program, etc. Impersonal methods — for example, media approaches — are ȱ ě ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ change, but interpersonal methods — for example, trained “coaches” available in group sessions, by phone, ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȯȱ ȱ ȱ ě ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ achieving health behavior changes.
60%
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
A:
Although not surprising to at least most Arkansans, the geographic ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ę ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ encountered by residents of the Delta, where life expectancy may be a full 10 years less than in the northwest counties that have the highest life expectancy in the state.
What has been the biggest change in the area of public health over Q: What’s the greatest public health success you’ve Q: ȱ ȱę ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ ǵȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ observed in Arkansas in the last few years?
A: The private option for Medicaid expansion is
unquestionably the greatest recent achievement for improving the health of Arkansans and reducing the public’s costs for indigent health care.
Q: What do you notice about the public health ȱ ȱ ě ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǵȱ
positive or negative direction?
A:
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱę ȱ ȱŗŖȱ ¢ ȱȯȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱĚ ȱ ȱ reduce tooth decay, and school-based physical activity and nutrition policies to reduce childhood obesity — favorable changes have occurred to improve the health of Arkansans. The lesson is to focus on enhancing ȱ ȱ ě ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯ 31
Percent of Adults Reporting No Exercise in the Past 30 Days, 2010
adults reporting no exercise Percent of adults reporting no exercise in the past 30 days; Arkansas by County, 2010 Carroll 24.6
Benton 23.5
Madison 25.5
Washington 24.2
Boone 28.2
Newton 34.7
Crawford 29.6 Franklin Johnson 30.5 33.1 Logan 32.3
Sebastian 33.9
Yell 28.5
Scott 29.6 Polk 26.9
Montgomery 23.9
Howard Sevier 28.1 34.2 Little River 44.4
Pike 22.4
Stone 38.9
Pulaski 23.2
Saline 24.1
Hot Spring 26.6 Clark 26.1
Grant 24.4
Dallas 29.0
Lafayette 31.6
Columbia 24.9
Lonoke 24.5
Woodruff 35.9
Prairie 30.1
Greene 32.8 Craighead 37.1
Lincoln 31.0
Cross 39.1 St. Francis 39.8
Ashley 38.7
Union 34.2
Crittenden 39.2
Phillips 34.1
Desha 31.6
State 29.8% 22.4 - 28.7% 28.8 - 35.9%
Chicot 34.5
36.0 - 44.9%
Source: Arkansas Department of Health, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey
2007
20 15 10 5
White 29.8%
25
African American 30.6%
30
0 32
2006
No Exercise by Race past 30 days
Total 29.8%
percent of adult population
35
2005
28.1
29.7
29.8
29.8
2008
2009
2010
35 percent of adult population
25%
28.8
No Exercise by Gender past 30 days
30 25 20 15 10 5
Female 32.6%
30%
Male 26.8%
30.6
Arkansas Adults Reporting No Exercise Last 30 days 2005-2010
Total 29.8%
35%
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 5
State Mississippi West Virginia Alabama Louisiana Oklahoma Tennessee
Percent 33.0 32.9 31.1 30.1 29.9 29.9
8 9 10 11 11 13 14 15 16 16 18 19 19 21 21 23 24 24 26 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 36 38 39 40 41 42 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 49 51
Kentucky South Carolina Missouri New Jersey Texas Indiana Ohio Pennsylvania Illinois North Carolina Georgia Iowa North Dakota Nebraska South Dakota Rhode Island Florida Kansas Delaware New York Michigan Virginia Maryland Nevada Wisconsin Maine Wyoming Alaska Montana New Mexico Arizona Connecticut Massachusetts California District of Columbia Idaho New Hampshire Hawaii Minnesota Washington Colorado Utah Vermont Oregon
29.3 27.8 27.2 26.6 26.6 26.5 26.1 25.8 25.7 25.7 25.1 24.8 24.8 24.7 24.7 24.1 24.0 24.0 23.9 23.9 23.6 23.3 23.1 23.0 22.8 22.5 22.2 22.0 21.6 21.6 20.8 20.7 20.6 20.4 20.0 20.0 19.9 19.2 19.1 18.3 18.2 17.9 17.9 17.5
United States
23.9
7
Lee 42.0
Drew 37.3 Bradley 40.6
Mississippi 38.0
Poinsett 38.5
Monroe 38.3
Arkansas 31.0
Jefferson 23.3
Cleveland 31.2
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 23.1 35.7 Calhoun 26.6 33.8 Miller 43.5
White 33.4
Conway 36.4 Faulkner 25.1
Perry 24.0
Garland 23.8
Independence 43.3 Jackson Cleburne 40.0 33.6
Van Buren 36.8
Clay 30.8
Randolph 38.1
Sharp 44.9 Lawrence 42.4
Izard 39.0
Searcy 37.4
Pope 38.5
Fulton 30.0
Baxter 33.2
Marion 28.7
percent of population
0
Source: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Public Health Surveillance Program Office
Arkansas
29.8
Percent of Adults Meeting Physical Activity Recommendation, 2009
physically active adults Percent of adults meeting physical activity recommendation; Arkansas by County, 2009 Carroll 53.7
Benton 54.2
Washington 54.2
Madison 52.8
Boone 56.8
Newton 47.4
Crawford 51.2 Franklin Johnson 48.1 45.3 Logan 47.1
Sebastian 46.8
Yell 52.5
Scott 49.9 Polk 47.2
Montgomery 50.3
Howard Sevier 40.2 42.1 Little River 40.5
Pike 40.4
Stone 41.3
Van Buren 49.3 Conway 51.3
Perry 46.1
Garland 46.1
Clark 51.6
Pulaski 44.2
Saline 41.2
Hot Spring 41.4
Grant 41.5
Dallas 49.5
Lafayette 46.8
Columbia 56.6
White 43.1
Lonoke 44.2
Woodruff 39.5
Prairie 36.0
Jefferson 44.1
Cleveland 47.0
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 52.0 39.3 Calhoun 57.9 52.3 Miller 41.8
Independence 42.1 Jackson Cleburne 42.6 46.9
Faulkner 47.2
Clay 48.7
Randolph 50.7
Sharp 54.0 Lawrence 43.9
Izard 44.8
Searcy 47.5
Pope 46.5
Fulton 51.8
Baxter 45.1
Marion 57.0
Lincoln 46.9
Monroe 36.5
Arkansas 41.2
Desha 46.9
Greene 40.2 Craighead 42.6
Mississippi 44.6
Poinsett 45.3 Cross 45.0 St. Francis 39.1
Crittenden 41.5
Lee 33.7 Phillips 36.1
State 47.3%
Drew 57.8 Bradley 51.6 Ashley 53.9
Union 53.6
33.7 - 43.1% 43.2 - 49.9%
Chicot 63.1
50.0 - 63.1%
Source: Arkansas Department of Health, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey
Physically Active Adults by Gender
Physically Active Adults by Race 60
0
50
20 10
Female 42.4%
30
Male 52.6%
40
Total 47.3%
10
percent of adult population
20
African American 45.2%
30
White 47.5%
40
Total 47.3%
0
Source: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Public Health Surveillance Program Office
6% — the percent of deaths
worldwide attributed to physical inactivity, making it the fourth leading mortality risk factor in the world. Source: World Health Organization
State Alaska Montana Vermont Utah Idaho Wyoming Colorado Oregon Maine District of Columbia Connecticut Washington New Hampshire New Mexico Hawaii Massachusetts Wisconsin Minnesota North Dakota Michigan Illinois Nevada Virginia California Nebraska Delaware New York Arizona Pennsylvania Missouri Iowa Maryland Kansas Ohio Rhode Island Texas Indiana New Jersey
Percent 60.7 58.6 58.0 57.6 57.5 57.3 57.1 56.5 56.2 54.5 53.9 53.7 53.4 53.3 53.2 53.0 52.8 52.7 52.3 52.0 51.8 51.4 51.4 51.3 51.1 51.0 50.8 50.5 50.4 50.0 49.7 48.7 48.5 48.5 48.4 48.1 48.0 47.5
40 41 42 43 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Oklahoma North Carolina Florida Georgia Kentucky South Carolina South Dakota Louisiana Alabama Mississippi Tennessee West Virginia
47.1 46.4 46.2 45.7 45.7 45.4 45.0 43.6 41.1 37.5 36.0 35.2
United States
51.0
39
fast fact
percent of adult population
50
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 33 35 36 37 38
Arkansas
47.3
33
smokers
Percent of Adults Reporting Currently Being Cigarette Smokers by Race, 2010
Madison 19.1
Washington 18.4
Boone 24.2
Newton 28.1
Crawford Franklin Johnson 19.0 21.0 27.2
Yell 28.4
Scott 27.6 Polk 26.7
Pike 23.6
Howard Sevier 22.1 28.3
Pulaski 20.0
Saline 22.6
Hot Spring 26.8 Clark 26.5
Grant 21.3
Dallas 27.1
Columbia 18.0
Lafayette 25.0
Lonoke 18.5
Cross 23.0 St. Francis 22.9
Crittenden 22.4
0
5
Desha 16.4
20
Male 26.2% Female 19.8%
20.8 - 25.3% 25.4 - 35.2%
0
5
10
15
20
25
fluoridated water
Percent of County public water systems ȱ ȱĚ ȱ Arkansas by County, 2010 Carroll 0.0
Washington 99.3
Madison 1.6
Boone 0.0
Newton 29.6
Crawford Franklin Johnson 0.0 0.0 97.1 Logan 44.5
Sebastian 12.8
Yell 31.4
Scott 0.0 Polk 0.0
Montgomery 0.0
Howard Sevier 96.2 0.0 Little River 0.0
Perry 86.2
Garland 0.0
Pulaski 98.7
Saline 94.7
Hot Spring 95.2 Clark 69.6
Lafayette 11.8 Columbia 0.0
Independence 46.0 Jackson Cleburne 61.0 57.9
Conway 98.7 Faulkner 75.4
Grant 60.4
Dallas 92.6
Union 0.0
White 93.0
Lonoke 67.2
Woodruff 63.9
Prairie 76.9
Jefferson 63.8
Cleveland 0.0
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 74.1 88.0 72.9 Calhoun 0.0 Miller 0.9
34
Pike 0.0
Stone 0.0
Van Buren 85.2
Clay 45.3
Randolph 75.6 Sharp 0.0 Lawrence 44.6
Izard 14.4
Searcy 24.7
Pope 97.0
Fulton 0.0
Baxter 79.2
Marion 0.0
Lincoln 0.0
Monroe 79.5
Arkansas 91.8
Desha 0.0
Drew 89.0 Bradley 0.0 Ashley 71.2
Greene 72.7 Craighead 87.2
Mississippi 71.8
Poinsett 49.5 Cross 41.1 St. Francis 78.5
Crittenden 83.3
Lee 86.5 Phillips 75.2
State 64.6% 0.0 - 31.4% 31.5 - 75.6% 75.7 - 99.4%
Chicot 75.0
30
Source: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Public Health Surveillance Program Office. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/
Source: Arkansas Department of Health, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey
Benton 99.4
25
Total 22.9%
State 22.9%
Chicot 17.0
Ashley 13.3
15
Percent of Adults Reporting Currently Being Cigarette Smokers by Gender, 2010
13.3 - 20.7%
Bradley 16.3
10
Phillips 21.9
Drew 16.8
Union 18.4
African American 22.1%
Lee 22.1
Monroe 23.7
Arkansas 19.7
Lincoln 18.3
White 22.6%
Mississippi 26.2
Poinsett 25.2
Woodruff 18.4
Prairie 16.0
Jefferson 20.0
Cleveland 22.2
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 20.1 26.3 Calhoun 23.8 25.8 Miller 35.2
White 20.7
Faulkner 20.9
Perry 21.4
Garland 27.4
Montgomery 27.8
Little River 34.5
Conway 25.3
Greene 25.2 Craighead 26.3
Independence 23.3 Jackson Cleburne 21.0 27.7
Van Buren 31.7
Logan 27.4
Sebastian 24.2
Stone 30.1
Total 22.9%
Clay 24.5
Randolph 19.2
Sharp 19.7 Lawrence 23.6
Izard 21.5
Searcy 29.2
Pope 30.7
Fulton 20.1
Baxter 23.1
Marion 24.8
22
.4 22
Carroll 20.3
Benton 18.9
.3
.7
23
23
.5
25
.6
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ Ĵ ȱ Dzȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ǰȱŘŖŗŖ
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Oral Health Branch. Oral Health Maps [online] 2012 [accessed 2012 October 26] http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/gisdoh/waterfluor.aspx
Rank 1 2 3
State West Virginia Kentucky Oklahoma
Percent 26.8 24.8 23.7
4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 32 33 34 35 35 37 38 39 39 41 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Mississippi Ohio Louisiana Alabama Nevada Indiana Missouri South Carolina Alaska Tennessee North Carolina Wyoming Wisconsin Michigan Montana New Mexico Virginia Pennsylvania Maine Georgia North Dakota Delaware Nebraska Florida Kansas Illinois New Hampshire Iowa Colorado Texas Idaho Rhode Island District of Columbia New York South Dakota Vermont Maryland Washington Oregon Arizona Minnesota Hawaii New Jersey Massachusetts Connecticut California Utah
22.9 22.5 22.1 21.9 21.3 21.2 21.1 21.0 20.4 20.1 19.8 19.5 19.1 18.9 18.8 18.5 18.5 18.4 18.2 17.6 17.4 17.3 17.2 17.1 17.0 16.9 16.9 16.1 16.0 15.8 15.7 15.7 15.6 15.5 15.4 15.4 15.2 15.2 15.1 15.0 14.9 14.5 14.4 14.1 13.2 12.1 9.1
United States
17.3
4
Arkansas
4,900 Arkansans die from tobacco-related illnesses each year.
fast fact
Percent of Adults Reporting Currently Being Cigarette Smokers, 2010
Source: Arkansas Department of Health Stamp Out Smoking Campaign
22.9
Arkansas’s Current Smokers, 2005-2010
25% 24%
23.5
23.7 22.9
23%
22.4
22.3 21.5
22% 21%
20% 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Source: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Public Health Surveillance Program Office. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/
35
Families will be stable, nurturing and economically secure. The American Dream – a stable job, a living wage, a home of one’s own. As the after-effects of the 2008 recession linger and our state’s ongoing economic challenges continue, how can we break the cycle of poverty to make the American Dream a reality for the thousands of Arkansas families struggling to get by?
Between 2008 and 2009, Arkansas saw a jump in unemployment of more than 2 percentage points (from 5.4 percent to 7.5 percent statewide). Since that time, the growth in unemployment has slowed, but remains higher than pre-2008 levels. Although median household income and personal per capita income have increased slightly since 2009, the number of Arkansans slipping into poverty has also grown.
Of particular note is the significant difference in the economic standing of people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. The unemployment rate for African Americans in 2011 was 16.5 percent, a full 10 percentage points higher than for white people. While 14.7 percent of whites live below the poverty line, 34.1 percent of African Americans do – an almost 20 point difference. Among children, the disparity is even greater, with 47.1 percent of African American children living in poverty compared to 20.4 percent of white children. Poverty rates among Arkansas’s small but growing Pacific Islander population (many of whom are Marshallese descent, now living in the Springdale area) are even more striking, with unemployment rates topping 20 percent and more than 50 percent of children living in poverty.
Children of single parents and children of teens are significantly more likely to live in poverty. While almost one in five households in Arkansas is headed by a single female, the number is higher, on average, in the state’s southern and eastern counties. The highest percentages of single female-headed households are concentrated in the Delta counties along the Mississippi River. Trends for births to teens are decreasing, with the number of births per thousand females ages 11-17 dropping from 14.3 in 2006 to 10.2 in 2011.
Though Arkansas’s high national rankings for poverty and associated issues are cause for concern, there is much we can do to begin to turn the numbers around. Take, for example, the notable success of the Arkansas No Kid Hungry campaign in moving our state from first in the 36
nation for childhood hunger in 2009 to ninth in the nation by 20138. Through the joint efforts of nonprofits, corporations and government, thousands of children are now receiving summer meals, school breakfasts and more nutritious food at home.
And there is more we can do. The Arkansas Legislative Taskforce on Reducing Poverty and Promoting Economic Opportunity9 recommends expanding access to Pre-K education for all Arkansas 3- and 4-year olds, supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses through tax incentives and training, developing our workforce through college savings programs and career coaching, and numerous other strategies that can be implemented at the community or state level.
Training Arkansans for High-Demand Nursing Jobs
As Arkansas’s population ages, we need more nurses — especially nurses trained to work with elderly patients. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation projects that Arkansas will face a 34 percent shortage of nurses by 2020. Filling these in-demand jobs will meet Arkansas’s healthcare needs and create reliable careers with competitive wages for thousands of workers, opening new doors to economic stability.
That’s why Arkansas Community Foundation joined a partnership with the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care, Arkansas Health Care Foundation, Arkansas State Board of Nursing and other partners. Together, we’re working to recruit and train more nurses in Arkansas, and specifically, more geriatrics nurses.
Since 2009, the Community Foundation and our partner organizations have received $475,000 in grants from the Partners Investing in Nursing’s Future (PIN) program through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Northwest Health Foundation to build an educational pipeline for nurses. With this grant funding, our partners have been working to identify and fill training gaps. They’re also creating new distance-learning classes for nurses and
nursing assistants who want to increase their education but don’t live near a university. Also through the collaborative, a new program called Arkansas Partners for Long-Term Care (ARPLTC) was created to support and mentor nurses and potential nurses as they pursue additional education. PIN Program Director Carol Compas explained, “We discovered that approximately 35 of the potential students surveyed stated computer access was a barrier to education. Additional barriers included tuition, work schedules, childcare and transportation. ARPLTC is focused on finding solutions to these known barriers.”
Within the first year of the ARPTLC program, over 300 potential students expressed interest in pursuing an advanced nursing degree. “We offer a readiness survey to every potential student to assess their individual goals, needs and barriers,” said Compas. “Part of the survey includes a demographic assessment to help match their academic goals with the school nearest them, or best suited to their goals, for academic advising.” Students also receive a mentor who can help them stay on track as they seek the training that will help increase their career readiness, economic opportunity and technical skills. 37
births to teens
Percent of Children Under 18 Years of Age in Single Parent Families
Rate per 1000 females age 11 - 17; Arkansas by County, 2011 Carroll 14.6
Benton 5.6
Washington 10.0
Crawford 6.7
Madison 7.4
Yell 13.4
Montgomery 10.1
Howard Sevier 10.4 15.2
Pike 3.4
Stone 7.6
Conway 4.2
Saline 5.5
Hot Spring 8.8 Clark 6.8
Pulaski 10.5
Grant 9.1
Dallas 10.1
Lafayette 31.1
Columbia 13.9
White 9.6
Faulkner 5.6
Lonoke 8.9
Woodruff 11.6
Prairie 2.7
Jefferson 18.1
Cleveland 9.1
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 13.1 12.8 Calhoun 17.5 0.0 Miller 12.4
Independence 7.0 Jackson Cleburne 17.3 9.9
Van Buren 10.4
Perry 2.0
Garland 10.2
Randolph 10.9 Sharp 13.7 Lawrence 11.3
Izard 3.8
Searcy 3.0
Pope 7.7
Fulton 6.1
Baxter 4.8
Marion 9.7
Logan 10.5
Scott 14.0
Little River 6.2
Newton 6.2
Franklin Johnson 8.0 16.1
Sebastian 15.1
Polk 6.3
Boone 6.2
2007-2011
Lincoln 7.4
Monroe 14.8 Arkansas 13.9
Desha 11.3
Drew 10.1 Bradley 15.5
Union 10.5
Ashley 11.8
Clay 2.9 Greene 11.3 Craighead 11.6
Poinsett 9.4 Cross 9.8 St. Francis 19.1
Crittenden 17.1
Phillips 20.1
State 10.2 0.0 - 7.7
Chicot 11.8
7.8 - 13.7 13.8 - 31.1
Births to Teens, Ages 11 - 17 2,000 14.3
13.9 13.3
1,500
11.3
1,000 10.2
5,00 1,893
1,906
1,855
1,764
1,501
1,372
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
0
number of births to teens
38
rate per 1000 female teens
State District of Columbia Mississippi Louisiana South Carolina New Mexico Alabama Florida Delaware Georgia
Percent 60.9 44.1 41.8 38.6 38.5 37.1 36.6 36.2 35.9
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 45 47 48 49 50 51
Tennessee Rhode Island North Carolina Arizona New York Nevada Ohio Maryland Kentucky Missouri Oklahoma Michigan Texas Indiana Pennsylvania Illinois Maine California Alaska South Dakota Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Massachusetts Connecticut Oregon Virginia Hawaii Washington New Jersey Kansas Montana Iowa Nebraska Colorado Wyoming Minnesota New Hampshire North Dakota Idaho Utah
34.9 34.8 34.7 34.4 34.3 34.1 33.9 33.3 32.9 32.9 32.8 32.7 32.5 32.4 32.1 31.5 31.1 30.9 30.7 30.2 30.0 30.0 29.9 29.8 29.7 29.6 29.5 29.4 28.6 28.5 28.4 27.8 27.5 27.3 27.2 27.2 26.5 26.0 24.6 23.9 17.8
United States
32.4
10
Lee 9.1
Source: Arkansas Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics
14.3
Mississippi 15.6
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Arkansas
35.8
children in single-parent families Percent of children under 18 years of age; Arkansas by County, 2007-2011 Carroll 29.2
Benton 22.9
Washington 31.0
Madison 18.1
Boone 28.7
Montgomery 26.7
Howard Sevier 39.3 28.1
Pike 34.1
White 28.8
Perry 29.4
Garland 37.6
Clark 34.0
Pulaski 44.3
Saline 28.1
Hot Spring 29.5
Grant 22.0
Dallas 34.5
Lonoke 28.9
Cleveland 35.7
Lafayette 44.5
Columbia 49.1
Lincoln 45.6
Union 42.3
Monroe 54.3
Arkansas 36.7
Desha 45.1
Drew 43.0 Bradley 35.5 Ashley 34.5
Greene 27.1 Craighead 37.6
Mississippi 52.6
Poinsett 43.1 Cross 32.1
Woodruff 40.9
Prairie 27.8
Jefferson 57.9
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 39.0 36.9 Calhoun 44.4 54.4 Miller 43.4
Sharp 29.6 Lawrence 26.8
Independence 34.7 Jackson Cleburne 46.5 26.5
Conway 33.2 Faulkner 29.0
Clay 30.5
Randolph 27.0
Stone 27.4
Van Buren 36.2
Pope 31.0
Yell 24.0
Scott 32.9
Little River 35.6
Searcy 32.9
Logan 29.0
Sebastian 32.2
Polk 40.4
Izard 29.8
Newton 23.7
Crawford 32.6 Franklin Johnson 29.6 30.6
Fulton 22.7
Baxter 28.7
Marion 21.1
St. Francis 60.0
Crittenden 61.9
Lee 54.5 Phillips 67.4
State 35.8% 18.1 - 33.2%
Chicot 55.9
33.3 - 46.5%
map notes on page 62
46.6 - 67.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
39
single female-headed household
Percent of Single Female-Headed Households, 2010
Arkansas by County, 2010 Carroll 14.5
Benton 13.7
Madison 11.4
Washington 16.8
Boone 14.0
Newton 11.8
Crawford Franklin Johnson 16.0 15.2 16.2 Logan 16.5
Sebastian 19.7
Yell 16.0
Scott 14.5 Polk 13.9
Montgomery 11.1
Howard Sevier 21.2 16.6 Little River 20.9
Pike 14.9
Izard 12.6
Searcy 11.2
Pope 16.6
Van Buren 12.8 Conway 16.9
Clark 21.5
Grant 13.8
Dallas 23.5
Lafayette 25.2
Columbia 25.2
Lonoke 16.3
Woodruff 24.6
Prairie 16.0
Jefferson 32.0
Cleveland 15.8
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 23.3 24.5 27.3 Calhoun 19.3 Miller 25.1
White 15.9
Pulaski 26.8
Saline 14.6
Hot Spring 17.3
Sharp 14.5 Lawrence 16.0
Independence 15.6 Jackson Cleburne 21.8 12.6
Faulkner 17.2
Clay 15.5
Randolph 15.7
Stone 10.7
Perry 15.3
Garland 18.4
Fulton 13.7
Baxter 13.1
Marion 12.1
Lincoln 21.3
Monroe 26.4
Arkansas 23.0
Desha 31.9
Greene 17.4 Craighead 20.9 Poinsett 21.7 Cross 21.5 St. Francis 34.5
Crittenden 33.8
Lee 33.6 Phillips 39.1
Ashley 21.0
Union 23.3
10.7 - 18.4% 18.5 - 27.3%
Chicot 32.4
27.4 - 39.1%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Census
Single Female-Headed Households by Race and Ethnicity
percent of households headed by a single female
50
48.8
40 30 26.5
10 0
19.7 14.7
White
18.0
18.2
17.5
13.2
Some Native Asian African American Hawaiian/ other American Indian/ Alaska Native race Pacific Islander race of head-of-household
Two or Latino more origin races (of any race)
18.6% of Arkansans
fast fact
20
experience food insecurity, meaning that they don’t always know where their next meal will come from. Source: Feeding America
40
State District of Columbia Mississippi Louisiana New York Georgia South Carolina Alabama Maryland Rhode Island New Mexico Delaware Florida North Carolina Tennessee Ohio Texas Michigan
Percent 38.8 26.7 25.6 23.4 23.1 23.1 22.5 21.8 21.6 21.4 21.0 20.8 20.6 20.6 20.1 20.1 20.0
18 20 21 22 22 24 25 26 26 26 29 29 31 32 33 34 35 35 37 38 38 38 41 42 43 44 45 46 46 48 49 50 51
Massachusetts Illinois Connecticut California Nevada New Jersey Kentucky Arizona Missouri Pennsylvania Indiana Virginia Oklahoma Hawaii West Virginia Oregon Alaska Washington Wisconsin Colorado Kansas Maine Vermont Nebraska South Dakota Minnesota New Hampshire Iowa Montana Idaho Wyoming North Dakota Utah
19.8 19.6 19.5 19.4 19.4 19.3 19.0 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.5 18.5 18.4 18.2 17.0 16.5 16.2 16.2 15.9 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.4 15.1 15.0 14.7 14.6 14.4 14.4 13.8 13.7 13.4 13.0
United States
19.7
18
State 19.8%
Drew 23.3 Bradley 22.5
Mississippi 28.6
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 15 15 17
Arkansas
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Census
19.8
children living in poverty
Percent of Population Under 18 Years of Age Living in Poverty, 2010
Percent of population under age 18 Arkansas by County, 2011 Carroll 29.8
Benton 18.3
Madison 31.2
Washington 27.0
Boone 27.1
Newton 36.4
Crawford Franklin Johnson 27.3 28.4 29.8 Logan 31.2
Sebastian 31.2
Yell 28.1
Scott 37.0 Polk 35.3
Montgomery 35.0
Howard Sevier 30.5 31.6 Little River 27.8
Pike 32.4
Baxter 28.1
Marion 34.5
Conway 30.8
Perry 27.2
Garland 32.4
Clark 30.3
Lafayette 35.4
Columbia 37.3
Lonoke 18.8
Cross 28.3
Lincoln 28.8
St. Francis 43.8
Crittenden 39.9
Lee 46.4
Monroe 47.5
Arkansas 28.3
Phillips 51.0
Desha 39.9
State 27.8%
Drew 31.3 Bradley 36.1 Ashley 30.6
Union 31.8
Mississippi 36.3
Poinsett 37.1
Woodruff 38.5
Prairie 31.3
Jefferson 35.7
Cleveland 24.6
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 35.0 38.0 Calhoun 37.6 22.4 Miller 32.4
White 23.6
Faulkner 17.7
Grant 18.3
Dallas 34.3
Craighead 28.3
Independence 27.9 Jackson Cleburne 34.8 26.2
Pulaski 23.3
Saline 15.2
Hot Spring 30.0
Greene 25.6
Stone 38.5
Van Buren 39.1
Clay 28.9
Randolph 35.4
Sharp 37.8 Lawrence 34.4
Izard 31.7
Searcy 46.6
Pope 30.1
Fulton 33.5
15.2 - 28.9% 29.0 - 39.9%
Chicot 48.2
40.0 - 51.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
Arkansas Children Living in Poverty
200,000
26.6%
150,000
25.3%
24.6%
27.8%
27.3%
24.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
100,000 166,630
173,939
170,833
185,268
2007
2008
2009
190,538
194,242
2010
2011
50,000
0
2006
percent of children
number of children
Percent of Population Under 18 Years of Age Living in Poverty by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2011 60 50
52.5 47.1
40 30 20 10 0
40.1 31.4
35.9
38.9
20.4 9.4 White
African American Asian American Indian/ Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
Some other race
Two or Latino more origin races (of any race)
Rank 1 2 3 4
State Mississippi District of Columbia New Mexico Louisiana
Percent 32.4 30.9 29.4 28.8
6 7 8 8 10 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 19 20 20 22 23 24 25 26 26 28 29 30 31 32 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 44 46 47 48 48 50 51
Alabama South Carolina Arizona Kentucky Georgia Texas Tennessee West Virginia North Carolina Florida Michigan Ohio Oklahoma Oregon California New York Indiana Missouri Nevada Rhode Island Idaho Illinois Montana Pennsylvania Maine South Dakota Delaware Kansas Washington Wisconsin Colorado Nebraska Iowa Hawaii Utah Vermont Virginia Wyoming Massachusetts Minnesota North Dakota Alaska Connecticut New Jersey Maryland New Hampshire
27.6 27.5 27.2 27.2 26.6 26.6 26.5 26.1 25.4 25.1 24.6 23.9 23.9 23.4 22.8 22.8 22.6 22.3 22.2 21.5 21.3 21.3 20.9 19.4 19.3 19.2 18.8 18.8 18.5 18.4 17.7 17.6 17.1 16.8 16.2 15.8 15.6 15.5 15.3 15.3 14.8 14.7 14.6 14.6 13.9 12.2
United States
22.5
5
Arkansas
27.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
41
people living in poverty
Percent of Population Living in Poverty, 2011
Percent of population; Arkansas by County, 2011 Benton 12.1
Washington 20.1
Carroll 18.7 Madison 22.6
Boone 16.9
Newton 21.3
Marion 20.5 Searcy 28.6
Fulton 21.4
Baxter 16.8
Izard 20.5 Stone 22.9
Randolph 23.4
Sharp 24.5 Lawrence 23.0
Rank 1 2 3
Clay 20.1 Greene 17.4
Craighead 20.6
Mississippi 25.4
4
5 Van Crawford 6 Poinsett Buren 18.0 Franklin Johnson 25.0 20.9 20.8 22.1 6 Pope 22.1 Cross 6 Conway White 19.2 Crittenden 23.0 Logan Sebastian 18.0 Faulkner 26.6 9 Woodruff 20.0 21.2 14.7 St. 27.3 Francis 10 Yell Perry 32.9 19.5 Scott 16.4 Prairie 11 Lee 22.3 Pulaski Lonoke 21.7 35.2 16.6 13.7 Monroe 12 Saline 31.6 10.0 Garland Polk 13 Phillips 20.9 Montgomery 22.1 34.0 21.9 Hot Arkansas 14 Grant Jefferson Spring 18.5 11.5 24.3 20.3 15 Pike Howard 20.5 Clark 16 Sevier 20.9 Dallas 23.1 Lincoln 21.7 Cleveland 21.5 25.4 16 Desha 16.7 27.6 Little State 19.3% 18 Hempstead Nevada River Ouachita Drew 23.5 24.7 17.6 19 Calhoun 24.1 22.6 10.0 - 18.7% 16.5 20 Bradley Miller 24.4 Chicot 18.8 25.4% 21 21.5 Columbia Ashley 33.4 Union 26.4 19.8 Lafayette 21.5 25.5 - 35.2% 22 24.2 23 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates 23 23 26 27 28 29 Percent of Total Population 30 31 Living in Poverty 600,000 32 19.3 33 500,000 34 18.7 18.5 35 36 400,000 17.6 37 17.3 17.3 38 300,000 39 40 200,000 550,079 479,140 529,710 519,026 471,161 483,510 41 42 100,000 43 44 0 44 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 46 47 47 percent of people number of people 49 50 51 42
Independence 21.4 Jackson Cleburne 23.9 16.2
State Mississippi New Mexico Louisiana
Percent 22.8 20.9 20.5
Georgia Alabama District of Columbia Kentucky Arizona South Carolina West Virginia Texas Tennessee North Carolina Michigan Oklahoma Oregon Florida California Idaho Ohio New York Indiana Missouri Nevada Montana Illinois Rhode Island Maine South Dakota Washington Kansas Pennsylvania Utah Colorado Wisconsin Nebraska Iowa Delaware Hawaii North Dakota Vermont Minnesota Massachusetts Virginia Wyoming Alaska Connecticut New Jersey Maryland New Hampshire
19.2 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.0 18.8 18.7 18.5 18.4 17.8 17.5 17.3 17.3 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.3 16.1 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.2 14.9 14.7 14.2 14.1 13.9 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.4 13.1 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.1 12.0 11.9 11.8 11.6 11.6 11.3 10.8 10.8 10.4 10.2 9.0
United States
15.9
Arkansas
19.3
By Rich Huddleston, MPA, executive director, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
Q: How can we help break the cycle of intergenerational poverty?
A:
Most brain development occurs before age five, so the earlier we can reach kids and give them what they need to succeed the better. Every child, for example, should have timely and ongoing prenatal, pediatric and oral health care and receive appropriate screenings and follow up care for developmental delays or disabilities. New and expectant mothers of at-risk children should have access to evidence-based home visiting programs as well as parent education and parentchild interaction programs that support their young child’s development. Finally, every child should have access to high quality early learning opportunities as infants and toddlers, high quality pre-K as 3- and 4-year-olds, and full-day kindergarten.
Percent of Total Population Living in Poverty by Gender, 2007-2011 Total 18.4%
Q: What will it take to create economic opportunity for
Male 16.5%
Arkansans currently living in poverty?
A: Reaching at-risk children at a young age is only part of the
Female 20.1% 0
5
10
15
20
25
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey Note: This data is from a different source than the data shown in the map.
Percent of Total Population Living in Poverty by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2011
50 40
Q: What bright spots are you seeing across the state? What’s working that we can replicate in other communities?
41.8
A: One program is the Arkansas Grade Level Reading Campaign
34.1
30
31.0
30.9 27.9 25.0
20 14.7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey Note: This data is from a different source than the data shown in the map.
Latinoo origin (of anyy race)
Twoo or more races
Some m me other race
Native t tive Hawaiian/ a aiian/ Pacific Islander l d
African can American rican
White
0
Asian an
12.6
Native t tive American/ r rican/ Alaska Native
0 10
puzzle. The other part has to be increasing the educational levels of their parents. The best predictor of economic mobility, and the most important factor in creating economic opportunity for Arkansans currently living in poverty, is ensuring that parents have the education and training to find and maintain employment, succeed in the workforce, and move up the economic ladder and out of poverty. Not only are women with higher levels of educationespecially those with at least a bachelor’s degree — more likely to earn higher incomes, they are also less likely to have births outside of marriage or to become single mothers.
initiated by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. The goal of the campaign is to ensure that every child can read at grade level by the end of the third grade, a key predictor of future educational success. Part of the campaign’s multi-faceted strategy is to identify and spread the word about local bright spots, all of which can be replicated. For example, one bright spot is the Clinton School District, which has taken the bold and unusual step of using its school poverty funding (also known as state NSLA funding) to provide high quality pre-K to at-risk students in the district. Another bright spot is the highly successful Arkansas Better Chance Program, widely regarded as one of the best pre-K programs in the country for improving educational outcomes for at-risk students. 43
elderly living in poverty
Percent of population 65 years and older living in poverty, 2007-2011
Percent of population 65 years and over living in poverty; Arkansas by County, 2007-2011 Carroll 9.2
Benton 6.4
Washington 8.8
Madison 19.0
Boone 12.4
Newton 18.9
Crawford 10.3 Franklin Johnson 11.1 12.2 Logan 9.0
Sebastian 10.5
Yell 13.8
Scott 15.7 Polk 8.6
Howard Sevier 15.5 10.3 Little River 13.4
Conway 15.1
Perry 14.2
Garland 9.1
Montgomery 14.5
Saline 4.6
Hot Spring 8.2
Pike 8.2
Stone 17.5
Van Buren 14.2
Clark 14.4
Lafayette 19.0
Columbia 14.9
White 12.1
Pulaski 9.0
Grant 8.9
Dallas 18.9
Lonoke 10.9
Woodruff 18.3
Prairie 15.9
Greene 11.0 Craighead 10.3
Lincoln 21.5
Cross 19.8 St. Francis 23.5
Ashley 12.2
Union 11.5
Crittenden 14.4
Phillips 15.4
Desha 21.3
State 11.3% 4.6 - 11.5% 11.6 - 17.3%
Chicot 21.8
17.4 - 30.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
Percent of Population 65 and Older Living in Poverty by Race and Ethnicity, 2007 - 2011
80 70
70.1
60 50 40 30 26.2
20 10 0
9.7 White
25.8 19.1
Native Asian African American Hawaiian/ American Indian/ Alaska Native Pacific Islander
20.7 13.7
8.0 Some other race
Two or Latino more origin races (of any race)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
15
Percent of Total Population 65 and Older Living in Poverty by Gender,, 2007-2011 2007 2011
12 9 6 3
44
0
Total 11.3%
Female 13.9% Male 7.9%
Source: ourc ce: U.S. Census Bureau, u, 2007-2011 200 07 2011 American Community 070 Comm munity Survey
State Mississippi District of Columbia Louisiana New Mexico Kentucky North Dakota Georgia New York South Dakota Texas
Percent 14.5 14.0 12.7 12.4 12.2 12.2 11.5 11.5 11.4 11.4
12 13 13 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 29 30 30 30 30 30 35 35 35 35 35 40 41 41 43 43 45 46 47 47 49 50 51
Alabama South Carolina Tennessee North Carolina West Virginia Florida Oklahoma Rhode Island Massachusetts California Maine Missouri Montana Illinois Pennsylvania Colorado Minnesota Arizona Michigan Nebraska Ohio Oregon Virginia Kansas Maryland Nevada Washington Wisconsin New Jersey Idaho Indiana Iowa Vermont Hawaii Delaware Connecticut New Hampshire Utah Wyoming Alaska
11.2 10.9 10.9 10.3 10.3 9.9 9.6 9.5 9.3 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.0 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.3 4.9
United States
9.4
11
Lee 30.2
Drew 14.3 Bradley 14.0
Mississippi 18.2
Poinsett 19.9
Monroe 23.9
Arkansas 14.4
Jefferson 13.4
Cleveland 10.4
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 21.9 8.8 Calhoun 12.1 14.4 Miller 12.5
Independence 12.5 Jackson Cleburne 16.6 10.2
Faulkner 7.4
Clay 13.2
Randolph 17.3
Sharp 15.5 Lawrence 11.8
Izard 11.4
Searcy 18.2
Pope 8.4
Fulton 15.0
Baxter 9.7
Marion 8.7
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 7 9 9
Arkansas
11.3
senior dependence ratio Ratio of people 65 and over relative to those 15 -64; Arkansas by County, 2010 Carroll 29.9
Benton 19.0
Washington 14.1
Madison 24.1
Boone 28.8
Newton 32.7
Crawford Franklin Johnson 20.5 26.2 22.7 Logan 27.2
Sebastian 20.0
Yell 24.5
Scott 27.5 Polk 32.0
Montgomery 37.1
Howard Sevier 24.3 20.1 Little River 27.0
Pike 27.7
Stone 38.0
Van Buren 37.4 Conway 26.7
Perry 25.8
Garland 33.8
Hot Spring 24.0 Clark 21.4
Pulaski 17.7
Saline 22.9
Grant 22.1
Dallas 29.1
Lafayette 31.3
Columbia 24.4
Lonoke 16.9
Cross 24.0 St. Francis 17.9
Crittenden 16.5
Lee 22.7
Monroe 29.9
Phillips 24.0
Arkansas 25.4
Lincoln 17.3
Desha 24.0
State 22.1
Drew 22.5 Bradley 28.2 Ashley 25.4
Union 24.1
Mississippi 19.0
Poinsett 24.8
Woodruff 28.1
Prairie 31.3
Jefferson 19.7
Cleveland 25.8
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 28.1 23.8 Calhoun 26.8 25.8 Miller 20.9
White 21.3
Greene 22.2 Craighead 18.2
Independence 24.3 Jackson Cleburne 23.7 39.2
Faulkner 14.4
Clay 32.4
Randolph 30.0
Sharp 40.9 Lawrence 28.8
Izard 38.8
Searcy 34.4
Pope 19.4
Fulton 37.0
Baxter 49.3
Marion 38.5
14.1 - 22.9% 23.0 - 32.0%
Chicot 29.1
32.1 - 49.3%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Census
Senior Dependency Ratio by Race and Ethnicity, 2010
30 25
Total 22.1%
25.5
20
Male 19.3%
15 12.4
10
Female 24.7%
7.5
5 0
11.9
11.0
2.9 White
Native Asian African American Hawaiian/ American Indian/ Alaska Native Pacific Islander
2.4 Some other race
3.8 0
Two or Latino more origin races (of any race)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census
Arkansas is third in the nation for hunger among senior citizens. Source: Meals on Wheels Association of America Income/Employment Housing
5
10
15
20
25
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census
fast fact
ratio of seniors relative to population 15-64
Senior Dependency Ratio by Gender, 2010
map notes on page 62
45
median household income
Median Household Income, 2011
Arkansas by County, 2011
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Benton 52,644
Carroll 33,579 Madison 34,292
Washington 39,230
Boone 38,411
Newton 31,224
Crawford 37,552 Franklin Johnson 38,245 34,182
Yell 33,747
Scott 31,163 Polk 31,030
Searcy 26,990
Pope 38,095
Logan 34,000
Sebastian 38,404
Montgomery 31,603
Pike Howard 30,054 Sevier 33,079 30,899
Baxter Marion 33,312 32,685
Conway 37,830
Saline 54,372
Pulaski 43,898
Grant 46,538
Dallas 30,728
Lafayette 30,057
Columbia 33,533
White 42,958
Faulkner 49,314
Jefferson 37,704
Union 37,193
Arkansas 37,922
Lincoln 35,854
Desha 30,186
Drew 35,627 Bradley 31,118
Ashley 37,170
Greene 37,893 Craighead 39,410
Mississippi 33,426
Poinsett 30,761
Cross 35,268 Crittenden 34,905 Woodruff 27,357 St. Francis 28,467
Prairie Lonoke 36,088 Monroe 49,579 27,758
Cleveland 41,864
Little River Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 38,937 31,590 35,095 30,922 Calhoun 35,464 Miller 37,728
Sharp 28,760 Lawrence 32,678
Independence 34,690 Jackson Van Buren Cleburne 32,750 34,513 42,265
Hot Spring 38,082 Clark 34,478
Izard 31,245
Clay 32,564
Randolph 33,210
Stone 29,182
Perry 38,858
Garland 35,651
Fulton 33,696
Lee 27,894 Phillips 26,892
State $38,889 $26,892-34,000 $34,001-42,958
Chicot 27,966
$42,959-54,372
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
Median Household Income, 2006-2011 $40,000 $35,000
36,627
38,239
38,820
37,888
38,413
38,889
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
$30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0
The Georgetown Center for Education and the Workforce identified five technical training pathways available to educate and train Americans for jobs that pay a middle-class wage without a bachelor’s degree: 1) associate’s degrees, 2) employer-based training, 3) industry-based certifications, 4) postsecondary certificates and 5) apprenticeships.
fast fact
2006
46
49 50 51
State Maryland New Jersey Connecticut Alaska Massachusetts New Hampshire District of Columbia Hawaii Virginia Delaware California Minnesota Washington Wyoming Utah Colorado New York Illinois Rhode Island North Dakota Vermont Wisconsin Nebraska Pennsylvania Iowa Texas Nevada Kansas South Dakota Oregon Arizona Indiana Maine Michigan Georgia Ohio Missouri Florida North Carolina Montana Idaho Oklahoma South Carolina New Mexico Louisiana Tennessee Alabama Kentucky
Percent $70,075 $67,574 $65,822 $65,699 $63,126 $62,436 $62,087 $62,071 $61,877 $58,159 $57,275 $56,944 $56,811 $56,044 $55,802 $55,530 $55,147 $53,271 $53,152 $52,135 $52,033 $50,401 $50,281 $50,221 $49,545 $49,390 $49,099 $48,844 $48,188 $46,876 $46,710 $46,410 $46,160 $45,931 $45,886 $45,803 $45,231 $44,250 $44,028 $44,011 $43,345 $43,232 $42,477 $42,097 $41,804 $41,691 $41,427 $41,141
West Virginia Mississippi
$38,587 $36,963
Arkansas
United States
$38,889
$50,502
Per Capita Personal Income, 2006-2011
Median Household Income by Race and Ethnicity, 2011
$50,000
$35,000
48,249
$30,000
43,377
$40,000 0
40,355
$30,000 0
30,580
32,842
$25,000
33,696
32,248
27,858
29,385
31,353
32,861
31,688
32,373
2010
2011
$20,000
25,681
$20,000 0
$15,000
$10,000 0
$10,000
Latino origin (of any race)
Two or more races
Some other race
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
Asian
African American
White
Native American/ Alaska Native
$5,000
$0 0
$0 2006
2007
2008
2009
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey Note: This data is from a different source than the data shown in the map.
per capita personal income Arkansas by County, 2010 Benton 35,130
Carroll 25,967
Washington 32,269
Madison 22,380
Boone 29,416
Newton 24,520
Crawford Franklin Johnson 26,789 29,770 23,986
Yell 25,791
Scott 22,474 Polk 23,847
Searcy 24,598
Pope 28,105
Logan 25,854
Sebastian 35,717
Montgomery 23,507
Pike Howard 27,799 Sevier 26,495 23,163
Baxter Marion 31,075 25,450
Conway 31,442
Columbia 31,536 Lafayette 25,960
White 28,655
Faulkner 31,658
Pulaski 42,438
Grant 31,498
Dallas 29,918
Lawrence 26,328
Union 40,486
Jefferson 30,414 Lincoln 25,220
Arkansas 38,306
Desha 30,943
Drew 29,843 Bradley 28,800 Ashley 32,699
Greene 27,819 Craighead 31,359
Mississippi 30,283
Poinsett 28,876
Cross 29,682 Crittenden Woodruff 30, 28,723 597 St. Francis 25,121
Prairie Lonoke 30,294 Monroe 31,459 29,790
Cleveland 31,783
Little River Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 28,836 27,123 28,425 29,844 Calhoun 27,272 Miller 31,817
Sharp 24,588
Stone 24,631
Saline 36,977
Hot Spring 26,239 Clark 29,254
Izard 24,966
Clay 29,254
Randolph 26,639
Independence 30,109 Jackson Van Buren Cleburne 29,942 26,725 32,980
Perry 30,825
Garland 34,038
Fulton 25,611
Lee 27,690 Phillips 29,861
State $32,373 $22,380 - 27,819
Chicot 30,245
$27,820 - 34,038
map notes on page 62
$34,039 - 42,438
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
47
unemployment rate
Unemployment Rate 2011
Arkansas by County, 2011
Carroll 6.3
Benton 6.3
Madison Washington 6.2 6.0
Crawford 8.5
Logan 8.4
Montgomery 8.3
Howard Sevier 8.0 8.3
Pike 9.4
Stone 10.2
Van Buren 9.8
Saline 6.5 Hot Spring 7.6
Clark 9.5
Pulaski 7.2
Grant 7.2
Dallas 11.1
Lafayette 9.9
Columbia 9.4
Union 9.7
White 8.8
Lonoke 6.8
Woodruff 11.6
Prairie 8.2
Jefferson 10.6
Cleveland 7.9
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 8.5 9.2 9.4 Calhoun 9.4 Miller 7.0
Independence 8.8 Jackson Cleburne 10.6 7.9
Conway 8.3 Faulkner 7.0
Clay 13.7
Randolph 10.3
Sharp 10.3 Lawrence 9.8
Izard 9.4
Perry 8.6
Garland 8.3
Fulton 7.4
Baxter 8.6
Marion 9.4 Searcy 8.5
Pope 7.6
Yell 6.5
Scott 6.9
Little River 7.7
Newton 7.8
Franklin Johnson 7.5 7.2
Sebastian 8.3
Polk 8.3
Boone 7.4
map notes on page 62
Lincoln 9.4
Monroe 9.0 Arkansas 10.8
Desha 11.8
Drew 11.7 Bradley 11.1 Ashley 11.2
Greene 10.0 Craighead 7.3
Mississippi 11.1
Poinsett 9.0 Cross 8.5 St. Francis 11.0
Crittenden 12.6
Lee 11.3 Phillips 11.4
State 8.0% 6.0 - 8.0% 8.1 - 10.0%
Chicot 11.9
10.1 - 13.7%
Source: Arkansas Department of Workforce Services, Labor Market Information, November 5, 2012
Arkansas Unemployment Rate, 2006-2011 unemployment rate (percent)
8 7.5
7
7.9
8.0
2010
2011
6 5
5.3
5.2
5.4
2006
2007
2008
4 3 2 1 0
48
2009
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 24
State Nevada California Rhode Island Mississippi Michigan South Carolina Florida North Carolina District Of Columbia Georgia Illinois Oregon Kentucky Arizona New Jersey Tennessee Washington Indiana Connecticut Alabama Colorado Ohio Missouri Idaho New York
Percent 13.2 11.8 11.2 10.5 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.9 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.3 8.3
26 26 29 30 31 32 32 34 35 35 35 38 39 40 40 40 43 44 45 45 47 48 49 50 51
Pennsylvania Texas West Virginia Maine Alaska New Mexico Wisconsin Delaware Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Utah Montana Hawaii Kansas Minnesota Virginia Wyoming Iowa Oklahoma Vermont New Hampshire South Dakota Nebraska North Dakota
7.9 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 6.9 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.5 4.8 4.5 3.5
United States
8.9
26
Arkansas
7.9
Rates shown are a percentage of the labor force. Data refer to place of residence. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Unemployment Rates for States
employment to population ratio Ratio of the number of people employed from the pool of potential workers age 15-64; Arkansas by County, 2010 Carroll 74.4
Benton 70.7
Washington 68.6
Madison 68.1
Boone 68.1
Newton 62.4
Crawford Franklin Johnson 65.3 65.7 64.8 Logan 64.8
Sebastian 68.1
Yell 68.3
Scott 62.5 Polk 61.9
map notes on page 62
Montgomery 66.5
Howard Sevier 63.1 66.2 Little River 68.6
Pike 63.4
Stone 56.4
Van Buren 60.3
Perry 64.1
Garland 65.3
Pulaski 67.4
Saline 70.8
Hot Spring 66.0 Clark 64.4
Grant 66.8
Dallas 67.3
Lafayette 55.8
Columbia 61.7
Lonoke 68.0
Cross 64.7 St. Francis 46.8
Lincoln 46.1
Phillips 57.6
Desha 58.0
State 65.6
Drew 60.6 Bradley 67.2 Ashley 59.9
Union 59.6
Crittenden 55.6
Lee 42.1
Monroe 62.5
Arkansas 82.3
Mississippi 61.5
Poinsett 61.1
Woodruff 63.1
Prairie 66.6
Jefferson 60.7
Cleveland 69.7
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 66.4 67.0 Calhoun 66.6 65.9 Miller 66.7
White 61.5
Greene 60.1 Craighead 68.6
Independence 66.5 Jackson Cleburne 54.2 69.7
Conway 69.4 Faulkner 68.0
Clay 56.3
Randolph 61.2
Sharp 56.4 Lawrence 61.0
Izard 57.7
Searcy 62.9
Pope 66.1
Fulton 65.8
Baxter 66.0
Marion 56.7
42.1 - 56.7 56.8 - 64.4
Chicot 54.2
64.5 - 82.3
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Census
Unemployment Rate by Gender, 2011
Unemployment Rate by Race and Ethnicity, 2011 25 20 16.5
15 10 5 0
Total 8.0%
20.2
Male 7.7% 10.3
9.2 6.6
White
10.1
9.8
Female 8.5%
5.8
Native Asian African American Hawaiian/ American Indian/ Alaska Native Pacific Islander
Source: Arkansas Department of Workforce Services
Some other race
Two or Latino more origin races (of any race)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Source: Arkansas Department of Workforce Services
49
Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs for Housing Units With a Mortgage, 2007-2011
housing costs - with mortgage Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs for Housing Units with a Mortgage; Arkansas by County, 2007-2011 Benton 1,238
Carroll 948
Washington 1,214
Madison 878
Boone 934
Newton 802
Crawford Franklin Johnson 910 874 819 Logan 774
Sebastian 987
Yell 820
Scott 835 Polk 852
Montgomery 955
Howard Sevier 847 915 Little River 806
Pike 825
Conway 889
Perry 863
Garland 1,019
Clark 925
Grant 1,037
Dallas 804
Union 853
White 974
Faulkner 1,090
Lonoke 1,067
Woodruff 746
Prairie 846
Jefferson 929
Cleveland 914
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 849 882 Calhoun 823 738 Miller 969 Lafayette Columbia 783 907
Independence 845 Jackson Cleburne 732 901
Pulaski 1,224
Saline 1,154
Hot Spring 852
Lawrence 682
Stone 773
Van Buren 788
Clay 789
Randolph 781 Sharp 759
Izard 759
Searcy 760
Pope 899
Fulton 788
Baxter 926
Marion 802
Lincoln 776
Monroe 774 Arkansas 860
Desha 861
Drew 904 Bradley 833 Ashley 862
Greene 877 Craighead 982
Mississippi 871
Poinsett 836 Cross 883 St. Francis 852
Crittenden 1,054
Lee 780 Phillips 857
State $1,004 $68 2 - 836
Chicot 880
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
$837 - 987 $988 - 1,238
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50 51 50
State New Jersey California Hawaii District of Columbia Massachusetts Connecticut Maryland New York New Hampshire Rhode Island Alaska Washington Virginia Nevada Illinois Colorado Oregon Delaware Florida Minnesota Arizona Vermont Utah Wisconsin Texas Pennsylvania Georgia Michigan Maine Wyoming Ohio North Carolina Nebraska Kansas Montana Idaho New Mexico Missouri South Dakota South Carolina Tennessee Louisiana North Dakota Iowa Indiana Alabama Oklahoma Kentucky Mississippi
Percent $2,450 $2,377 $2,309 $2,303 $2,145 $2,143 $2,066 $2,017 $1,945 $1,916 $1,827 $1,810 $1,782 $1,776 $1,727 $1,656 $1,627 $1,617 $1,612 $1,576 $1,520 $1,516 $1,475 $1,460 $1,440 $1,435 $1,433 $1,374 $1,344 $1,314 $1,308 $1,282 $1,276 $1,265 $1,264 $1,245 $1,231 $1,224 $1,203 $1,199 $1,196 $1,185 $1,179 $1,173 $1,156 $1,150 $1,111 $1,110 $1,064
West Virginia
$941
Arkansas
United States
$1,004 $1,560
Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs for Housing Units Without a Mortgage, 2007-2011
housing costs - no mortgage Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs for Housing Units without a Mortgage; Arkansas by County, 2007-2011 Carroll 303
Benton 347
Washington 336
Madison 254
Boone 289
Newton 231
Crawford Franklin Johnson 293 270 256 Logan 284
Sebastian 331
Yell 272
Scott 247 Polk 262
Montgomery 270
Howard Sevier 301 255 Little River 288
Pike 289
Conway 303
Perry 282
Garland 309
Saline 353
Hot Spring 289 Clark 304
Pulaski 391
Grant 308
Dallas 308
Union 334
Independence 298 Jackson Cleburne 314 306 White 301
Faulkner 336
Lonoke 342
Woodruff 320
Prairie 311
Jefferson 338
Cleveland 321
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 315 290 Calhoun 303 324 Miller 303 Lafayette Columbia 286 299
Lawrence 280
Stone 260
Van Buren 287
Clay 286
Randolph 292 Sharp 272
Izard 293
Searcy 240
Pope 286
Fulton 265
Baxter 297
Marion 279
Lincoln 320
Monroe 322
Arkansas 346
Desha 355
Drew 330 Bradley 324 Ashley 324
Greene 319 Craighead 317
Mississippi 313
Poinsett 313 Cross 370 St. Francis 325
Crittenden 375
Lee 324 Phillips 328
State $317 $231 - 293
Chicot 381
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
$294 - 338 $339 - 391
Rank 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
48 49 50 51
State New Jersey Connecticut New Hampshire Massachusetts New York Rhode Island Vermont Maryland District of Columbia Illinois Alaska Wisconsin Washington Florida Pennsylvania Hawaii California Michigan Minnesota Maine Texas Nevada Oregon Nebraska Ohio Delaware Kansas Virginia Iowa Colorado North Dakota South Dakota Georgia Montana Missouri Arizona Indiana Utah Wyoming North Carolina Oklahoma Alabama Tennessee Mississippi South Carolina Idaho Louisiana
Percent $924 $798 $701 $687 $687 $655 $605 $565 $560 $547 $535 $515 $489 $482 $479 $477 $464 $458 $456 $453 $449 $443 $441 $440 $436 $435 $423 $408 $404 $398 $397 $397 $376 $375 $374 $373 $372 $363 $361 $358 $345 $342 $341 $337 $334 $330 $322
Kentucky New Mexico West Virginia
$313 $311 $274
United States
$444
Arkansas
$317
51
median gross rent
Median Gross Rent, 2007-2011
Arkansas by County, 2007-2011 Carroll 585
Benton 746
Madison Washington 532 671
Boone 545
Newton 367
Crawford Franklin Johnson 581 554 565 Logan 478
Sebastian 591
Yell 555
Scott 527 Polk 534
Montgomery 477
Howard Sevier 543 485 Little River 521
Pike 478
Conway 551
Perry 666
Garland 693
Saline 754
Hot Spring 578 Clark 564
Pulaski 752
Grant 672
Dallas 435
Union 572
Independence 565 Jackson Cleburne 528 617 White 590
Faulkner 688
Lonoke 670
Woodruff 411
Prairie 501
Jefferson 641
Cleveland 579
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 591 549 Calhoun 499 475 Miller 660 Lafayette Columbia 531 544
Lawrence 495
Stone 484
Van Buren 537
Clay 453
Randolph 495 Sharp 566
Izard 492
Searcy 431
Pope 607
Fulton 492
Baxter 610
Marion 557
Lincoln 522
Monroe 507 Arkansas 603
Desha 525
Drew 576 Bradley 533 Ashley 511
Greene 603 Craighead 621
Mississippi 577
Poinsett 467 Cross 622 St. Francis 548
Crittenden 650
Lee 498 Phillips 573
State $637 $367 - 511
Chicot 481
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
$512 - 622 $623 - 754
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
State Hawaii California Maryland District of Columbia New Jersey Massachusetts New York Virginia Connecticut Alaska Nevada Florida Delaware New Hampshire Washington Rhode Island Colorado Arizona Illinois Vermont Georgia Oregon Texas Utah Minnesota Pennsylvania Louisiana North Carolina Michigan Maine Wisconsin South Carolina New Mexico Idaho Wyoming Tennessee Indiana Kansas Ohio Missouri Mississippi Alabama Nebraska Oklahoma Montana
Rent $1,313 $1,185 $1,139 $1,135 $1,131 $1,037 $1,025 $1,024 $1,020 $1,017 $1,011 $981 $975 $956 $923 $901 $883 $881 $860 $843 $835 $830 $814 $813 $783 $770 $745 $744 $742 $736 $735 $728 $713 $709 $708 $707 $704 $699 $697 $693 $680 $674 $672 $659 $649
46 48 49 50 51
Iowa Kentucky South Dakota North Dakota West Virginia
$637 $623 $595 $584 $574
United States
$871
46
52
Arkansas
$637
By Karama Neal, Ph.D., director, Southern Bancorp Community Partners
Q:
What can the costs of home ownership tell us about the economic stability of our communities?
A: While housing costs are higher for
homeowners with a mortgage, homeowners ners without a mortgage may bear higher costs of repair, and housing quality may not be as good. Gross rent and monthly homeowner costs should be compared to household income for a measure of housing affordability and to identify regions with high housing costs. As homeownership contributes positively to community stability, it has positive effects on economic stability as well.
Q:
How can we create housing programs that lead to a lasting benefit for individual families and the community at large?
A: Many Arkansans face housing challenges, from finding an
affordable home to finding an accessible home to finding a home at all. Those working to reduce and eliminate housing barriers are well served when they seek input from the people they assist. Also, because housing can affect other aspects of a person’s life, from the school a child attends to a person’s health and safety, multiple organizations may want to work in partnership to better serve Arkansas families and communities.
Q:
What has been the biggest change in this area over the past 5-7 years? Are the numbers generally moving in a positive or negative direction?
A: The previous edition of Aspire Arkansas provides a good
comparison point and shows that median household income is now higher — certainly a trend in the right direction. However, this improvement may be offset by increased unemployment and increased housing costs. This kind of analysis is critical to any planning or review process. But the data should be complemented by Arkansans’ stories and experiences, as these stories will help shape our understanding of the challenges and the development of solutions.
53
People will be engaged in their communities. Civic engagement is the lifeblood of healthy communities. Each of the other indicators in the Aspire Arkansas report ultimately can be influenced when people share their time and resources for the common good.
It’s not easy to measure a person’s level of community involvement. However, voter participation statistics can give us some insight into how invested citizens are in their communities. Just over half (51.1 percent) of eligible Arkansans voted in the 2012 general election. That relatively low voter turnout number placed Arkansas 47th in the nation.
On the other hand, our state’s charitable giving rates are relatively high. Arkansas ranks seventh in the nation for giving according to an analysis of 2008 tax returns by The Chronicle of Philanthropy.10 (The 2008 returns are the most recent that have been studied in depth.) This analysis examined the percentage of discretionary income given to charity. (Discretionary income is calculated by subtracting essential expenses such as taxes, transportation, housing and food costs from total income.) The study found that on average, Arkansans who itemize their tax deductions gave 6.3 percent of their discretionary income to charity. This rate of charitable giving varies considerably around the
54
state and often is highest in counties that have high poverty levels. It’s also important to note that many Arkansans don’t itemize their tax returns, and therefore, their charitable giving goes unreported. Civic engagement includes not just voting and giving, but also listening and reaching out to include diverse voices in the community conversation. In this section of Aspire Arkansas, we’ve included a guest Q&A with Dr. Sherece West-Scantlebury, CEO of the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, in which she addresses Arkansas’s changing demographics and the need to create opportunities for Arkansans of all backgrounds.
Civic engagement leads to positive change in communities. In Harrison, a volunteer advocacy group is helping to attract new businesses and revitalize the aging downtown area. In Helena, volunteers are following a community-led strategic plan to refurbish dilapidated buildings, raise money for local causes, boost tourism and economic development and turn around the community’s population decline. These successes and others like them attest the power of Arkansan’s generosity and community pride.
Future Funds Give Young Philanthropists a Chance to Make Their Mark
Fayetteville Future Fund
Now executive director of Fayetteville Area Community Foundation, Tennant became involved in the Future Fund as a volunteer co-chair of the Fayetteville Future Fund Steering Committee late in 2011. The committee sought the advice of another Arkansas Community Foundation local office, Hot Springs Area Community Foundation, about how they successfully tailored the giving circle model to young professionals.
Hot Springs Future Fund Chair Jared Zeiser said the concept of a Future Fund came from a group in Greenville, South Carolina, that successfully used a giving circle to boost participation by younger professionals in community philanthropy. Under this model, Future Fund members pool their dues to build an endowment and make grants for charities in their community. Hot Springs Future Fund membership dues go 50 percent to an endowment and 50 percent to current-year grants. In 2012, they awarded six grants to nonprofits serving children, the homeless and those needing healthcare. “We seek to educate and motivate younger folks in
the community to see the impact philanthropy can make and to be a part of that change,” Zeiser explained. Tennant’s Fayetteville group used the lessons learned in Hot Springs to hit the ground running. “We raised almost $13,000 in 32 days. This allowed us to qualify for a $5,000 match from Arkansas Community Foundation for our endowment, and we also had money for initial community grants,” Tennant said. One of Fayetteville Future Fund’s first went to Safety Net, a program of the Fayetteville School system that helps kids who are homeless or have little family support with money for haircuts before job interviews and caps and gowns for graduation.
Both Hot Springs and Fayetteville Future Fund groups, along with several others associated with the Community Foundation around the state, are engaging people to become more involved in their communities and making connections for nonprofits that result in new volunteers and potential board members.
$16.77 – the estimated value of an hour of volunteer time in Arkansas in 2011. Source: Independent Sector
fast fact
“Everyone has a philanthropic bone in their body,” said Fayetteville Future Fund charter member Katie Tennant. “More than people ever realize, they want to give back to their community. But many young professionals don’t know how or don’t think they have the means to help. Future Funds pool membership money together to make a bigger impact. You as an individual become a part of the group that IS making a difference.”
55
By Sherece West-Scantlebury, Ph.D., President and CEO, Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation
Q:
Historically, there has been an achievement gap between the educational scores of white students and students of some minority groups. What are the most important steps Arkansans can take to help reduce the gap?
A:
Research has proven that closing the achievement gap between Caucasian students and students of color requires a mix of sustained interventions. All students should have access to quality early care and education from birth through pre-k. In Arkansas, students of color and poor students are not likely to have access to high quality early care. Studies also show that access to a highly effective teacher has a tremendous impact on student achievement and outcomes. We must make sure that a highly effective teacher leads every classroom. These non-negotiables for achievement are supported by a college preparatory curriculum that starts early and equitable access to the latest books, technology and learning tools. The achievement gap starts with an opportunity gap. The most important step Arkansas can take is to close the opportunity gap for all students.
Q:
What are the most important trends you’ve observed with regard to immigration in Arkansas? How can our state successfully adapt to these changing demographics?
A: Immigrants represent a small but growing part of Arkansas’s population.
Arkansas’s immigrant families are long-term residents, homeowners with high rates of employment who contribute billions to the state’s economy and make our neighborhoods stronger and communities vibrant. Without immigrant families, many Arkansas communities would shrink and many industries would struggle. Arkansas needs to invest in the futures of immigrant families if the state is to benefit from their culture, productivity and economic contributions. Through state and local policy, we must build a future for all, immigrants and natives alike, where they can obtain a quality education, gain employment or start businesses, and continue to be civically active in Arkansas and the nation.
Q:
Of the race and gender data presented in Aspire Arkansas, which indicators do you think are the most instructive for Arkansans?
A: Arkansas lags other states on nearly every indicator of family and child well-being. Within the state, the data show gaps exist based on race for nearly every economic and education indicator — from childhood poverty and third grade reading proficiency to college graduation rates and median income levels. As the state takes on the challenges of reducing poverty rates and increasing educational attainment for all of its residents, it must do so with an equity lens that ensures that everyone has access to opportunity and no one is left behind.
56
Voter Turnout 2012 (total ballots cast as a percentage of eligible voters) Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
State Minnesota Wisconsin Colorado New Hampshire Iowa Maine Virginia Maryland Massachusetts Michigan North Carolina Ohio Washington Oregon Montana Florida Washington D.C. Missouri New Jersey Delaware Connecticut North Dakota Louisiana Idaho Vermont Nebraska Mississippi South Dakota Pennsylvania Alabama Illinois Wyoming Alaska Georgia Rhode Island Kansas Nevada South Carolina Utah Indiana California Kentucky New Mexico New York Arizona Tennessee
Turnout 76.1% 73.2% 71.1% 70.9% 70.2% 69.2% 66.9% 66.8% 66.6% 65.3% 65.2% 65.2% 65.0% 64.3% 63.6% 64.0% 63.3% 63.1% 62.6% 62.0% 61.5% 61.1% 61.0% 60.9% 60.9% 60.8% 60.3% 60.1% 59.9% 59.5% 59.3% 59.3% 59.2% 58.7% 58.6% 58.1% 57.2% 57.1% 56.0% 56.0% 55.9% 55.9% 54.9% 53.6% 53.3% 52.6%
48 49 50 51
Texas Oklahoma West Virginia Hawaii
50.1% 49.6% 46.8% 44.5%
47
Arkansas
51.0%
Source: “America Goes to the Polls 2012: A Report on Voter Turnout in the 2012 Election” prepared by NonprofitVOTE
voter participation General Election number of ballots cast divided by estimated population of citizens 18 years of age or older; Arkansas by County, 2012 Carroll 51.3
Benton 56.1
Washington 52.4
Madison 57.8
Boone 55.3
Newton 56.6
Crawford Franklin Johnson 47.3 48.2 46.3 Logan 44.2
Sebastian 50.4
Yell 42.1
Scott 45.9 Polk 51.1
Montgomery 46.6
Howard Sevier 47.2 44.6 Little River 51.7
Pike 46.9
Stone 55.5
Van Buren 48.0 Conway 49.7
Perry 49.4
Garland 55.4
Clark 46.6
Pulaski 58.0
Saline 60.4
Hot Spring 46.0
Grant 49.2
Dallas 50.7
Lafayette 50.3
Columbia 51.7
Union 55.2
White 47.0
Lonoke 50.4
Woodruff 47.7
Prairie 46.3
Jefferson 47.4
Cleveland 50.9
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 50.3 44.3 Calhoun 52.5 51.6 Miller 47.9
Independence 47.3 Jackson Cleburne 42.9 57.5
Faulkner 51.3
Clay 41.5
Randolph 44.1
Sharp 54.3 Lawrence 42.4
Izard 49.3
Searcy 58.6
Pope 45.2
Fulton 48.0
Baxter 57.8
Marion 50.0
Lincoln 33.8
Monroe 51.8
Arkansas 46.0
Desha 47.3
Drew 47.9 Bradley 43.6 Ashley 49.1
Greene 45.1 Craighead 46.2
Mississippi 41.1
Poinsett 41.3 Cross 50.5 St. Francis 39.8
Crittenden 47.7
Lee 42.8 Phillips 50.9
State 51.1% 33.8 - 45.2%
Chicot 49.6
45.3 - 52.5% 52.6 - 60.4%
$624,340,124 – the
estimated dollar value of the volunteer service contributed by 846 Arkansas nonprofit organizations in 2011.
fast fact
Sources: Arkansas Secretary of State's Office; and U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey, Citizen Voting Age Population Special Tabulation
Source: Arkansas Department of Human Services Division of Community Service and Nonprofit Support
57
Charitable Giving, 2008 (percent of discretionary income contributed to charity, reported as itemized federal tax deductions) Rank
State
Total contributions*
Percent of discretionary income given
1 2 3 4 5 6
Utah Mississippi Alabama Tennessee South Carolina Idaho
$2.4-billion $1.1-billion $2.3-billion $2.7-billion $2.0-billion $639.3-million
10.60% 7.20% 7.10% 6.60% 6.40% 6.40%
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Georgia North Carolina Maryland Oklahoma Louisiana Texas Virginia Kentucky Kansas New York Arizona Florida Oregon Indiana New Mexico Michigan Hawaii California Missouri Delaware Alaska Illinois Colorado Wyoming Nebraska Washington Minnesota South Dakota Ohio Montana West Virginia Pennsylvania Iowa Nevada New Jersey North Dakota Wisconsin Connecticut Rhode Island Massachusetts Vermont Maine New Hampshire
$4.8-billion $4.3-billion $3.9-billion $1.7-billion $1.5-billion $10.7-billion $4.2-billion $1.4-billion $1.3-billion $11.3-billion $2.4-billion $7.4-billion $1.5-billion $2.2-billion $564.6-million $3.8-billion $431.9-million $17.2-billion $2.3-billion $387.8-million $259.8-million $6.0-billion $2.4-billion $251.0-million $735.4-million $3.0-billion $2.6-billion $226.4-million $3.8-billion $308.3-million $352.6-million $4.7-billion $1.0-billion $951.6-million $4.5-billion $163.5-million $2.0-billion $2.3-billion $350.9-million $3.1-billion $165.8-million $307.9-million $408.5-million
6.20% 5.90% 5.70% 5.60% 5.30% 5.10% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.70% 4.60% 4.60% 4.60% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.30% 4.20% 4.20% 4.20% 4.10% 4.10% 4.10% 4.10% 4.10% 4.00% 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 3.70% 3.50% 3.40% 3.30% 3.10% 2.80% 2.80% 2.80% 2.50%
58
*Includes only those making $50,000 or more who itemized their charitable deductions.
9,270 – the number of Arkansas public charities
fast fact
6.30%
registered with the Internal
Revenue Service as of 2009. Source: National Center for Charitable Statistics
giving rates
Arkansas by regions and household income levels percent of discretionary income
$50-100K $100-200K >$200K
10 8 6 4
t
ra l
we s No rth
en t
ea
st tC W es
ra l
No rth
hw ut
Ce nt
es t
th No r
ra l So
h ut
Ce nt
Ce
he
as
t
0
nt ra l Ea st Ce nt ra l
2
ut
$1.0-billion
So
Arkansas
So
7
Source: Internal Revenue Service, Charitable Giving by Households that Itemize Deductions, Calculated from Chronicle of Philanthropy: How America Gives, Aug. 20, 2012
By Thomas A. Bruce, M.D., professor emeritus, University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health
Q:
What is the relationship between household income and charitable giving?
such households would be very small, and it seems likely that most low-income households would be making contributions in the 10-15 percent range. It is known that a great proportion of low income Arkansas families do give regularly to religious organizations, and that their patterns of generosity are more of neighborly giving rather than to official nonprofit groups. These observations would substantiate the Catalogue for Philanthropy’s Generosity Index that lists Arkansas year after year as one of the top ‘giving-rate’ states in the nation.
A: A
An analysis of 2008 IRS tax reports, the most recent that have been studied in depth, shows that when household incomes are adjusted to exclude essential expenses such as taxes, transportation, housing and food costs, the percent of the remaining discretionary income that is spent for charitable purposes varies considerably around the state, and often is highest in those counties that have high poverty levels.
Q: What do you notice about the voter turnout and charitable giving numbers in different areas of the state?
Q: Many people don’t itemize their tax returns, so it’s difficult to
A: Arkansas counties in which there was high interest in local
determine their level of charitable giving. What information is available about patterns of charitable giving for those who don’t itemize?
contestants or issues tended to have higher turnout [for example, counties where a controversial issue or hotly contested race was on the ballot]. Although there were notable exceptions, more counties in the Arkansas Delta had low voter turnouts than in the mountainous or southern plains regions. In contrast, data on charitable giving show Arkansas Delta counties with relatively high generosity, suggesting that this may be a rather different and useful index of community engagement.
A: Households with annual incomes below $50,000 almost always use the standard IRS charitable deduction, approximately $10,500 per family. The only data available for those households who do not itemize deductions comes from non-IRS surveys, and no information is available specifically for Arkansas. The discretionary income for
charitable giving Percent of discretionary income; Arkansas by County, 2008 Carroll 6.5
Benton 5.3
Washington 5.3
Madison 5.1
Boone 7.1
Newton 4.9
Crawford Franklin Johnson 6.3 4.8 5.7 Logan 5.5
Sebastian 6.5
Yell 5.2
Scott 6.6 Polk 5.4
Montgomery 4.9
Howard Sevier 5.3 6.8 Little River 5.5
Pike 7.0
Stone 8.4
Van Buren 6.3 Conway 5.2
Perry 3.4
Garland 6.5
Saline 5.6
Hot Spring 6.2 Clark 7.3
Pulaski 6.9
Grant 6.4
Dallas 8.6
Columbia 7.0 Lafayette 9.1
Union 7.9
Lonoke 5.0
Cross 7.7
Woodruff 6.7
St. Francis 10.5
Lincoln 5.4
Phillips 8.7
Desha 7.7
Drew 7.6 Bradley 8.1 Ashley 6.9
Crittenden 7.1
Lee 7.7
Monroe 7.1 Arkansas 6.7
Mississippi 7.0
Poinsett 6.4
Prairie 6.8
Jefferson 8.7
Cleveland 7.3
Hempstead Nevada Ouachita 6.0 9.3 Calhoun 7.6 6.3 Miller 7.6
White 6.3
Greene 7.1 Craighead 6.3
Independence 5.6 Jackson Cleburne 5.6 6.0
Faulkner 5.9
Clay 7.1
Randolph 5.3 Sharp 5.0 Lawrence 6.1
Izard 4.6
Searcy 7.0
Pope 6.4
Fulton 5.7
Baxter 5.9
Marion 5.7
State 6.3% 3.4 - 5.9%
Chicot 8.8
Source: How America Gives, Chronicle of Philanthropy, August 19, 2012, http://philanthropy.com/section/How-America-Gives/621/
6.0 - 7.3% 7.4 - 10.5% 59
Grade 3 Math Proficiency: The percent of students in Grade řȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ę ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¡ ǰȱ ȱ tion. Arkansas Department of Education
Low Birth Weight Babies: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŘśŖŖȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ Data
Grade 3 Literacy Proficiency: The percent of students in ȱřȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ę ¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¡ ǰȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
Infant Mortality Rate: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱǻ ȱ ȱŗȱ¢ ȱ ȱ Ǽȱ ȱŗǰŖŖŖȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ
Grade 8 Math Proficiency: The percent of students in Grade Şȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ę ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¡ ǰȱ ȱ tion. Arkansas Department of Education Grade 8 Literacy Proficiency: The percent of students in ȱŞȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ę ¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¡ ǰȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Grade 11 Literacy Proficiency: The percent of students in ȱŗŗȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ę ¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŗŗȱ ¢ȱ ¡ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Graduation Rates: ȱ Ȭ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱş ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱę ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱȃ Ȅȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱş ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ Remediation Rate: ȱ ȱ ȱę Ȭ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ Department of Higher Education High School Graduates: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Řśȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŖŝȬŘŖŗŗȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ Population with Associate’s Degree: The percent of the ȱ ȱŘśȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŖŝȬŘŖŗŗȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ Population with Bachelor’s Degree: The percent of the ȱ ȱŘśȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŖŝȬŘŖŗŗȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ Population with Graduate or Professional Degree: The ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŘśȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŖŝȬŘŖŗŗȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ 60
No Prenatal Care During First Trimester: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱę ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ Overweight/Obese Adults:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¡ȱǻ Ǽȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŘśǯŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Overweight/Obese Students: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¡ȱǻ Ǽȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱŘǰȱŚǰȱ ŜǰȱŞǰȱŗŖǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ Any Drug — Lifetime Use: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱǻ ǰȱ Ĵ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ¢ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ Ȭ Ȭ ȱ ǰȱ Ǽȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŜǰȱ ŞǰȱŗŖǰȱŗŘȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ Ĝ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Smokers:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ Ĵ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ No Exercise: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱřŖȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Meeting Physical Activity Requirement: The percent of ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱřŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ¢ȱśȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱŘŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱřȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Fluoridated Water:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱĚ ȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ Branch
Children in Single Parent Families: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȧ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŖŝŘŖŗŗȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ Single Female-Headed Households: ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱę ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ŘŖŗŖȱ Total Population in Poverty: ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ę ȱ ¢ȱ ¢Dzȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ DZȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŗŞǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŜśǯȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Dzȱ ȱ ȱ ¢Ȃ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Children in Poverty:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŗŘȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Elderly in Poverty:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŜśȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŜśȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŗŘȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŖŝȬŘŖŗŗȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ Senior Dependence Ratio: The senior dependence ratio is ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŜśȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱǻ ȱ ȱŗśȬŜŚǼǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŗŖȱ Median Household Income: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ DZȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Per Capita Personal Income:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱǻ ȱ ȱ ¡ Ǽȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ Unemployment Rate:ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱśǰȱŘŖŗŘ Employment to Population Ratio: ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ
ǻ ȱ ȱŗśȬŜŚǼǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŗŖȱ Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs:ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱǻ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱę ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǼDzȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ Dzȱ ę ǰȱ £ ǰȱ ȱĚ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢Dzȱ ȱ ǻ ¢ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǼDzȱ ȱ ȱǻ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǯǼǯȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ DZȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱȃ ȱ ȱ Ȅȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȃ ȱ ǯȄȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŖŝȬŘŖŗŗȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ Median Gross Rent:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱǻ ¢ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ǽȱ ȱ ȱǻ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǯǼȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱǻ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ Ǽǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ DZȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŖŝȬŘŖŗŗȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ Births to Teens: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŗŞȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŗŗȬŗŝȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱŗǰŖŖŖǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ Voter Participation: ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱŘŖŗŘȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £ ȱŗŞȱ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ Ȃ ȱ Ĝ ȱ ȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱŘŖŖŝȬŘŖŗŗȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ǰȱ £ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ tion Charitable Giving:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¡ ¢ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱǞśŖǰŖŖŖȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ Ȭ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱǻ ȱ ¡ȱ Ǽǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ Chronicle of Philanthropyǰȱȃ ȱ ȱ ǰȄȱ ȱŗşǰȱŘŖŗŘ
61
Grade 3 Math and Literacy Scores: In the previous edition of Aspire Arkansas, we looked at Grade 4 math and literacy scores. In this edition, we’ve chosen to report Grade 3 scores, in light of recent research emphasizing third grade as a critical point in educational development and a predictor of future academic success. How We Calculated Degrees Attained: In its educational ŠĴŠ’—–Ž—Â?ČąÂ?ŠÂ?Šǰȹ ‘Žȹ ÇŻ ÇŻČą ÂŽÂ—ÂœÂžÂœČą ÂžÂ›ÂŽÂŠÂžČąÂ›ÂŽÂ™Â˜Â›Â?ÂœČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂ™ÂŽÂ›ÂŒÂŽÂ—Â?ŠÂ?ÂŽČąÂ˜Â?ČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂ™Â˜Â™ÂžÂ•ÂŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—ČąÂ Â‘Â˜ÂœÂŽČąČƒÂ‘Â’Â?‘ŽœÂ?ČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹŠĴŠ’—ŽÂ?Č„ČąÂ’ÂœČąÂŠČą high school diploma, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree or graduate/professional degree. For example, if a person’s education ended with graduating college, he/she will be included in the count for bachelor’s degrees, but not high ÂœÂŒÂ‘Â˜Â˜Â•ČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?Â›ÂŽÂŽÂœÇ°ČąÂ‹ÂŽÂŒÂŠÂžÂœÂŽČąÂ‘Â’ÂœČŚÂ‘ÂŽÂ›ČąÂ‘Â’Â?‘ŽœÂ?ČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹŠĴŠ’—ŽÂ?ČąÂ’ÂœČąÂŠČą bachelor’s degree. In the previous edition of Aspire Arkansas, we reported these ČƒÂ‘Â’Â?‘ŽœÂ?ČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹŠĴŠ’—ŽÂ?Č„ČąÂ—ÂžÂ–Â‹ÂŽÂ›ÂœČąÂ‹ÂžÂ?ČąÂ?˜ž—Â?ČąÂ?‘Ž–ȹÂ?Â˜ČąÂ‹ÂŽČą confusing for readers. For example, readers who glanced ÂšÂžÂ’ÂŒÂ”Â•Â˘ČąÂŠÂ?ČąÂ?‘Žȹ‘’Â?Â‘ČąÂœÂŒÂ‘Â˜Â˜Â•ČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹŠĴŠ’—–Ž—Â?ČąÂ—ÂžÂ–Â‹ÂŽÂ›ÂœČąÂ’Â—ÂŒÂ˜Â›rectly assumed that only 35 percent of Arkansans had ›ŽŒŽ’Â&#x;ÂŽÂ?ȹ‘’Â?Â‘ČąÂœÂŒÂ‘Â˜Â˜Â•ČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?Â›ÂŽÂŽÂœÇ°ČąÂ Â‘ÂŽÂ—ČąÂ’Â—ČąÂ?ŠŒÂ?Ç°ČąÂ?‘ŽȹęÂ?ÂžÂ›ÂŽÂœČąÂŠÂŒÂ?žŠ••¢ȹ meant that 35 percent of Arkansans had stopped at a high school degree – many more had earned the degree and gone Â˜Â—ČąÂ?Â˜ČąÂ‘Â’Â?‘Ž›ȹŽÂ?žŒŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—ÇŻČą žÂ?ČąÂ‹ÂŽÂŒÂŠÂžÂœÂŽČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽÂ’Â›ČąČƒÂ‘Â’Â?‘ŽœÂ?ČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹ ŠĴŠ’—ŽÂ?Č„ČąÂ ÂŠÂœČąÂ?›ŽŠÂ?Ž›ȹÂ?‘Š—ȹ‘’Â?Â‘ČąÂœÂŒÂ‘Â˜Â˜Â•Ç°ČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽÂœÂŽČą Â›Â”ÂŠÂ—ÂœÂŠÂ—ÂœČąÂ ÂŽÂ›ÂŽČą —˜Â?ČąÂ’Â—ÂŒÂ•ÂžÂ?ÂŽÂ?ȹ’—ȹÂ?‘Žȹ‘’Â?Â‘ČąÂœÂŒÂ‘Â˜Â˜Â•ČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹŠĴŠ’—–Ž—Â?ȹ–Š™ǯȹ Â‘Â’ÂœČąÂ˘ÂŽÂŠÂ›Ç°ČąÂ ÂŽČ‚Â&#x;Žȹ›ŽÂ&#x;Ž›œŽÂ?ČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂ ÂŠÂ˘ČąÂ ÂŽČąÂ›ÂŽÂ™Â˜Â›Â?ČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂ—ÂžÂ–Â‹ÂŽÂ›ÂœČą generally to remedy this problem. Instead of reporting highest Â?ÂŽÂ?Â›ÂŽÂŽÂœČąÂŠÄ´ÂŠÂ’Â—ÂŽÂ?ČąÂ˜Â—Â•Â˘Ç°ČąÂ ÂŽČ‚Â›ÂŽČąÂ›ÂŽÂ™Â˜Â›Â?’—Â?ČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂ—ÂžÂ–Â‹ÂŽÂ›ČąÂ˜Â?ČąÂ™ÂŽÂ˜Â™Â•ÂŽČą who have ever earned a given degree, even if they have also continued on to earn additional degrees. In the high school Â?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹŠĴŠ’—–Ž—Â?ȹ–Š™ǰȹ ŽȂÂ&#x;ÂŽČąÂ’Â—ÂŒÂ•ÂžÂ?ÂŽÂ?ȹŽÂ&#x;ÂŽÂ›Â˘Â˜Â—ÂŽČąÂ Â‘Â˜ÂœÂŽČą ‘’Â?‘ŽœÂ?ČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹŠĴŠ’—ŽÂ?ČąÂ’ÂœČąÂŠČąÂ‘Â’Â?Â‘ČąÂœÂŒÂ‘Â˜Â˜Â•ČąÂ?Â’Â™Â•Â˜Â–ÂŠÇ°ČąÂ™Â•ÂžÂœČąÂŽÂ&#x;Ž›¢one who received higher degrees. In the bachelor’s degree –Š™ǰȹ ŽȂÂ&#x;ÂŽČąÂ’Â—ÂŒÂ•ÂžÂ?ÂŽÂ?ȹŽÂ&#x;ÂŽÂ›Â˘Â˜Â—ÂŽČąÂ Â‘Â˜ÂœÂŽČąÂ‘Â’Â?‘ŽœÂ?ČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹŠĴŠ’—ŽÂ?Čą was a bachelor’s degree, plus those who earned a higher degree. Our underlying assumption in making these adjustments was that it’s almost always necessary to complete a high school degree and bachelor’s degree in order to earn a graduate or professional degree; therefore, we assumed that if someone had a professional degree, he/she also had a high school degree and bachelor’s degree. Â‘ÂŽČąÂ˜Â—Â•Â˘ČąÂŽÂĄÂŒÂŽÂ™Â?Â’Â˜Â—ČąÂ?Â˜ČąÂ?Â‘Â’ÂœČąÂ™Â›Â˜ÂŒÂŽÂ?ÂžÂ›ÂŽČąÂ’ÂœČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂŠÂœÂœÂ˜ÂŒÂ’ÂŠÂ?ÂŽČ‚ÂœČąÂ?ÂŽÂ?›ŽŽȹ ŠĴŠ’—–Ž—Â?ȹ–Š™ǯȹ Â’Â—ÂŒÂŽČąÂ’Â?ČąÂ’ÂœČąÂ—Â˜Â?ČąÂ—ÂŽÂŒÂŽÂœÂœÂŠÂ›Â˘ČąÂ?Â˜ČąÂŽÂŠÂ›Â—ČąÂŠÂ—ČąÂŠÂœÂœÂ˜ÂŒÂ’ÂŠÂ?ÂŽČ‚ÂœČą degree in order to proceed to higher levels of education, we Â?Â’Â?Čą ČąÂ’Â—ÂŒÂ•ÂžÂ?ÂŽČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂ—ÂžÂ–Â‹ÂŽÂ›ČąÂ˜Â?ČąÂ™ÂŽÂ˜Â™Â•ÂŽČąÂ Â’Â?Â‘ČąÂ‹ÂŠÂŒÂ‘ÂŽÂ•Â˜Â›Č‚ÂœČą degrees and graduate/professional degrees in the associate’s degree calculations. Infant Mortality: ‘Žȹ’—Â?Š—Â?ČąÂ–Â˜Â›Â?Š•’Â?¢ȹ›ŠÂ?ÂŽČąÂ’ÂœČąÂŒÂŠÂ•ÂŒÂžÂ•ÂŠÂ?ÂŽÂ?ČąÂŠÂœČąÂ?‘Žȹ number of infant deaths per 1,000 infants in the county. In counties with a smaller population of infants, even one or two 62
Â?ŽŠÂ?Â‘ÂœČąÂ’Â—ČąÂŠČąÂ?Â’Â&#x;ÂŽÂ—ČąÂ˘ÂŽÂŠÂ›ČąÂŒÂŠÂ—ČąÂŒÂ›ÂŽÂŠÂ?ÂŽČąÂŠČąÂœÂ’Â?—’ęŒŠ—Â?ČąÂ’Â—ÂŒÂ›ÂŽÂŠÂœÂŽČąÂ’Â—ČąÂ?‘Žȹ mortality rate for that year. Children in Single Parent Homes vs. Single FemaleHeaded Households: •Â?‘˜žÂ?‘ȹÂ?‘Žȹ’—Â?˜›–ŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—ČąÂ˜Â—Čą ’—Â?•Žȹ Ž–Š•Žȏ ŽŠÂ?ÂŽÂ?Čą ˜žœŽ‘˜•Â?ÂœČąÂŠÂ—Â?Čą ‘’•Â?›Ž—ȹ’—ȹ ’—Â?•Žȹ Š›Ž—Â?Čą Families is related, the two indicators are not interchangeable. ’—Â?•Žȹ Ž–Š•Žȏ ŽŠÂ?ÂŽÂ?Čą ˜žœŽ‘˜•Â?ÂœČąÂ?Â›ÂŠÂŒÂ”ÂœČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂ™ÂŽÂ›ÂŒÂŽÂ—Â?ČąÂ˜Â?Čą family households with a female head of house with no spouse present (that is, a measure of the number of house‘˜•Â?ÂœÇźÇŻČą ‘’•Â?›Ž—ȹ’—ȹ ’—Â?•Žȹ Š›Ž—Â?Čą ÂŠÂ–Â’Â•Â’ÂŽÂœČąÂ?Â›ÂŠÂŒÂ”ÂœČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂ™ÂŽÂ›ÂŒÂŽÂ—Â?ČąÂ˜Â?Čą children in households with a male or female head-ofhousehold and no spouse present (that is, a measure of the number of children). Senior Dependence Ratio: ‘Žȹ ÂŽÂ—Â’Â˜Â›Čą Ž™Ž—Â?ÂŽÂ—ÂŒÂŽČą ŠÂ?Â’Â˜Čą tracks the number of people age 65 and over (those who are more likely to be retired) relative to the number of people ages 15-64 (those who are more likely to be in the workforce). Median Household Income vs. Personal Per Capita Income: ÂŽÂ?’Š—ȹ ˜žœŽ‘˜•Â?Čą Â—ÂŒÂ˜Â–ÂŽČąÂŠÂ—Â?Čą ÂŽÂ›ÂœÂ˜Â—ÂŠÂ•Čą Ž›ȹ Š™’Â?Šȹ Income are related but not interchangeable. First, Median Household Income deals with households (and can include the earnings of multiple people in a single household), but ÂŽÂ›ÂœÂ˜Â—ÂŠÂ•Čą Ž›ȹ Š™’Â?Šȹ Â—ÂŒÂ˜Â–ÂŽČąÂ?ÂŽÂŠÂ•ÂœČąÂ Â’Â?‘ȹ’—Â?Â’Â&#x;Â’Â?ÂžÂŠÂ•ÂœÇŻČą ŽŒ˜—Â?Ç°Čą ÂŽÂ?’Š—ȹ ˜žœŽ‘˜•Â?Čą Â—ÂŒÂ˜Â–ÂŽČąÂ’ÂœČąÂŒÂŠÂ•ÂŒÂžÂ•ÂŠÂ?ÂŽÂ?ȹ‹¢ȹę—Â?’—Â?Čą the middle point among all household incomes earned in the area. For example, if the Median Household Income for a county is $30,000, that means half of households in the county earn less than $30,000, and half earn more. On the other hand, ÂŽÂ›ÂœÂ˜Â—ÂŠÂ•Čą Ž›ȹ Š™’Â?Šȹ Â—ÂŒÂ˜Â–ÂŽČąÂ’ÂœČąÂŒÂŠÂ•ÂŒÂžÂ•ÂŠÂ?ÂŽÂ?ȹ‹¢ȹÂ?Š”’—Â?ČąÂ?‘ŽȹÂ?˜Â?Š•ȹ amount of income received by individuals (before taxes) and dividing that number by the total population. Unemployment Rate vs. Employment to Population Ratio: ‘Žȹ Â—ÂŽÂ–Â™Â•Â˜Â˘Â–ÂŽÂ—Â?Čą ŠÂ?ŽȹŠ—Â?Čą Â–Â™Â•Â˜Â˘Â–ÂŽÂ—Â?ČąÂ?Â˜Čą ˜™ž•ŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—Čą ŠÂ?Â’Â˜ČąÂŠÂ›ÂŽČąÂ›ÂŽÂ•ÂŠÂ?ÂŽÂ?ȹ‹žÂ?ČąÂ—Â˜Â?ȹ’—Â?Ž›Œ‘Š—Â?ŽŠ‹•Žǯȹ Â—ÂŽÂ–Â™Â•Â˜Â˘Â–ÂŽÂ—Â?Čą ŠÂ?ÂŽČąÂ’ÂœČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂ™ÂŽÂ›ÂŒÂŽÂ—Â?ČąÂ˜Â?ČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂŒÂ’Â&#x;Â’Â•Â’ÂŠÂ—ČąÂ•ÂŠÂ‹Â˜Â›ČąÂ?Â˜Â›ÂŒÂŽČąÂ?‘ŠÂ?ČąÂ’ÂœČąČƒÂžÂ—ÂŽÂ–Â™Â•Â˜Â˘ÂŽÂ?ǰȄȹ–ŽŠ—’—Â?ČąÂ?‘ŠÂ?ČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽÂ˘ČąÂŠÂ›ÂŽČąÂ•Â˜Â˜Â”Â’Â—Â?ČąÂ?Â˜Â›ČąÂ Â˜Â›Â”ČąÂŠÂ—Â?ȹŠÂ&#x;Š’•Š‹•Žȹ Â?Â˜ČąÂ Â˜Â›Â”ÇŻČą ÂŽÂ˜Â™Â•ÂŽČąÂ Â‘Â˜ČąÂŠÂ›ÂŽČąÂžÂ—ÂŠÂ‹Â•ÂŽČąÂ?Â˜ČąÂ Â˜Â›Â”ČąÂ˜Â›ČąÂ‘ÂŠÂ&#x;ÂŽČąÂŒÂ‘Â˜ÂœÂŽÂ—ČąÂ—Â˜Â?ČąÂ?Â˜Čą work (for example, homemakers, people with disabilities or people who have retired early) are not considered unemployed, even though they do not currently have a job outside the home. ‘Žȹ Â–Â™Â•Â˜Â˘Â–ÂŽÂ—Â?ČąÂ?Â˜Čą ˜™ž•ŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—Čą ŠÂ?Â’Â˜ČąÂ’ÂœČąÂŠČąÂœÂ’Â–Â™Â•ÂŽČąÂ›ÂŠÂ?Â’Â˜ČąÂ˜Â?ČąÂ?‘Žȹ number of people employed out of the total number of potential workers in the area (people aged 15-64). Â‘ÂŽČąĹ˜Ĺ–Ĺ—Ĺ—ČąÂžÂ—ÂŽÂ–Â™Â•Â˜Â˘Â–ÂŽÂ—Â?ȹ›ŠÂ?ÂŽÂœČąÂ›ÂŽÄšÂŽÂŒÂ?ÂŽÂ?ČąÂ’Â—ČąÂ˜ÂžÂ›ČąÂŒÂ˜ÂžÂ—Â?¢ȏ‹¢county map and state ranking table vary by .1 percent (8.0 percent for the county-by-county map and 7.9 percent for the ÂœÂ?ŠÂ?Žȹ›Š—”’—Â?ǟǯȹ Â‘Â’ÂœČąÂ?Â’Ä›ÂŽÂ›ÂŽÂ—ÂŒÂŽČąÂ’ÂœČąÂ?žŽȹÂ?Â˜ČąÂŠÂ—ČąÂžÂ™Â?ŠÂ?Žȹ’—ȹÂ?‘Žȹ ÂžÂ›ÂŽÂŠÂžČąÂ˜Â?Čą ÂŠÂ‹Â˜Â›Čą Â?ŠÂ?Â’ÂœÂ?Â’ÂŒÂœČ‚ČąÂ?ŠÂ?ŠȹÂ?‘ŠÂ?ČąÂ˜ÂŒÂŒÂžÂ›Â›ÂŽÂ?ȹ’—ȹ ÂŠÂ›ÂŒÂ‘ČąĹ˜Ĺ–Ĺ—Ĺ™ÇŻČą Â›Â”ÂŠÂ—ÂœÂŠÂœČą ˜––ž—’Â?¢ȹ ˜ž—Â?ŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—ČąÂ›ÂŽÂ?›’ŽÂ&#x;ÂŽÂ?ČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂŒÂ˜ÂžÂ—Â?Â˘ČŹÂ‹Â˘ÂŒÂ˜ÂžÂ—Â?¢ȹęÂ?ÂžÂ›ÂŽÂœČąÂ?Â›Â˜Â–Čą ȹ‹ŽÂ?Â˜Â›ÂŽČąÂ?Â‘ÂŽČąÂŒÂ‘ÂŠÂ—Â?ÂŽČąÂ ÂŠÂœČąÂ–ÂŠÂ?ŽȹŠ—Â?ČąÂ?‘Žȹ state rankings after the change was made.
ŗǯȱ £ǰȱ ǯȱǻŘŖŗŘǼǯȱ ȱ ¢DZȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Ě ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǰȱ DZȱ ȱ ǯȱ ¢ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ DZȦȦ ǯ ǯ ȦDžȦ Ȧ Ȧ Ȧ Ȧ Ȧ ¢ ¢Ȧ ¢ ŖřŖŞŗŘ ǯ ȱ Řǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱǻŘŖŗřǼǯȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ Ĵ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ DZȦȦ ǯ ǯ Ȧ Ȧ ȏ ȏŖŖŗǯ ȱ řǯȱ ǰȱ ǯȱǭȱ ǰȱ ǯȱǻŘŖŗŘǼǯȱ ȱ ȱ DZȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ǰȱ DZȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ DZȦȦ şǯ ǯ Ȧ Ȧ Ȧ Ȧ Ȧ Ȧ ǯ ¡ ¢ǯŖŝřŗŗŘǯ Śǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱǻŘŖŗŘǼǯȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ DZȦȦ ǯ ǯ Ȧ Ȧ ƖŘŖ ƖŘŖ ƖŘŖŘŖŗŗƖŘŖŘŖŗŘƖŘŖ ǯ śǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ £ ě ȱ ǰȱ ¢ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǯȱǻŘŖŖşǼȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ DZȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ¢ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱŜǻŚǼDZȱ ŗŖŖŖŖśŞǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ DZȦȦ ǯ ǯ Ȧ Ȧ DZ ȦŗŖǯŗřŝŗȦ ǯ ǯŗŖŖŖŖśŞ Ŝǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱǻŘŖŖşǼǯȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ DZȦȦ ǯ ǯ ǯ Ȧ Ȧ Ȭ Ȧ Ȭ blood-pressure-overweight-preventable-causes-death-us/ ŝǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱǻŘŖŗŘǼǯȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ DZȦȦ ǯ ǯ Ȧ Ȧ Ȧ ¢ǯ Şǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ www.arhungeralliance.org/programs/no-kid-hungry şǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱǻŘŖŗŖǼǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱŝŘŘȱ ȱŘŖŖşǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ DZȦȦ ǯ ǯ Ȧ Ȧ Ȧ ¢Ȧ ¢Ȭ Ȭ Ȭ Ȭ Ȭ Řǯ ŗŖǯȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱǻŘŖŗŘǼǯȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ DZȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ DZȦȦ ¢ǯ Ȧ Ȧ ¢Ȭ Ȭ Ȭ ȦŗřřŝŖŝȦ
63
About Our Research Partner Founded in 1955 as the research and support arm of what is today, the Arkansas Economic Development Commission, the Institute for Economic Advancement (IEA) has expanded its reach to many public and private organizations in agencies in the enhancement of community economic development opportunities for the state of Arkansas. Throughout its existence, IEA has been a part ˜Â?ČąÂ?‘Žȹ —’Â&#x;Ž›œ’Â?Â˘ČąÂ˜Â?Čą Â›Â”ÂŠÂ—ÂœÂŠÂœČą Â˘ÂœÂ?Ž–ȹŠ—Â?ČąÂŠÂ•Â ÂŠÂ˘ÂœČąÂ•Â˜ÂŒÂŠÂ?ÂŽÂ?ȹ’—ȹ ’Ĵ•Žȹ Â˜ÂŒÂ”ÇŻ As Arkansas’s only university-based economic development outreach unit with a statewide mandate, ČąÂ‘Â˜ÂžÂœÂŽÂœČąÂ?‘Žȹ Â›Â”ÂŠÂ—ÂœÂŠÂœČą ÂŽÂ—ÂœÂžÂœČą Â?ŠÂ?ÂŽČą ŠÂ?Šȹ Ž—Â?Ž›ǰȹÂ?‘Žȹ Čą Ž˜Â?Â›ÂŠÂ™Â‘Â’ÂŒČą —Â?˜›–ŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—Čą Â˘ÂœÂ?ÂŽÂ–ÂœČą Laboratory, the Center for Economic Development Education, and the state’s Labor Education ›˜Â?›Š–ǯȹ ‘Žȹ Ž–˜Â?Â›ÂŠÂ™Â‘Â’ÂŒČą ÂŽÂœÂŽÂŠÂ›ÂŒÂ‘ČąÂžÂ—Â’Â?ČąÂ›ÂŽÂ™Â›ÂŽÂœÂŽÂ—Â?ÂœČą Â›Â”ÂŠÂ—ÂœÂŠÂœČąÂ’Â—ČąÂ?‘Žȹ ÂŽÂ?Ž›Š•ȏ Â?ŠÂ?ÂŽČą ˜˜™Ž›ŠÂ?Â’Â&#x;ÂŽČą ›˜Â?Â›ÂŠÂ–ÂœČąÂ?Â˜Â›Čą ˜™ž•ŠÂ?Â’Â˜Â—Čą ÂœÂ?’–ŠÂ?ÂŽÂœČąÂŠÂ—Â?Čą ›˜“ŽŒÂ?Â’Â˜Â—ÂœÇ°ČąÂŠÂ—Â˜Â?Â‘ÂŽÂ›ČąÂ˜ÄœÂŒÂ’ÂŠÂ•ČąÂ™ÂŠÂ›Â?Â—ÂŽÂ›ÂœÂ‘Â’Â™ČąÂ Â’Â?‘ȹÂ?‘Žȹ ÇŻČą ÇŻČą ž›ŽŠžȹ of the Census. IEA also serves as the U. S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration University Center for Arkansas, and when applicable, the southwest federal region. Aspire ArkansasČąÂ’ÂœČąÂŠČąÂ™Â›Â’Â–ÂŽČąÂŽÂĄÂŠÂ–Â™Â•ÂŽČąÂ˜Â?ČąÂ?‘ŽȹšžŠ•’Â?Â˘ČąÂ›ÂŽÂœÂŽÂŠÂ›ÂŒÂ‘ČąÂ?‘ŠÂ?ČąÂ?‘Žȹ ČąÂœÂ?ÂŠÄ›ČąÂ™Â›Â˜Â&#x;Â’Â?ÂŽÂœČąÂ?Â˜Â›ČąÂ?‘Žȹ advancement of Arkansas. Our vision is that the indicators and demographic measures in this report will be helpful in the decision process to create positive change in our state. Progressive communities provide fertile ground for economic development.
Ĺ˜ĹžĹ–Ĺ—Čą ˜žÂ?‘ȹ —’Â&#x;Ž›œ’Â?¢ȹ Â&#x;Ž—žŽȹȊȹ ’Ĵ•Žȹ Â˜ÂŒÂ”Ç°Čą ȹȹĹ?Ĺ˜Ĺ˜Ĺ–ĹšČŹĹ—Ĺ–Ĺ&#x;Ĺ&#x; Ĺ›Ĺ–Ĺ—ČŹĹ›ĹœĹ&#x;ȏŞśŗĹ&#x;ȹȊȹ   ǯ’ŽŠǯžŠ•›ǯŽÂ?ž
64
Keep Reaching, Arkansas! Arkansas Community Foundation’s four Aspirations for Arkansas Communities are goals for the future of our state. In partnership with the Institute for Economic Advancement at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, we have compiled county-by-county data from a variety of state agencies and other sources to provide a snapshot of where our communities stand. How healthy are we? How civically active are we? How strong are our educational institutions? Founded in 1976, we are Arkansas’s only statewide community foundation. We work locally through a network of 27 community-based affiliate offices to gain an in-depth understanding of our state’s towns and cities and a statewide perspective on Arkansas’s challenges and opportunities. The Community Foundation engages people, connects resources and inspires solutions to build community. We make grants to improve the quality of life in our state and partner with individuals, families and organizations to strengthen Arkansas through philanthropy. Our Vision: Arkansans will use this report to identify and address the challenges in their communities and to celebrate and replicate the successes revealed in the data. Our Commitment: We will use these findings to guide our grants and programs as we partner with you to build a better Arkansas. Aspire Arkansas is simply a starting point. Let’s keep reaching forward! For more information: To find comprehensive fact sheets for each of Arkansas’s 75 counties, visit www.arcf.org/aspirearkansas. Historical data from previous years are also available online.
community foundation S m a r t Givi ng t o I m pr ove C om m uni t i e s
1400 W. Markham, Suite 206 • Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-1116 • arcf@arcf.org • www.arcf.org
1400 W. Markham, Suite 206 • Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-1116 • arcf@arcf.org • www.arcf.org