11
Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region Sierra Water Workgroup Summit Defining DACs Panel June 13, 2013

Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

  • Upload
    gerd

  • View
    30

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region. Sierra Water Workgroup Summit Defining DACs Panel June 13, 2013. Defining the Problem. 2000 Decennial Census 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Data. Defining the Problem. Mismatch between data and reality - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

Sierra Water Workgroup SummitDefining DACs PanelJune 13, 2013

Page 2: Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

Defining the Problem 2000 Decennial Census 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Data

Page 3: Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

Defining the Problem Mismatch between data and reality

Not all communities represented in the data Such as Native American Indian tribes

Inconsistency in data available (Census vs. ACS) Communities with similar characteristics differ in DAC status Census geographies differ from functional boundaries, such as

service areas DWR identified some communities as DACs that have no ACS

data and are clearly not DACs Missing data necessitate costly income surveys

More to disadvantage than income

Page 4: Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

Alternative Definitions Process:

Quantitative Data Qualitative Observations Test in 10 regional communities – known DACs and non-DACs Develop recommendations based on outcome of pilot tests

Page 5: Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

County Community2006-2010 ACS Pop

2010 DAC = $48,706

DWR recognized 2012?

2006-2010 ACS MHI

Unemployment rate (April 2013)

# Households receiving food stamps; 2011 ACS 5-year; 0% reflects no data

% of households w/ income below poverty level; 0% reflects no data

Mean travel time to work (min)

Cash Public Assistance Income - %

Educational Attainment: 25 and older, percent high school graduate or higher

California Statewide $ 48,706 9.0% 6.2% 10.8% 27 3.6% 80.8%Inyo AberdeenInyo Alabama HillsInyo Big Pine CDP 1682 57,109$ 8.1% 3.6% 5.3% 19.3 1.7% 90.4%Inyo Big Pine Paiute Tribe 262 y 43,214$ 9.4% 18.0% 20.2 3.9% 93.2%Inyo Bishop 3826 y 37,005$ 6.7% 3.9% 13.0% 14.3 2.7% 83.7%Inyo Bishop Paiute Tribe 1828 y 46,384$ 18.0% 18.2% 18.8 6.7% 86.3%Inyo Cartago CDP 54 66,250$ 20.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 92.4%Inyo Coso JunctionInyo Darwin CDP 30 y y 30,893$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 70.0%Inyo Death Valley JunctionInyo Deep Springs

InyoDixon Lane-Meadow Creek CDP 2660 y y 48,542$ 3.2% 4.6% 7.2% 13.2 4.5% 81.6%

Inyo Dolomite

InyoFort Independence Tribe 81 y 30,417$ 4.9% 7.3% 0 0.0% 84.1%

Inyo Furnace Creek CDP 64 y y 27,813$ 30.4% 7.0% 10.5% 4 0.0% 94.4%

InyoHomewood Canyon CDP 109 y y 14,706$ 0.0% 58.1% 41.9% 0 58.1% 83.5%

Inyo Independence CDP 551 y y 47,883$ 8.5% 4.7% 10.1% 14.1 1.1% 91.4%Inyo Keeler CDP 27 y y 44,500$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 94.3%Inyo LawsInyo Little LakeInyo Lone Pine CDP 2309 y y 40,176$ 10.2% 9.7% 13.1% 14.7 3.8% 87.5%

InyoLone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Reservation 148 y 37,188$ 26.0% 11.7% 21.4 0.0% 75.5%

Inyo Mesa CDP 368 55,909$ 8.5% 0.6% 9.6% 20.6 60.0% 92.1%Inyo Olancha CDP 203 73,333$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 74.4%Inyo Panamint SpringsInyo Pearsonville CDP 5 y y -$ 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0%Inyo Round Valley CDP 292 51,429$ 17.8% 2.5% 3.8% 31.9 6.9% 89.3%Inyo RovanaInyo Shoshone CDP 33 y y 28,750$ 24.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 81.8%Inyo Stovepipe WellsInyo SwanseaInyo Tecopa CDP 101 y y 21,806$ 30.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 74.5%

InyoTimbisha-Shoshone Reservation 32 y 23,063$ 28.6% 42.9% 0 0.0% 73.7%

Inyo Valley Wells CDP 0 y y -$ 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0%Inyo West Bishop CDP 2724 65,333$ 4.6% 1.6% 7.1% 13.2 0.0% 98.8%Inyo Wilkerson CDP 563 y y 44,356$ 4.3% 0.0% 6.3% 26.2 0.0% 99.5%Inyo 18434 44,808$ 7.5% 5.2% 10.2% 15.7 2.7% 88.8%

Page 6: Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

Problems with Quantitative Data Still based on census geographies (for ACS data) Inconsistencies in data coverage throughout State

Page 7: Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

Qualitative Observations Subjective metrics based on qualitative observations of

community Possible pitfall: different interpretations by different

observers

Page 8: Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region
Page 9: Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

Putting it all together Use 10 communities (known DACs and non-DACs) as case

studies Develop recommendations based on results If applicable, propose changes to State definition

Page 10: Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

Questions to ponder1. Are we shooting for one number, such as an index? 2. What should be considered disadvantaged – i.e., how far

away from the California average for any indicator?3. How do we combine qualitative and quantitative

information?4. How can we keep the definition simple and not create a

burden for DACs to identify themselves?5. Is it realistic to aim to change the Statewide definition, or is

this undertaking moot?