EVERY KID
COUNTS
in the District of Columbia
11 t h An n u a l Fa c t B o o k 2 0 0 4
The D.C. KIDS COUNT Collaborative for Children and Families is a unique alliance of public and
private organizations using research to support advocacy for change in human, social, and economic policies
and practices of government, the private sector, individuals, families, neighborhoods, and communities.
Its mission is to advocate for the interests and wellbeing of children and families and to ensure their healthy
development and future in the District of Columbia. An organizing goal of the Collaborative is to build a
strong and serious child and family support movement in the Nation’s Capital.
Since the formation in 1990 of the Collaborative’s predecessor organization, the Coalition for Children and
Families, over 80 individuals and organizations representing a broad and diverse group of advocates, service
providers, government policy makers, universities, fraternal and volunteer organizations, and local citizens
have been a part of the group.
The Collaborative supports a comprehensive approach to community building, but focuses its research
and advocacy efforts on economic security, family attachment and community support, health, safety and
personal security, and education.
D.C. KIDS COUNT Collaborative consists of:
D.C. Children’s Trust Fund
Overall fiscal and management responsibility
Data collection, analysis and evaluation
Production of publications
Partner Agencies*
Child and Family Services Agency
Children’s National Medical Center
Council of Latino Agencies
D.C. Action for Children
D.C. Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
D.C. Mayor’s Office of Asian & Pacific Islander Affairs
D.C. Public Charter School Association
D.C. Public Library
D.C. VOICE
Prevent Child Abuse of Metropolitan Washington
The Urban Institute, D.C. Data Warehouse
Turning The Page
For more information about our partner agencies, please visit www.dckidscount.org.
*The views and opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the official position
of the partner agencies, their boards, or their funders.
The D.C. KIDS COUNT initiative and this publication have been made possible with the support of the
Annie E. Casey Foundation. Support was also provided by Community Based Child Abuse Prevention
funds, which are awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect.
Copyright © 2004. D.C. KIDS COUNT Collaborative for Children and Families
Any or all portions of this report may be reproduced without prior permission, provided that the source is
cited as: Every KID COUNTS in the District of Columbia: Eleventh Annual Fact Book, 2004,
D.C. KIDS COUNT Collaborative for Children and Families.
The data and analysis in this Fact Book were prepared by Jennifer Comey, Jessica Cigna,
and Peter Tatian of the Urban Institute's DC Data Warehouse.
For more information, see: www.dcdatawarehouse.org or www.urban.org.
We appreciate your comments!
Every KID COUNTS in the District of Columbia:
11th Annual Fact Book 2004 Survey
Please help us provide a high quality Fact Book that meets your needs for information on the status of
children in the District of Columbia. Complete the following User Survey and
mail or fax it back to us at: D.C. CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND,
1616 P Street, NW, Suite 150, Washington, DC 20036; 202-667-2477 (fax), 202-667-4940 (phone).
1. Which of the following best describes your line of work?
o Education
o Research
o Private Business
o Elected Official
o Non-Profit Organization
o Government Agency
o Media
o Other
.
o Health Care
2. Which of the following best describes your job duties?
o Administrator
o Service Provider
o Marketing/Public Relations
o Elected Official
o Researcher/Analyst
o Reporter
o Educator/Trainer
o Other
.
3. How are you planning to use the 2004 Fact Book?
(check all that apply)
o Research
o Program Development
o Advocacy
o Policy/Planning Development
o Grant Writing
o Articles/Public Education
o Needs Assessment/Resource Allocation
o General Information
o Other
4. How often do you plan to use the 2004 Fact Book?
o Daily
o Occasionally
o Weekly
o Once
o Monthly
5. Please rate the usefulness of the following aspects of the
2004 Fact Book on a scale from 1 to 5.
(1=Excellent, 2=Very Good, 3=Good, 4=Fair, 5=Poor)
Format of the 2004 Fact Book
1
2
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
Selected Indicators
1
2
Ward Charts
1
2
Neighborhood Charts/Maps
1
2
3
4
5
Data Definitions and Sources
1
2
3
4
5
6. What topics or information would you like to see
included in future Fact Books?
(Please be as specific as possible.)
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your valuable feedback!
EVERY KID COUNTS
in the District of Columbia
1 1 t h A N N UA L FAC T B O O K 2 0 0 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
11th Annual Fact Book 2004 Survey
previous page
Letter from the D.C. Children’s Trust Fund
3
Letter from the Mayor of the District of Columbia
4
Purpose of the Fact Book
5
I.
6
8
Introduction
Overview - D.C. Report Card
II.
Recommendations & Strategies
Tracking the Progress of the D.C. KIDS COUNT Recommendations:
A Starting Point
2004 Recommendations and Strategies
III. Major Trends & Changes Since Last Year’s Report
IV.
13
Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being in the District of Columbia
A. The District’s Population and Economy
B. Economic Security
C. Family Attachment and Community Support
D. Homeless Children and Families
E. Child Health
F. Safety and Personal Security
G. Education
V.
9
11
Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being by Ward
17
20
22
26
27
31
36
43
VI. Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being by Neighborhood Cluster
47
VII. A Few Words About the Data
54
VIII. Acknowledgements
59
IX. 2004 Literacy Through Photography: Poetry and Photos
60
1
Table of Contents cont’d
LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES
The District’s Population and Economy
Fig 1:
Map 1:
Fig 2:
Fig 3:
Fig 4:
Fig 5:
Fig 6:
Fig 7:
Fig 8:
Fig 9:
Fig 10:
Fig 11:
Fig 12:
Fig 13:
Fig 14:
Fig 15:
Table 1:
Table 2:
Fig 16:
Fig 17:
Fig 18:
Fig 19:
Table 3:
Fig 20:
Fig 21:
Fig 22:
Fig 23:
Fig 24:
Fig 25:
Fig 26:
Fig 27:
Fig 28:
Fig 29:
Fig 30:
Fig 31:
Fig 32:
Fig 33a:
Fig 33b:
Fig 34:
Fig 35:
Fig 36:
Fig 37:
Fig 38:
Fig 39:
Fig 40:
Population in DC 1900-2003
Share of Children Under 18 by Ward, Washington, DC 2000
Births to D.C. Residents, 1990-2002
Number of Jobs (Annual Averages), 1991-2001and June 2002, 2003, 2004
Number of Jobs in Government and Private Sector in DC, 1993-2001 (Annual Averages) and June 2002 and 2003
Number of Employed Residents in DC, 2000-2003
Unemployment Rate for DC, 1992-2003
Poverty Rate for all DC Residents, 2001-2004
Number of Children Receiving TANF Assistance in DC, 1991-2004
Number of Children Receiving Medicaid in DC, January 2000-January 2004
Percent of Children Under Age 18 by Family Type, 2004
Poverty Rate by Family Type in DC, 2004
Percent of Births to Single Mothers in DC., 1988-2002
Percent of Births to Mothers Under 20 in DC, 1990-2002
Cases Filed for Paternity in DC, 1990-2002
Cases Filed for Child Support in DC,1990-2003
Subsidized Child Care Programs in DC, 2000-2004
Snapshot of the Number of Homeless in DC, January 2001-January 2004
Homeless Families Applying for Shelter at Central Intake in DC, 1997-2003
Percent of Pregnant Women Receiving Adequate Prenatal Care in DC, 1993-2002
Percent of Low Birthweight Infants in DC, 1990-2002
Infant Mortality Rate Under One-Year Old in DC, 1990-2002
Vaccination Coverage-3 or More Shots for Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, DC and the United States, 1999-2003
Cases of Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis Diagnosed in People Under Age 20 in DC, 1998-2003
AIDS Cases Diagnosed by Year Among Children 12 Years Old and Younger, 1988-2003
AIDS Cases Diagnosed Among Children 13-19 Years Old in DC, 1990-2003
Number of Child and Teen Deaths by Age Group in DC, 1998-2003
Violent Deaths to Teens Aged 15-to-19 Years Old (Accident, Suicides and Murders), 1989-2002
Cases Filed for Child Abuse in DC, 1990-2003
Cases Filed for Child Neglect in DC, 1990-2003
Disposition of Civil Orders of Protection Against Domestic Violence, DC Superior Court, 2003
Total Number of Juvenile Cases Referred to DC Superior Court, 1990-2003
Number of Juvenile Cases Referred to DC Superior Court for Acts Against Public Order, 1990-2003
Number of Juvenile Cases Referred to DC Superior Court for Acts Against Property, 1990-2003
Number of Juvenile Cases Referred to DC Superior Court for Offenses Against Persons, 1990-2003
Change in Proportion of Charges Against Juveniles in DC, 1994, 2002 and 2003
Racial/Ethnic Composition of DCPS Student Body, 1990-1991
Racial/Ethnic Composition of DCPS Student Body, 2003-2004
Enrollment for DCPS and DC Public Charter Schools Combined, 1990-2003
Stanford 9 Achievement Test Scores for Reading: DCPS Students, 2000-2004
Stanford 9 Achievement Test Scores for Math: DCPS Students, 2000-2004
Percent Scoring Proficient or Advanced for Stanford 9 Test in Reading and Math: DCPS Students, 2004
Comparison of National Assessment of Educational Progress Scores for DC and Other Urban Cities: Grade 4
Comparison of National Assessment of Educational Progress Scores for DC and Other Urban Cities: Grade 8
SAT Verbal and Math Scores DC vs Nation, 2003 and 2004
2
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
27
27
28
29
29
29
30
30
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
37
37
38
39
40
40
41
41
42
3
4
PURPOSE OF THE FACT BOOK
T
his fact book is the eleventh
annual report produced by the
D.C. KIDS COUNT
Collaborative on the lives of children
and their families in the District. The
purpose of the Fact Book is to provide
data annually about the well being of
children in the District of Columbia
and to place statistics within a meaningful context. Ten of the indicators
reported herein were selected by the
Annie E. Casey Foundation and
the Center for the Study of Social
Policy to mirror those reported in the
National KIDS COUNT Data book
that the Casey Foundation produces
annually. D.C. KIDS COUNT
Collaborative has continued to expand
the original list to include additional
indicators that are relevant to the
District of Columbia. We encourage
suggestions for additions from our
readers, which we will try to fill if the
needed data are available.
This publication provides a broad perspective of the status of children and
youth in the District. We seek to
inform and educate our readers about
the issues affecting children and their
families in the District. We encourage community residents, policy makers, professionals, and others who
work with and/or on behalf of children and families to create conditions
that foster the optimal health and
development of our children.
As usual, we stress the importance of
family and community in the lives of
our children. We at D.C. KIDS
COUNT believe that an approach
based on systems theory is needed to
effect real change in the District.
Accordingly, children, families, communities, and government institutions
are viewed as an interconnected
whole. Thus, when family support
systems are dysfunctional in one area,
5
the entire system may be impacted.
In devising solutions to the problems
facing children in the District, the
interactions and relationships among
and between the components of the
system must be understood and the
systemic impact of any changes considered.
We urge community leaders to use
this report, in conjunction with
previous reports, for formulating
strategic plans and enacting policies
that support children and families in
the District. We hope that the Fact
Book will serve as a catalyst for service
providers, business leaders, local government, funders, and community
members to continue efforts to collectively address the issues presented
in this report so that, ultimately,
all families in this great city can
function optimally.
I.
INTRODUCTION
T
his is the 11th edition of the
KIDS COUNT Annual Fact
Book for the District of
Columbia. The Fact Book brings
together a variety of indicators describing the well being of the District’s
children and their families. We update
existing indicators each year and add
new indicators as they become available. For instance, this year’s Fact
Book includes two new education
indicators that compare the performance of the District’s public school
children to public school children in
other cities.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation provides funding to all 50 states, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and the District of
Columbia to produce annual, statelevel KIDS COUNT reports. In addition, the Foundation publishes a
national-level report every year
describing the well-being of children
across the United States.
This Fact Book begins with a Report
Card, which provides an easy-to-read
summary of how the District compares to last year on selected indicators
of child well-being. The Report Card
shows whether each indicator has
changed for the better, become worse,
or remained the same compared to the
previous year. In this year’s Report
Card, 13 out of 37 indicators of child
well-being changed for the better, 19
out of 37 indicators changed for the
worse, and the remaining five did not
change at all. More indicators changed
for the worse this year than last year,
19 indicators versus 12 indicators,
respectively. While this may mean bad
news for the District’s children and
their families, in some cases worsening
indicators may have a different interpretation. For example, an increase in
the number of paternity cases filed
may mean that more mothers are
asserting their rights and filing claims
through the courts.
Following the Report Card is the
Recommendations and Strategies section, developed by the D.C. KIDS
COUNT Collaborative based on data
in the Fact Book. The recommendations are summarized in another easyto-read table and the supporting text
describes what the collaborative would
like to see accomplished in support of
District’s children and their families in
the coming years.
The next section, Major Trends and
Changes, is the executive summary of
the Fact Book. It provides a quick
overview of the main body of the
report.
Section IV, Selected Indicators of
Child Well-Being in the District of
Columbia, contains the majority of
information on the welfare of children
in the District. This section presents
and discusses over 30 data indicators,
mainly for the District as a whole,
along with figures and tables showing
trends over the past 10 years. The
indicators are organized into seven
sub-sections: the District’s Population
and Economy, Economic Security,
Family Attachment and Community
Support, Homeless Children and
Families, Child Health, Safety and
Personal Security, and Education.
While Section IV discusses the wellbeing of children across the city (that
is, on average), Section V compares
several of the data indictors, such as
child health, mortality, and child welfare, for children across the eight
District wards and in different racial
and ethnic groups.
Jerrod Worthington - My Friend’s Writing
6
The following section, Section VI,
presents four maps showing the geographic concentrations of infant
mortality, low-weight births, deaths
for 1- to 19-year olds, and births to
teenage mothers in the city’s 39 neighborhood clusters. Accompanying
the maps are data tables with the
values of the four indicators in each
neighborhood cluster.
Throughout the Fact Book, we describe
the sources of our data as well as
define what the indicators mean. In
compiling the indicators, we obtained
data from a variety of reliable District
and federal sources and endeavored to
use the most recent data available.
Data for the 2004 KIDS COUNT
Fact Book was compiled from:
the D.C. Department of Health,
State Center for Health Statistics
Administration; the D.C. Administration for HIV/AIDS; the D.C.
Bureau of STD Control; the D.C.
Income Maintenance Administration;
the District of Columbia Courts; the
D.C. Office of Early Childhood
Development; the Community
Partnership for Prevention of
Homelessness; the U. S. Bureau of the
Census; and the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention,
among others. Some of the data we
present are complicated and require a
more thorough explanation than is
provided in the main text. In these
cases, the reader is referred to Section
VII, where we define and describe the
limitations of the more complicated
data sources.
Malik Grimes - One Way Street
Finally, we should note that the figures
reported in this Fact Book may not
always match those shown for the
District of Columbia in the national
KIDS COUNT Data Book published
by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
This is because the data sources for
similar indicators may differ across the
two reports, particularly where we rely
on data from District of Columbia
agencies and the national book uses
data supplied by federal sources. These
two sources sometimes use different
methods for collecting and compiling
the data. Neither source is necessarily
better than the other.
7
The District of Columbia’s “Report Card” for 2004
Changes Since Last Year's Report on Indices of Children's Well-Being
T
he District’s
Report Card,
inaugurated in
2000, is meant only to
provide a quick snapshot
of the changes shown by
this year’s indicators,
rather than a complete
summary of the situation.
Before reaching any conclusions based upon it,
the reader is advised to
consult the full text.
The Report Card not only
shows whether each of the
indicator has changed for
the better, for worse, or
has remained the same,
but also the most recent
year for which we have
data on that indicator.
Included is a column that
shows the direction of the
change in the indicator,
whether it has increased,
decreased, or stayed the
same.
On some indicators, like
immunization rates, an
increase will generally be a
change for the better. In
other cases, such as
increases in juvenile property crimes, it will be a
change for the worse. On
a few indicators, such as
children receiving TANF
or cases filed for paternity,
an increase will usually
indicate a worsening situation, with more children
and their families slipping
into poverty. But under
some circumstances, it
might mean that these
children and families are
getting the help needed to
provide for food and
health care.
Indicator (Year of Latest Data in Parentheses)
Increased (+),
Decreased (-),
or Same (=)
The District's Population and Economy
Population (2003)**
Child Population (2003)
Poverty Rate (2003)**
Employed Residents(2003)**
Unemployment Rate (2003)**
Children Receiving TANF (2004)
+
+
+
Family Attachment and Community Support
Percent of Births to Single Mothers (2002)**
Percent of Births to Teenage Mothers (2002)**
Cases Filed for Paternity (2003)
Cases Filed for Child Support (2003)
Children Served by Subsidized Child Care (2004)
+
+
-
Homeless Children and Families (2004)
+
Child Health
Percent of Mothers with Adequate Prenatal Care (2002)
Infant Mortality Rate (2002)**
Percent of Low Birthweight Infants (2002)
New AIDS Cases Diagnosed in Children and Teens (2003):
Ages 0-12
Ages 13-19
Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Persons Under 20 (2003):
Chlamydia
Gonorrhea
Syphilis
Immunization Rates (2003)
Safety and Personal Security
Deaths to Children and Teens (2002)
Violent Deaths to Teens (2002)
Teens Murdered (2002)
Cases Brought Against Parents in Superior Court (2003):
For Child Abuse
For Child Neglect
Juvenile Cases Referred to Superior Court (2003):
For All Causes
For Alleged Acts Against Public Order
For Alleged Offenses Against Persons
For Alleged Property Crimes
Education
Combined Math/Verbal Scores on SAT (2004)
Stanford 9 Tests in Reading (2004)
First Grade**
Sixth Grade
Eleventh Grade**
Stanford 9 Tests in Mathematics (2004)
First Grade
Sixth Grade**
Eleventh Grade
+
+
-
Changed
for the
Better
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
+
+
X
+
-
`
X
+
+
+
X
X
X
X
X
X
+
=
+
X
X
X
X
X
** Changed by only one person or one case, or by no more than one point or one percent
8
X
X
+
=
+
=
No
Change
X
X
X
X
X
X
=
+
+
+
+
Changed
for the
Worse
X
Tracking the Progress of
the D.C. KIDS COUNT
Recommendations and Strategies
(from “Every Kid Counts in the District of Columbia: A Starting Point”)
E
ach year, the KIDS COUNT Collaborative develops a set of recommendations and strategies that are developed based on review of the research completed by our partner agencies. It is our belief that concerted efforts by the
community can make these recommendations a reality. We will attempt to track
the progress of the recommendations and strategies put forth on a bi-yearly basis.
We welcome the community input in tracking these recommendations in hopes
that the recommendations put forth will become a reality.
However, the harsh reality is that the problems and challenges presented in this
report have been generations in the making and there are no easy answers or quick
fixes. Thoughtful, strategic choices, tough decisions and smart work sustained over
time by the larger community are required to change these conditions. Thus, the
information in this report demands close scrutiny by the whole community, and
then the participation of the whole community in the development of a comprehensive community vision and a coherent, community-based strategy and plan of
action. Such a plan must address the specific conditions identified in this report. It
must contain specific recommendations for collaborative action by government,
businesses, corporations, foundations, churches, service providers, community
organizations, and individuals-each and every citizen. The plan must also include
provision for follow up on its recommendations over the next several years.
In the spirit of cooperation and urgency, the KIDS COUNT Collaborative offers
a set of core principles to guide the discussions and the development of a community-based vision and strategy over the next several months. They are:
FIRST, the strategy must be guided by the active participation of the people it
is intended to target, for they must share in determining the most appropriate
responses.
SECOND, it must focus on building external assets around children including
interlocking systems of family and community support, control and structure, and
internal assets (commitments, values and competencies) that foster positive child
and youth development. Children must be insulated from negative influences that
jeopardize healthy development. Positive social behaviors, including service to others, must be encouraged and rewarded.
THIRD, the strategy must be centered on building strong and healthy families,
neighborhoods and communities if it is to move people toward greater independence and self-reliance. Many programs today target individuals with an array of categorical benefits that do not meet the needs of families or communities.
9
FOURTH, it must be geared to providing people with adequate incomes and jobs that pay
enough to allow them to support a family and contribute fully to their community.
FIFTH, it must respond to all aspects of human, social and economic development – not
just one aspect. This implies removing the barriers and access to employment, training, education, health care and other paths of opportunity – and creating entry points for that access.
SIXTH, the strategy must flow from and be adapted to local neighborhood conditions,
experiences and challenges.
SEVENTH, it must engage all sectors – public, private, and non-profits – in a collaborative effort. Drawing all interests together is essential for planning and carrying out effective
investments. It also requires developing mechanisms for building neighborhood capacities for
problem solving and change.
EIGHTH, it must be proactive and positive, recognizing and respecting ethnic and cultural
diversity and building upon the strengths and assets of the District’s children, their families,
institutions and the community.
NINTH, the strategy must draw upon the vast resources and cooperation of the suburban
jurisdictions. Forces affecting the human, social and economic needs of the city’s children,
their families and their communities extend beyond the District’s line. Common ground on
these issues must be identified, promoted and implemented for long-lasting and equitable
solutions.
We invite the community to become a part of the process. We encourage you to begin discussing the facts and findings in this report in your homes, places of work, neighborhood centers, places of business, among journalists and in city hall to share views and perspectives on
both the challenges and the opportunities for change. We ask you to focus on how the specific problems identified in this report should be addressed and on your role in implementing the recommended solutions.
10
II.
The 11th Annual Every KID COUNTS in the District of Columbia Fact Book
2004 RECOMMENDATIONS & STRATEGIES
T
he 2004 recommendations and
strategies were developed based
on review of attainment of the
2003 recommendations and research
completed by the D.C. KIDS
COUNT Collaborative partner
agencies. We strongly believe that
concerted efforts on behalf of all
segments of the community can make
these recommendations a reality for
the betterment of the lives of the
District’s children and families.
I. Family Attachment and
Community Support
A. More supportive services for
communities and families,
especially for single heads of
household and families with
children who have special needs,
are needed:
u
The Collaborative continues to
recommend that the following two
strategies be incorporated in all
services offered:
u
u
Continue to expand outreach
strategies (i.e. provide information
at beauty parlors, barber shops,
liquor stores, night clubs, faith
based organizations, etc.) which
are linguistically accessible to
engage more community members in programs;
All services provided should be
culturally competent and linguistically accessible.
u
u
u
u
u
John Sweeney - Kindergarten
Given the high levels of concentrated poverty in the District, target and provide those areas most
in need, with increased resources
for economic security, educational
advancement, job seeking and
placement services, and literacy;
Provide respite care for the general
population. Single heads of
household, parents of children
with special needs, and parents
who are admitted into the hospital or other short-term treatment
facilities are particularly in need of
these services;
Continue to provide subsidized
child care for families who have
left TANF for up to 24 months;
Provide culturally competent universal life skills education for all
youth, especially targeting children of single heads of household,
youth with special needs, and children in foster care;
Continue to increase the number
of parent mutual support groups
so that they are available in every
neighborhood;
Continue to provide more programs to encourage and facilitate
the involvement of fathers, particularly targeting fathers who are
11
scheduled for release from prison;
and, increase support services for
those fathers who are already
involved with their children;
u
Develop public policies, protocols,
and services for “disconnected”
youth.
II. Homeless Children
and Families
A. The District should begin to
move away from reliance on
emergency shelters and place
more emphasis on the promotion of obtaining and
maintaining affordable housing:
u
u
u
u
u
Reduce the number of chronically
homeless people in shelters by
housing them, allowing the
District to maintain a smaller
emergency shelter system that
can adequately serve people and
families with a short crisis of
homelessness;
Targeted investment and
development in low-income
communities;
Increase the number of affordable
housing units for low and middle
income families;
Establish “second chance” homes
for teen parents on the brink of
homelessness;
Provide affordable housing with
necessary case management and
clinical support services for heads
of households who are aged, persons struggling with addictions,
HIV/AIDS and mental illness.
III. Child Health
u
u
u
u
u
Continue to provide targeted prenatal care for vulnerable mothers,
including women who abuse substances, teens, women with
HIV/AIDS, and single mothers;
Ensure that the Women’s, Infants,
and Children (WIC) supplementary food program resources are
adequate to meet the need of
impoverished families;
Continue educational efforts and
outreach to parents/general public
on the importance of immunizations;
Identify and enhance opportunities for early childhood education
about dental care and oral disease;
Enhance educational programs to
teach children proper nutrition
and healthy eating to decrease the
prevalence of obesity.
u
C. Continue to increase activities
and/or programs to prevent
and/or reduce child abuse and
neglect:
u
u
u
u
u
IV. Safety and
Personal Security
A. Efforts to combat violence should
be continued and expanded:
u
u
u
Expand non-violent conflict resolution education through partnerships with youth.
B. Continue to enhance substance
abuse prevention and treatment
services:
u
u
Increase the availability of alternative activities for youth, especially
during after school hours and
summertime;
Continue campaigns to reduce the
availability of guns, especially to
youth;
Increase treatment services for single mothers, their children, and
adolescents (including the number
of beds available to women at
treatment centers);
Increase the amount of substance
abuse prevention education for
youth and youth workers.
u
u
u
u
Support universal parenting education which is culturally competent;
Provide education on the District’s
child abuse/neglect laws (to
include new immigrants and nonEnglish speaking residents);
Recommend acceptance of a city
ordinance that states the age and
conditions under which a parent
can legally leave their child(ren)
home unsupervised;
V. Education
A. Educational achievement levels
of students must be improved:
u
u
u
u
u
Develop strategies for serving
underage youth who are living on
their own;
Continue to develop strategies
and procedures for addressing the
intersection between domestic
violence and child abuse/neglect;
Encourage the Child & Family
Services Agency to collect and
release data on the types of abuse
and neglect by race and ethnicity,
and develop culturally competent
strategies to address each type;
Ensure that at-risk mothers have
access to home visitation programs designed to address their
needs;
Create adequate slots for affordable child care for special needs
children;
Continue to cross train child maltreatment, domestic violence,
other family violence service
providers, and policy makers;
Provide more effective services for
batterers to end intimate partner
abuse.
12
u
u
u
u
Increase D.C. students’ test scores
in reading and math, as well as
SAT scores in comparison to other
states and urban areas;
Decrease the achievement gap
among all ethnic groups of
District students on standardized
tests;
Increase the graduation rates of
District students annually by
10%;
Ensure that all District parents
have access to various schooling
options for their children;
Provide high-quality, on-going
professional development to
teachers and principals about ways
to build high-achieving, standards-driven, strong learning
communities for students and
staff;
Ensure that all schools are safe,
well-maintained, and have sufficient materials and equipment;
More clearly align D.C. Public
Schools annual student assessments and curriculum with the
D.C. Public Schools standards;
Build high-quality partnerships
with community organizations in
the greater Washington, D.C.
area to help increase student
achievement;
Schools should develop engagement strategies to include parents
as partners in their children’s
education.
III.
MAJOR TRENDS AND CHANGES
SINCE LAST YEAR’S REPORT
S
everal indicators of the well
being of children and their
families living in the District
worsened in 2004 compared to
2003. While this may reflect a more
dire situation for District children
and their families, in some cases
worsening indicators may have a
different interpretation. For example, an increase in the number of
paternity cases filed may mean that
more mothers are asserting their
rights and filing claims through the
courts. Another example is that an
increase in filings for child abuse
may mean that more cases are being
reported by the community or that
the responsible D.C. agency may be
more active in protecting abused children. Therefore, the indicators in this
report need to be evaluated in the
larger policy and program context of
the city.
The following is a summary of the
indicators for the seven categories of
child well-being reported in detail in
Section IV.
The District’s Population
and Economy
u
The population of the District of
Columbia continued its downward
trend in 2003. Although the District,
like most other eastern cities, experienced a large loss in population since
the 1950s, these losses have begun to
level off in recent years. Furthermore,
while the drop in population from
1990 to 2000 was close to 35,000 persons, the number of households
remained relatively the same over this
trast, 12 percent of all children were
non-Hispanic white, while nearly
28 percent of the total population
was white. Hispanic children were
10 percent of children. In comparison, 8 percent of all people were
Hispanic.
u
period. Demographers have found
that this was due to singles and childless couples moving into the city while
families with children moved out.
u
As the family population has
dropped, the number of children living in the District has also declined.
However, even with a decrease in the
child population, the majority of children are still concentrated east of the
Anacostia River in Wards 7 and 8.
u
The number of births declined
modestly in 2002 by 1.7 percent.
This trend is understandable, since the
District’s population declined. It may
be further explained by shifts in the
composition of the District’s population – with a larger portion of young
singles and childless couples moving
into the city, and women of childbearing age and families moving out.
u
The 2000 Census reported that
75 percent of all children in the
District were non-Hispanic African
American, compared to only 61 percent of the total population. In con-
13
The number of jobs in the
District increased 1 percent in June
2004 compared to June 2003 and
was driven mainly by an increase in
private sector jobs. This growth continues the trend of increasing jobs in
the District since 1998, a positive
sign as more jobs the city provides, the
better the city’s municipal budget and
the better the economic prospects for
the District’s residents.
u The percent of employed District
residents is on a downward trend,
however. While the decreases are modest (a less than 1 percent decrease in
2003), this suggests that the majority
of new jobs are not going to District
residents. Similarly, the District’s estimated unemployment rate of 7.6 percent increased by less than one percentage point in 2003. In comparison
the Washington suburbs unemployment rate was only 3.6 percent in
2003.
Economic Security and
Insecurity
u Poverty in the District, which was
already high in 2000, increased further
in 2003. In 2000, 16.8 percent of
District residents (both adults and
children) were living below the federal
poverty level. By 2003, the estimated
poverty rate was 18.2 percent. While
research has shown that overall poverty rates decreased nationwide in 2000,
in cities like Washington, D.C. the
concentration of poverty increased.
Sixty-six (66) District census tracts
had more than 30 percent of people
living in poverty, up from 46 census
tracts in 1990. Most of these tracts
were clustered East of the Anacostia
River in Wards 7 and 8.
Family Attachment and
Community Support
u
u
Nearly 37 percent of children
living in the District were estimated
to be living in poverty in 2003. The
poverty rate for African American
children was the highest among the
District’s major racial and ethnic
groups at 45 percent in 2003. In
comparison, the child poverty rate for
Hispanics was 24 percent and for nonHispanic whites it was 17 percent.
u
The number of children in the
District receiving TANF subsidies (or
welfare) increased by 3 percent
between June 2003 and June 2004.
This is the third consecutive yearly
increase, although the rate of growth
has been relatively modest over this
period. Historically, TANF caseloads
reached their lowest level in the
District in 2001. The recent slow but
steady increase in D.C. TANF caseloads matches national trends.
u
The number of child food stamp
recipients in June 2004 increased by
less than 1 percent compared to June
2003. This is much lower than the
10 percent increase between June
2002 and June 2003. Food stamp
receipt may be a better economic indicator than the unemployment rate,
which can be artificially deflated when
discouraged workers give up trying to
find jobs.
u
The number of children receiving
Medicaid has increased each year since
2000. The number of children and
youth under age 21 receiving
Medicaid in January 2004 increased
by 4 percent from the previous year.
u
Of the District’s children under
age 18, 57 percent lived with a single
mother, about one-third (35 percent)
lived in married-couple families, and
another 4 percent lived with a single
father in 2004. The remaining
4 percent lived with extended family
members or nonrelatives.
child care decreased by 2,175 children
or 12 percent, reaching 16,561 children in 2004. The decrease was driven
primarily by a reduction of children
served by programs offered by the
Office of Early Childhood
Development.
u
The number of children waiting
to receive subsidized child care
increased by 21 percent between 2003
and 2004. This increase in the waiting
list may be due to the fact that fewer
children have been served over the
past three years, as well as the possibility that families are experiencing more
economic hardship.
Single women with children are
more likely than other types of families to be in poverty. Among District
children living in families headed by
single females (including not only single mothers, but also husbandless
grandmothers, aunts, and other female
relatives), 53 percent were in poverty
in 2004.
Homeless Children and
Families
u
u
The percent of births to single
mothers fell for the sixth consecutive
year in 2002 to 56 percent. The percent of births to teenage mothers also
dropped for the sixth consecutive year
(albeit modestly) by 0.5 percentage
points to 12.8 percent in 2002. This
downward trend reflects a national
decline in teenage births. Some speculate, however, that the downward
trend in the District is partly due to
population loss among women of
childbearing age, particularly younger
women.
Homelessness in the District has
increased for the third consecutive
year, although it is the smallest
increase of the three years. The total
number of homeless people in January
2004 was 8,253, an increase of 303
persons or 3.8 percent since January
2003. Of the 8,253 homeless people,
6,105 persons were literally homeless
(or living in shelters or on the streets)
in the District – 42 percent of whom
(2,552) were persons in families. The
number of people who were counted
as permanently supported homeless
u
The number of
cases filed for paternity
increased by more than
one-quarter between
2002 and 2003, while
the number of child
support cases increased
a modest 3 percent.
u
The number of
children served by subsidized child care continued to decline for
the third straight year
in 2004. The estimated
number of children
receiving subsidized
14
Mariah French - My Door
(or those in supportive housing at risk
of becoming homeless) was 2,148 —
32 percent of whom (684) were persons in families.
adolescent AIDS cases tracked between
1980 and 2004, 96 percent (or 77 adolescents) were African American.
u
The number of homeless families
applying for shelter in the District
continued to increase, making it
almost 2.5 times greater than year
2000. In 2003, 3,100 families applied
for emergency shelter through the
District’s central intake facility. These
families included approximately 6,000
children.
Child Health
u
The share of District mothers
receiving adequate prenatal care continued to rise in 2002, a positive
trend. At 68.7 percent of all births in
2002 for which care is reported, this is
an increase of almost 10 percentage
points since 1999. The share of mothers receiving inadequate care dropped
from 11.4 percent to 9.7 percent.
u
Low birth weights (that is, birth
weights of 5.5 pounds or less) have
had an overall small and incremental
downward trend for over 10 years. In
2002, the proportion of all births that
were low weight was 11.6 percent, a
decrease of 0.3 percentage points from
2001.
u
Infant mortality rose slightly in
2002 to 11.5 deaths per 1,000 live
births for children under the age of
one, an increase of less than one percentage point from 2001. It is at the
second lowest level in the past 13
years. Growing numbers of mothers
who received adequate or intermediate
care most likely account for the dramatic reduction in infant mortality
over the previous decade. However,
poor economic factors may hamper
efforts at improvement.
u Since 2001, the District has made
steady gains in the percentage of children receiving vaccinations for common childhood diseases. In 2003, the
Safety and Personal
Security
u
The number of deaths to children
and teens remained nearly the same in
2002, decreasing from 153 deaths in
2001 to 151 deaths in 2002.
District surpassed the national average:
96.5 percent of District children in
the appropriate age range received the
vaccinations compared to 96.0 percent
nationally. In addition, a greater percentage of District children received
the vaccinations compared to other
major cities with large poverty rates.
u
u
Deaths to children under one-year
old constituted 57 percent of all youth
deaths, totaling 86 deaths in 2002.
Most of the deaths in the first year of
life occurred from conditions originating in the perinatal period, and a
portion of the decline in deaths can
be attributed to improvements in prenatal care over time.
There were fewer than five reported new AIDS cases among children 12
years and younger in the District in
2003, the same number since 1999.
Commonly, children ages 12 years and
younger contract AIDS from their
mothers who are HIV positive. The
dramatic decline in the number of
cases since the mid-1990s is due largely
to the wide spread use of Zidovudine
or AZT in pregnant women who test
positive for HIV. Of the few children
who were diagnosed with AIDS in
2003, all were African American, a
pattern consistent with 2002.
u
u
u
The total number of new cases for
the three most common sexually
transmitted diseases diagnosed in children and youth under 20-years old in
the District – chlamydia, gonorrhea,
and syphilis – increased by 5 percent
in 2003. This increase was primarily
driven by an increase in gonorrhea.
u
New diagnoses of AIDS cases
for District children and youth ages
13- to 19-years old increased slightly
in 2003 from less than five cases to six
cases. All new adolescent AIDS cases
in 2003 were between 16- and 19years old and all contracted the disease
through sexual activity. Of the total
15
Deaths to children ages 1- to
14-years old decreased by 9 cases to a
total of 19 deaths in 2002. Forty-six
(46) deaths occurred to youths 15- to
19-years old in 2002. This follows a
gradually increasing trend since 2000.
u
Violent deaths accounted for 85
percent of all deaths to older teens or
39 of the 46 deaths in 2002. Until
2002, violent teen deaths were on a
downward trend. Violent deaths in
this category include accidents, suicides, and murders.
The number of cases filed for
child abuse increased by 18 percent in
2003, approaching the high levels of
2001. Child neglect cases decreased by
32 percent, continuing a downward
trend that started in 1998. The two
agencies that work with abused and
neglected children – the D.C. Child
and Family Service Agency (CFSA)
and Family Court – have undergone
significant changes to better respond
to the needs of abused and neglected
children.
u
The total number of filings for
order of protections increased in 2003,
but the percent granted did not signif-
icantly change. The number of new
filings made for civil protection orders
against domestic violence increased by
299 new filings or 8 percent in 2003.
Filings have gradually increased since
1999, implying that more of those
needing legal protection have
approached the court. Fifty (50) percent of petitions were never heard by a
judge in 2003 due to victims not following through with court proceedings – a percentage that has stayed
approximately the same since 2000.
The remainder of the petitions that
were granted civil protection orders
remained roughly the same in 2003
compared to 2002.
u
Juvenile cases referred to the D.C.
Superior Court increased by 8 percent,
breaking the downward trend of the
past six years. “Public Order” cases
against juveniles (mainly involving
drugs and weapons) was the only category to decrease in number in 2003,
albeit by only 1 percent. Property
crimes increased in 2003 by 17 percent, a significant increase and a reversal of the previous downward trend.
Three-fourths of these crimes were
automobile thefts, up from 65 percent
in 2002. Crimes against persons
(mainly assaults) also increased by
14 percent from 2002.
Education
u
The D.C. Public Schools (DCPS)
enrollment continues its downward
trend in the 2003-04 school year, a 4
percent decline from the 2002-03
school year. Declining enrollments are
to be expected given the shrinking
child population in the District.
However, an increase in public charter
school enrollments makes up some of
this difference.
u
The DCPS ethnic and racial
makeup remained the same in the
2003-04 school year compared to the
2002-03 school year. However, the
DCPS student body is slightly more
diverse when compared to the 199091 school year since the proportion of
Hispanic students has increased.
u Enrollment in public charter
schools continues to rise – the sixth
consecutive increase since the first
charter school was established in
1997. Public charter school enrollment increased by 18 percent in
school year 2003-04 compared to
school year 2002-03, and the charter
enrollment increased by 282 percent
since the first charter school began in
1997.
u
DCPS students’ Stanford-9
reading test scores increased slightly or
remained the same in 2004. This is an
improvement over last year’s decline in
reading scores, although the scores still
fall below the
national average.
Looking at the
reading scores
across grades, 1st
through 3rd
grades’ scores
tended to increase
over the five-year
time period,
while grades 9th
and 10th have
tended to slope
downward. Two
possible explanations for this are
Le‘Andrea Johnson - Dismissal
16
that the higher performing students
leave the public school system over
time or that students who remain in
the system may be learning less than
students do on average nationally.
u
DCPS students’ Stanford 9 math
scores also increased slightly or
remained the same in 2004. Five of
the grades scored above the national
average in 2004. Analyzing the math
scores across grades, the pattern is similar to those of the reading scores. First
through 6th grade (excluding 4th
grade) shows a general upward trend
in their math scores, while the older
grades (9th through 11th) show a general downward trend. The possible
explanations for these decreases are
similar to those for reading.
u
The percentage of DCPS students
scoring proficient or advanced in
Stanford-9 reading and math scores
decreased significantly for students at
higher grade levels. In the first grade,
more than 50 percent of students
started out as proficient or advanced
in reading and math in 2004. Only 13
percent of 11th graders scored proficient or advanced in reading, however,
and only 8 percent scored these levels
in math.
u
On average in 2003, the District’s
public and public charter students
generally rated lower on basic reading
and math skills compared to students
in other urban areas. District students
had lower average National
Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) reading scores than students
in eight of the nine other cities tested,
and they scored lower in math than
their counterparts in all nine cities.
u
Average SAT scores for DCPS
students remained below the national
average in 2004, although their scores
increased slightly from the previous
year. DCPS students raised their combined average SAT score by 14 points
from 2003 – an increase of 6 points in
math and 8 points in verbal.
IV.
SELECTED INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL-BEING
In the District of Columbia
Figure 1
Population and Economy
Figure 1
1. Population in the District of
Columbia continued its slightly
downward trend in 2003.
Population in DC
1900 - 2003
900
(Fig. 1)
802.2
764
800
Although the District, like most other
eastern cities, has experienced a large
loss in population since the 1950s,
these losses have begun to level off in
recent years. Furthermore, while the
drop in population from 1990 to
2000 was close to 35,000 persons, the
number of households remained relatively constant over this period.
Demographers have found that this
was due to singles and childless couples moving into the city while families with children moved out.
756.7
663.2
700
Population (1000s)
The latest figures released by the
Census Bureau put the District’s population at 563,400 in 2003. This is a
drop of 5,800 persons in just one year,
adding to a total loss of 8,700 people
since 2000. The Census had previously estimated the District’s 2001 population to be 573,800, an increase of
1,700 persons. This estimate, however,
along with the 2002 estimate has
recently been revised downward based
on updated information. The revised
figure for 2001 now stands at 572,700
and the estimated population for 2002
is now 569,200. These revisions show
that the District has continued to
slowly lose population over the last
three years.
638.4
606.9
572.1 572.7 569.2 563.4
600
486.9
500
437.5
400
300
331.1
278.7
200
100
0
1900
Source:
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000 2001* 2002* 2003*
U.S. Census Bureau
*estimated and revised from 2003 Kids Count Fact Book
Map 1
Share of Children Under 18
by Ward
Washington, D.C.
2000
13%
Ward 4
8%
Ward 3
11%
Ward 1
5%
Ward 2
2. As the number of families with
children dropped, the number
of children living in the
District also declined. (Map 1)
The latest Census estimates determined that 108,403 children under
age 18 lived in the District in 2003.
This is a 3,700 drop in child popula-
17
13%
Ward 5
10%
Ward 6
22%
Ward 8
17%
Ward 7
Figure 2
tion in just one year. (The Census
estimated the number of children at
112,128 in 2002.) In 2000, the Census
counted 114,992 children in the
District of Columbia, which is a 6 percent drop in three years.
Figure 2 Births to DC Residents
1990 - 2002
14,000
11,806
12,000
11,650
10,939
Number of Births
The majority of children in the city
are concentrated east of the Anacostia
River in Wards 7 and 8 (see Map 1).
These two wards are home to 39 percent of all children in the District.
Another one-third of children live in
Wards 4, 5, and 6.
10,614
9,911
10,000
8,993
8,377
8,000
7,916
7,678 7,513
7,666
7,621
7,494
1997
1998
2000
2001
2002
6,000
4,000
3. The number of births decreased
to 7,494 in 2002 – a decline of
1.7 percent. (Fig.2)
2,000
0
The racial breakdown of women who
gave birth mirrors the overall population distribution of the city: 60 percent of all births in 2002 were to
African American women. This is a
decrease of 220 births from 2001, or a
nearly 2.4 percentage point drop in
the share of total births to African
Americans. Nearly one-quarter of all
births in 2002 were to white women,
an increase of 42 births from the previous year. The share of births to
mothers of Hispanic heritage remained
the same, accounting for 13 percent of
all births.
1990
Source:
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1999
D.C. Department of Health, State Center for Health Statistics Administration
were 10 percent of children. In comparison, 8 percent of the total population were Hispanic. While it is unlikely
that these percentages have changed
much since 2000, the trend over the
past decade has been a decrease in the
African American and white populations and an increase in the number of
Hispanic and Asian persons living in
the District.
down by age and race. However, the
2000 Census reported that 75 percent
of all children in the District were
non-Hispanic African American
compared to only 61 percent of the
total population in the city. In contrast, 12 percent of all children were
non-Hispanic white, while nearly
28 percent of all people were nonHispanic
Hispanic children
F i g u r ewhite.
3
Figure 3
Number of Jobs in DC
1991 - 2001 (Annual Averages) and June 2002, 2003, 2004
700
677.3
680
Number of Jobs (1000s)
In 2002, 7,494 births were recorded
for District of Columbia residents by
the D.C. State Center for Health
Statistics. This is a small decline of
about 1.7 percent in the number of
births from the previous year, continuing a decade-long downward trend.
This trend is understandable, since the
District’s population has declined. It
may be further explained by shifts in
the composition of the District’s population – with a larger portion of young
singles and childless couples moving
into the city, and women of childbearing age and families moving out.
673.6
670.7
669.6
658.8
660
650.3
642.6
660.7
650.9
651.8
640
623.1
627.3
618.4
620
613.4
600
4. Three-quarters of all children in
the District are African American.
The Census Bureau has not published
2003 population estimates broken
580
1991
Source:
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001 Jun-02 Jun-03 4-Jun
D.C. Department of Employment Services, Labor Market Information & Research
18
Figure 4
(excluding an upswing in 2001). This
trend is not surprising as the early
2000s was a troubled economic period
for the nation. With the economic
upswing of the region and the nation
in the last year, hopefully the near
future will bring employment to more
residents. Nevertheless, given the previously noted upturn in the number
of jobs in the District in recent years,
one might have expected employment
to begin to rise as well. The fact that
it has not suggests that many of the
new jobs being created are going to
suburban commuters rather than to
District residents.
Figure 4
Number of Jobs in Government and Private Sector in DC
1993-2001 (Annual Averages) and June 2002 and 2003
800
Private
Government
Number of Jobs (1000s)
700
660.7 jobs
600
500
400
300
200
100
7. The District’s unemployment
rate increased. (Fig. 6)
0
1993
Source:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Jun-02 Jun-03
D.C. Department of Employment Services, Labor Market Information & Research
5. The total number of jobs in the
District of Columbia continued
to grow moderately. (Fig.3 and
Fig. 4)
According to the D.C. Department of
Employment Services, the total number of jobs located in the District grew
to 669,600 in June of 2004, an increase
of 1 percent from June 2003 (see Fig.
3). This growth continues the trend of
increasing jobs in the District since
1998, a positive sign as the more jobs
the city provides, the better the city’s
financial situation. However, this statistic refers to the number of people
who work in the District – many of
whom may actually live in the suburbs.
According to the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the District’s estimated unemployment rate was 7.6 percent in 2003, an increase of less than
one percentage point from the estimated annual rate in 2002. The
unemployment rate in the District
has been gradually rising since 2000,
although it remains lower than the
1990 rates. The national unemployment rate in 2003 was 6.1 percent,
and the Washington suburbs’ unemployment rate was only 3.6 percent
in 2003.
6. The number of District residents
who were employed stayed
approximately the same since
last year. (Fig. 5)
The number of District residents who
were employed in 2003 decreased to
290,000 people, a decline of less than
1 percent since 2002, according to the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This
modest decrease follows a trend of
falling employment since 1999
Figure 5
Figure 5
Number of Employed Residents in DC
2000 - 2003
310
301
300
297
300
Employed Residents (1000s)
The growth in the total number of
jobs over the past five years has been
driven by an increase in private sector
jobs (see Fig. 4), which is partially due
to increases in federal contracting,
tourism, and finance. Research from
the Urban Institute has shown that the
District’s private sector growth nearly
matched that of the Washington
region overall. The Washington region
as a whole weathered the economic
downturns of the early 2000s well,
and has since proven to be one of the
fastest growing regions nationally.
291 292
292
298
290
290
280
280
272
274
270
263
260
250
240
1992
Source:
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS
19
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Figure 6
Figure 6
2003, the CPS-estimated poverty rate
was 18.2 percent, 1.4 percentage
points above the 2000 figure. This
means that nearly two in 10 D.C. residents are currently considered to be
living below the federal poverty level.
Unemployment Rate for DC
1992 - 2003
12
9.6
10
8.6
8.9
8.8
9.6
9.3
8.5
8
Percent
6.6
7.1
7.6
6.7
6.1
6
4
2
0
1992
Source:
1993
1994
1995
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1. Poverty in the District, which was
already high in 2000, increased
further in 2003. (Fig. 7)
The 2000 Census found that the
District’s poverty rate rose to 20.2 percent from 16.9 percent in 1990. To
determine if the District’s poverty rate
changed in 2003, we must use another
gure 7
data source, theF iCensus
Bureau’s annu-
al Current Population Survey (CPS).
Because of differences between these
two data sources, direct comparisons
between 2000 and later years are not
possible. (For a fuller explanation,
readers are referred to Section VII,
“A Few Words About the Data.”)
The CPS found that 16.8 percent of
District residents (both adults and
children) were living below the
federal poverty level in 2000. By
Poverty Rate for All DC Residents
2001 - 2003
30
25
Percent
2003
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS
Economic Security
Figure 7
1996
While research has shown that overall
poverty rates decreased nationwide in
2000, in certain locations, particularly
where poverty is concentrated, poverty
rates actually grew. In cities like
Washington, D.C., the concentration
of poverty increased: 66 District census tracts had more than 30 percent of
people living in poverty, up from 46
census tracts in 1990. Most of these
tracts were clustered east of the
Anacostia River, in Wards 7 and 8.
18.9
20
16.8
18.2
18.1
15
Besides being located in Wards 7 and
8, there were other similarities among
these concentrated poverty tracts in
the District. All had a large African
American majority: 84 percent of residents living in tracts with poverty rates
of 30 percent or higher were African
American in 2000, although this share
dropped from 1990 when it was 87
percent. There were also low employment levels in the concentrated poverty tracts. Women were more likely to
live in high poverty tracts than men.
While the D.C. citywide ratio of men
to women was nine to ten, there were
only eight men in these tracts for
every ten women. Single-parent
households were more prevalent in
concentrated poverty tracts.
According to the 2000 Census, 28
percent of the households in these
tracts were single-parent families, as
compared to 12 percent for the city as
a whole. High levels of poverty among
children follow from low employment
rates and large numbers of singleearner families.
2. The poverty rate for the District’s
children is far higher than the
rate for the total population.
10
5
0
2000
Source:
2001
2002
2003
Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
20
As measured by the 2000 Census, the
poverty rate among children in the
District was 31.7 percent – 11.5 percentage points greater than that for
Figure 8
3. Poverty rates among the
District’s African American
children continue to be far higher
than for any other major racial
or ethnic group. Children living
with single mothers are also
more likely to be in poverty than
those in other kinds of families.
According to the Current Population
Survey (CPS), the poverty rate for
African American children was the
highest among the District’s major
racial and ethnic groups at 45 percent
in 2003. In comparison, the child
poverty rates were 24 percent for
Hispanics and 17 percent for nonHispanic whites. (It should be noted
that the sample size for non-Hispanic
poor whites was quite small, only four
children.)
4. The number of children in the
District receiving TANF subsidies
increased for the third
consecutive year. (Fig. 8)
The number of children receiving subsidies through Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), more
informally referred to as “welfare,”
grew to 33,211 in June 2004 – an
increase of 3 percent since June 2003,
according to the D.C. Department
of Human Services, Income Maintenance Administration, the District
government agency that administers
TANF. This is the third consecutive
annual increase in child TANF recipients, although the rate of growth has
been modest over this period.
Historically, TANF caseloads reached
their lowest level in the District in
Figure 8
Number of Children Receiving TANF Assistance in DC
1991 - 2004
60,000
50,423 50,735
50,000
Number of Children
persons of all ages. The Current
Population Survey (CPS) estimated
29.1 percent of children were living in
poverty in 2000 (a lower estimate than
the 2000 Census – refer to Section
VII, “A Few Words About the Data”
for an explanation). By 2003, nearly
37 percent of children were estimated
to be living in poverty according to
the CPS.
46,693
48,992
46,556
42,649
40,000
41,165
38,817
33,049
33,211
31,292 31,562 32,225
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1991
Source:
Note:
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 Jun-00 Jun-01 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04
Income Maintenance Administration, D.C. Department of Human Services
Missing data for 1999
2001. The city was successful at
decreasing welfare caseloads by more
than 30 percent since the TANF program replaced Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) in
1997. Most notably, these decreases
came amidst non-punitive policies
such as the District choosing not to
impose a shorter time limit for TANF
recipiency, as was done in some states,
and the District operating a non-time
limited, separate state-funded program,
the Program on Work, Employment
and Responsibility (POWER), for
individuals who are unable to work
due to a physical disability, mental
health problem, learning disability, or
substance abuse problem. In addition,
even though adults may be sanctioned
(or have their TANF benefits withheld
due to not meeting certain criteria),
the adult’s children may still continue
to receive their portion of the benefits.
In 2004, the D.C. Income Maintenance Administration, placed 10,000
adults in unsubsidized employment.
Eighty percent of those who were
placed have remained employed after
90 days.
The recent slow but steady increase in
TANF caseloads in the District matches national trends. Regional and
21
national economic forces affect
whether families can find work, and
the economic challenges in the early
part of this decade are reflected in the
rising caseload numbers. Individual
challenges also face adult recipients as
they try to move from welfare to work
— functional illiteracy is an oftencited problem, as well as lack of child
care. Currently, TANF recipients who
receive subsidized child care lose that
support once they are employed.
As noted previously, not all District
families seem to be benefiting from
recent economic gains in the region
and the city.
5. The number of children
receiving food stamps has stayed
approximately the same.
The number of child food stamp
recipients stayed approximately the
same between June 2003 and June
2004. According to the D.C.
Department of Human Services,
Income Maintenance Administration,
the number increased by less than
one percent, totaling 38,990 child
recipients in June 2004. In contrast,
the number of children receiving food
stamps increased by 10 percent
between June 2002 and June 2003.
The District has a successful history in
enrolling eligible participants in the
food stamp program. In recent years,
the District has been among the top
two states in food stamp participation,
having enrolled 100 percent of eligible
participants in 1999 and 85 percent in
2000, the two most recent years for
which data are available. In 2004 the
District was recognized by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for having
one of the highest Participant Access
Rates in the nation, a measure established under the bonus structure
authorized by the Farm Bill. This
suggests that most of those eligible are
currently receiving food stamps. Food
stamp receipt may be a better indicator of economic hardship than the
unemployment rate, as the latter can
be artificially deflated when discouraged workers quit looking for work
and thus take themselves out of the
labor force. The fact that the number
of food stamp recipients was approximately the same as last year suggests
that the degree of economic hardship
faced by District residents has not
decreased over the past year.
6. The number of children
receiving Medicaid has increased
each year since 2000. (Fig. 9)
The number of children and youth
under age 21 receiving Medicaid in
January 2004 was 71,953 according to
the D.C. Department of Human
Services, Income Maintenance Administration. This was a 4 percent increase
between June 2003 and June 2004,
and the fourth consecutive year of
increases. The rate of growth in child
Medicaid recipients over the past four
years has fluctuated between 1 and 5
percent, but overall the number has
risen 13 percent since January 2000.
Access to Medicaid was once restricted
to the very poorest, but in 1997 it was
extended by Congress to families with
children living in households with
incomes under 200 percent of the
poverty line. This includes many of
the working poor who had previously
been unable to afford adequate medical care. Proper medical care for children can prevent serious health problems later in life. The D.C. Income
Maintenance Administration has
made serious efforts to enroll all who
are eligible for Medicaid
and the
Figure 10
increases in Medicaid recipients may
Figure 9
be due to these efforts. In fact, the
District has been recognized by The
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s
D.C. Covering Kids Initiative for its
efforts to adopt progressive, customerfriendly policies to promote Medicaid
enrollment. The increasing number of
Medicaid recipients may also suggest
that the degree of economic hardship
faced by District residents has been
worsening.
Family Attachment and
Support
1. Nearly two-thirds of children in
the District lived in single-parent
households, which were headed
mostly by women. (Fig. 10)
Of the District’s 108,672 children
under age 18 counted by the 2004
Current Population Survey (CPS), the
largest share, 57 percent, lived with a
single mother. Thirty-five percent or
38,069 children lived in married-couple families. Another 4,401 or 4 percent lived with a single father. The
remaining 4 percent lived with other
family members or nonrelatives.
Figure 9
Figure 10
Number of Children Receiving Medicaid in DC
Percent of Children Under Age 18 by Family Type
January 2000 - January 2004
2004
80,000
Number of Children
70,000
63,535
64,320
67,282
69,003
4%
71,953
Single Male-Headed
Family
4%
Extended
Family and
Non-Family
60,000
50,000
35%
Married Couple
Family
40,000
30,000
57%
20,000
Single
Female-Headed
Family
10,000
0
Jan-00
Source:
Jan-01
Jan-02
Jan-03
Income Maintenance Administration,
D.C. Department of Human Services
Jan-04
Source:
22
Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 11
data on employment in the District
from 2000 through
2002, we know that
rate of pay has
increased greatly for
those with moderate to high incomes,
but has grown more
slowly for the lowest wage-earners.
Based on these data,
we can assume that
the incomes for the
District’s poor families most likely have
not grown substantially since 1999.
Figure 11
Poverty Rate by Family Type in DC
2004
60
53%
50
Percent
40
30
15%
20
6%
10
0
Single-Female Family
Source:
Single-Male Family
Center for Health Statistics. This is positive news, considering the above statistics
that children in single-female headed
households tend to be poorer than children in married households. Of the total
number of births to single women in
2002, 44 percent were to those who
lived east of the Anacostia River and over
80 percent were to African-American
single mothers.
4. Births to mothers under age 20
continued to fall in 2002.
(Fig. 13)
Most District of Columbia single mothers are adults over 20-years old: only 20
percent of single mothers were under the
age of 20 in 2002. Births to mothers
under age 20 dropped to 12.8 percent of
all births in 2002 – a 0.5 percentage
point decrease from 2001. This downward trend reflects a national decline in
teenage births. Some speculate, however,
that the downward trend in the District
of Columbia is partly due to population
loss among women of childbearing age,
particularly younger women. Indeed, in
2002 the Census Bureau estimated that
the total female population of the
District had declined.
Married-Couple Family
Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
2. Single women with children are
more likely than other families
to be in poverty. (Fig. 11)
According to the 2000 Census,
married-couple families with children in the District had a median
income of $73,909 in 1999. (The
median is the middle figure when
incomes are arranged in order from
highest to lowest.) For single-father
families, the median income was
$27,385 while for single-mother
families it was $19,656. By looking
at the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Births to single mothers declined for
the sixth straight year in 2002, falling
of all births according to
F i gto
u r56
e 1percent
2
vital statistics data from the D.C. State
Figure 12
Percent of Births to Single Mothers in DC
1988 - 2002
80
73
62
Percent of Total Births
The 2004 Current Population Survey
(CPS) found that 53 percent of children living in single-female-headed
families lived in poverty. This statistic
applies to those children living with
single mothers as well as other female
relatives such as grandmothers and
aunts, so long as there was no husband or male head of household
present in the family. For children
living in families with a single-male
head, the poverty rate in 2004 was
considerably lower: 15 percent.
Among those residing in a family
with a married couple in 2004,
regardless of the couple’s relationship,
the poverty rate was 6 percent.
3. In 2002, 56 percent of all births
were to single mothers, making
the sixth consecutive year that
births to unwed mothers have
declined. (Fig. 12)
66
65
67
67
69
66
66
64
63
62
60
60
57
56
2001
2002
40
20
0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Source: D.C. Department of Health, State Center for Health Statistics Administration
23
1998
1999
2000
Figure 13
Mothers ages 18 to 19 comprised the
largest share of teen births, at 61 percent in 2002. This is a negligible
change from the previous year, when
62 percent of all teen births were to
mothers ages 18 to 19. The share of
teen births to girls ages 15 to 17
increased slightly in 2002, growing
from 34 percent in 2001 to 36 percent in 2002. The share of births to
the youngest mothers, those under 15years old, dropped by half, from 4 percent in 2001 to 2 percent in 2002.
5. The number of cases filed for
paternity increased by more than
one-quarter between 2002 and
2003, while the number of child
support cases increased only
modestly. (Fig. 14 and Fig. 15)
Figure 13
Percent of Births to Mothers Under Age 20 in DC
1990 - 2002
20
17.8
18
Cases filed with the Court for child
support totaled 660 filings in 2003, an
increase of 3 percent. This marks the
second year in a row of a small
increase in filings. Prior to 2002, the
previous seven years showed a marked
decrease in filings, especially between
years 1998 and 1999.
17.1
16.2
16.8
15.6
15.6 15.3
14.8
15.5
14.2
14
13.3
12.8
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Figure 14
Source: D.C. Department of Health, State Center for Health Statistics Administration
Figure 14
Cases Filed for Paternity in DC
1990 - 2002
3,000
2,795
Number of Cases Filed
2,500
The number of paternity cases filed
with the D.C. Superior Court has
fluctuated widely from year to year,
although the trend has been generally
downward. In 2001 and 2002, the
number of cases filed dropped to the
lowest level in a decade. In 2003,
however, the number of cases filed
bounced back up by 28 percent to
1,189 cases according to the District
of Columbia Courts 2003 Annual
Report. While this is a large increase
in one year, the number of cases in
2003 is still the third lowest in 14
years.
17.2
16
Percent
Similar to the finding that almost half
of all births to single women were to
mothers living in Wards 7 and 8, 46
percent of all teen births were to
mothers from these wards. Nevertheless, although the share of teen births
east of the Anacostia River is higher
than the overall city average, the number of births to teens have dropped in
these wards over time as well.
2,243
2,428
2,324
2,000
1,948
1,910
1,834
1,585
1,658
1,549
1,427
1,500
1,189
998
1,000
929
500
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source: District of Columbia Courts, 1990-2003 Annual Reports
6. The number of children served
with subsidized child care
continued to decline for the
third straight year. (Table 1)
Subsidized child care is an important
economic support for working poor
families and their children. The total
24
number of children receiving subsidized child care decreased by approximately 2,175 children or 12 percent,
reaching 16,561 children in 2004.
This is the third straight yearly decline
since 2001 according to the D.C.
Department of Health, Office of Early
Childhood Development. As described
Figure 15
for the year. The number of children
served at D.C. Public Schools after
care increased by 1 percent from 2003
to 2004, totaling 7,145 children in
2004. However, the number of children served declined 30 percent
between 2002 and 2003. The reason
for this decrease was budget cuts –
from $11.5m in FY2002 to $6.9m in
FY2003. In addition, after care was not
available in the summer of 2003, nor
was it in the summer of 2002.
Figure 15
Cases Filed for Child Support in DC
1990 - 2003
3,000
2,562
Number of Cases Filed
2,500
2,000
1,763 1,721
1,591
1,430 1,487
1,500
1,319
1,231
1,174
887
1,000
746
637
641
660
2001
2002
2003
500
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Source: District of Columbia Courts, 1989-2003 Annual Reports
below, the decrease in 2004 was driven
primarily by a reduction of children
served in the Office of Early Childhood
program.
The first section of Table 1 “D.C.
Public Schools After Care for All,”
refers to those children who attended
subsidized after-school care (i.e., after
care) during the school year and those
attending care at school during the
summer months when school is out.
The District of Columbia Public
Schools’ After Care for All Program
serves children who are of school age
through 12-years old. The figure is a
snapshot of the number of children
served at the highest attendance month
Table 1
Subsidized Child Care Programs in DC
2000 - 2004
Program Area
The figures in the second section of
Table 2, “Office of Early Childhood
Development,” represent the total
unduplicated number of children who
received subsidized child care at any
time during the year from programs
offered by the Office of Early Childhood Development (OECD). The
OECD programs serve children from
6 weeks through 12 years of age, or
through 18-years old for those who
are disabled. The number of children
served in 2004 decreased by 17 percent, totaling 9,416 children. While
the 2004 number does not include the
last two months of the fiscal year, it
does suggest that fewer children will
be served in 2004 compared to 2003.
The numbers of children currently in
subsidized child care programs are not
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004*
7,000
56
12,350
100
10,000
130
7,040
62
7,145
61
7,653
112
216
15
34
11,451
124
222
14
31
11,947
140
235
7
33
11,396
144
231
9
53
9,416
108
222
4
31
14,653
23,801
21,947
18,436
16,561
D.C. Public Schools After Care for All
Number of children served
Number of school sites
Office of Early Childhood Development
Number of children served
Number of family child care homes
Number of child development centers
Number of in-home providers
Number of relative providers
Total number of children served
* Note: The 2004 numbers are not from the complete fiscal year. They go only through August 2004.
25
the only measures of the need for such
services. Waiting lists also provide
some insight into families’ demand for
affordable, reliable child care. Waiting
lists were first created for the subsidized child care programs in 2002 and
have grown ever since. The following
is a snapshot of the waiting lists on
September 30 of each year: 540 children in 2002, 1,299 children in 2003,
and 1,566 children in 2004. Having
fewer available care slots because of
budget cuts certainly contributes to
the growing waiting lists, but increased
economic hardships for families may
be part of the explanation as well.
7. Infants and toddlers with
developmental delays and
disabilities receive services
through the entitlement
program, the Early Intervention
Program.
The D.C. Department of Health’s
Office of Early Childhood Development manages the Early Intervention
Program (DCEIP), an entitlement
service for infants and toddlers with
delays and disabilities. DCEIP helps
children and their families connect to
therapeutic and other supports to
develop the children’s potential. The
program is federally funded under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act and services are paid through
Medicaid, parent contributions based
on sliding fee scale, and other sources.
Services include outreach, identification and referral, developmental evaluations, and direct services such as
physical therapy, speech therapy and
assistive technology. Family support
activities are included as well as training and personnel development. As of
September 2004, 356 children received
direct services through the program.
Homeless Children and
Families
1. Homelessness in the District
has increased for the third
consecutive year. (Table 2)
The Homeless Services Planning and
Coordinating Committee (HSPCC)
of the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments has taken a
yearly snapshot of homeless persons in
the region since 2001. For clarity purposes, the survey was altered this year
to create two new baseline numbers:
the “literally homeless” and the “permanently supported homeless.” The
literally homeless are those who are on
the streets, in emergency shelters temporarily, in transitional housing temporarily, and those who are in precarious housing at imminent risk of loss
and are looking into shelters. The
permanently supported homeless are
those who live in permanent supportive housing but who would be at risk
of becoming homeless again without
this housing because of extreme poverty or serious mental or physical disabilities.
The HSPCC attempts to count the
entire homeless population in the
region during one day in January of
each year. The month of January was
selected because people are more likely
to be in shelters at this time of the
year, rather than living on the streets,
and therefore are easier to count. In
January 2004, the HSPCC counted a
total of 8,253 homeless persons in the
District, an increase of 303 persons or
3.8 percent since January 2003. This
is the third consecutive year that the
number of homeless persons has
increased, although it is the smallest
increase of the three years. Of the
homeless counted by HSPCC in
2004, 6,105 were literally homeless —
42 percent of whom (2,552) were persons in families. The number of people who were counted as permanently
supported homeless was 2,148 — 32
percent of whom (684) were persons
in families.
While it is a valuable indicator of the
level of homelessness in the city, it
should be noted that the HSPCC estimate is only a single point-in-time
count of the number of persons who
were homeless on a specific day. Since
people may move in and out of homelessness, the number of persons who
may have been homeless at any time
during the year is certainly higher than
this estimate.
2. The number of homeless families
applying for shelter in the
District continues to increase.
The number is almost 2.5 times
greater than year 2000. (Fig. 16)
Families seeking shelter through cityfunded services must apply at the
District’s central intake facility, the
Virginia Williams Family Resource
Center. According to the District’s
Coalition for the Homeless, the
agency managing the central intake
facility, the number of families applying for emergency shelters at the central intake facility increased from
2,613 in 2002 to 3,100 in 2003, a 19
percent increase from 2002, and a 36
percent increase from 2001. This is
the fourth consecutive increase in the
demand for emergency shelter for
families and is the highest number of
Table 2
Snapshot of the Number of Homeless in DC
January 2001 - January 2004
Total Number Counted
Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04
District of Columbia
7,058
26
7,468
7,950
8,253
Annual Rate of Change
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
5.8%
6.5%
3.8%
Figure 16
Child Health
Figure 16
1. The share of District mothers
receiving adequate prenatal care
continued to rise in 2002. At
68.7 percent in 2002, this is a
growth of almost 10 percentage
points since 1999. (Fig. 17)
Homeless Families Applying for Shelter at Central Intake in DC
1996 - 2003
4,000
Number of Families
3,500
3,100
3,000
2,500
Adequacy of prenatal care is measured
by the Kessner Index, a standard
method that takes into account the
number of prenatal visits in relation to
the length of the pregnancy. Care is
considered “adequate” if the mother
began receiving it in the first three
months of her pregnancy, and had at
least nine visits if the pregnancy lasted
the full nine months — or proportionately fewer when the gestation
period was shorter. If the mother
received less than the specified level
for adequate prenatal care, then she
can be deemed to have received an
“intermediate” level of care, or an
“inadequate” level if the amount of
care was zero or quite minimal. This
measure does not rate the quality of
care provided by the medical professional, only the quantity of care
received. (For a fuller explanation,
readers are referred to Section VII,
“A Few Words About the Data.”)
2,613
2,278
2,000
1,406
1,500
1,074
989
962
1997
1998
1999
1,276
1,000
500
0
Source:
2000
2001
2002
2003
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
The Homeless Services Planning & Coordinating Committee
new applicants since 1996 when these
data began being recorded annually.
These numbers capture not only those
that are already homeless and living in
nonpermanent housing (i.e., on the
street or in a shelter), but also those
that are living in a crowded situation
putting them at risk of homelessness.
The new applicant families in 2003
included an estimated 6,000 children.
Of the families with children that
applied for shelter, 34 percent had
children five years of age or younger, a
decrease of 15 percentage points from
2002. Six hundred and sixty (660)
families, including 2,187 persons,
were served in emergency shelter
apartments or alternative services
accessed through central intake. Of
these families, 63 families with 224
persons were served in the two emergency programs that serve victims of
domestic violence.
The above statistics represent only a
portion of the services and housing
programs available through the public
homeless continuum of care administered by the Community Partnership
for the Prevention of Homelessness.
Overall, the continuum of care resi-
dential programs (emergency shelter,
transitional housing and permanent
supportive housing) served 1,057 families including 3,492 persons in 2003
(the most current year of available
data). In addition, prevention assistance helped 223 families with 696
persons stay in their housing and not
F i g u rhomeless.
e 17
become
Figure 17
Percent of Pregnant Women Receiving Adequate Prenatal Care in DC
1993 - 2002
75
70
68.7
65.1
65.4
65
60.7
Percent
1996
60
59
57.5
55
53.7
51
50
48.4
45
44.8
40
1993
Source:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
D.C. Department of Health, State Center for Health Statistics Administration
27
2002
According to data from the D.C. State
Center for Health Statistics, 68.7 percent of all pregnant women in the
District received adequate prenatal
care, up from 65.4 percent in the previous year. Steadily on the rise since
1993, adequate care had only one
small dip occurring in 1999. The percent of mothers receiving inadequate
care dropped from 11.4 percent to 9.7
percent of births for which levels of
prenatal care are reported. With adequate care on the rise, not only do we
see inadequate care dropping, but we
also see that intermediate care dropped
in 2002. Births with intermediate prenatal care declined to 21.6 percent in
2002 from 23.2 percent a year before.
This is a somewhat positive sign, indicating that a smaller effort would be
needed than in previous years to bring
a larger share of mothers from the
intermediate up to the adequate level
of care.
Four of the eight wards met or beat
the D.C. average for adequate prenatal
care levels in 2002. Wards 1, 2, 3 and
6 had levels greater that the city average of 68.7 percent, with Ward 3
being the highest at 87.4 percent of
births receiving adequate prenatal care.
TheF remaining
i g u r e 1 8 four wards had rates
below the D.C. average. Ward 4 was
nearly the same at 68.3 percent, but
Wards 7 and 8 were nearly 11 percentage points below the average.
There is a correspondence between
levels of poverty and the share of
mothers receiving inadequate prenatal
care. Mothers who lived in Wards 7
and 8, the wards with the highest
poverty rates, accounted for 27.2 percent of all births for which we know
the level of prenatal care, yet they only
accounted for 23.0 percent of those
receiving adequate care.
2. Low-weight births were at their
lowest level in over a decade.
(Fig. 18)
Low birth weights (that is, birth
weights of 5.5 pounds or less) have
had a small and incremental downward trend over the past 10 years.
Starting with over 16 percent of low
birth weight babies in the late 1980s,
and decreasing gradually through the
1990s, by 2002 only 11.6 percent of
all births were considered low weight.
Low birth weights can be attributed
to inadequate prenatal care. With
adequate prenatal care on the rise and
inadequate care falling, we would
expect to find a smaller proportion of
low birth weight babies being born, as
the data indeed show. Conversely, low
Percent of Low Birthweight Infants in DC
1990 - 2002
Percent of all births under 5.5 pounds
18
15.2 15.3
14
12
14.2 14.7 14.2
13.5
14.2
13.5 13.1 13.3
11.9 12.2 11.6
10
8
6
4
2
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Source:
3. Infant mortality rose slightly in
2002, although it is at the second
lowest level in the past 13 years.
(Fig. 19)
Infant mortality rose slightly in 2002
to 11.5 deaths per 1,000 live births for
children under the age of one, an
increase of less than one percentage
point, according to the D.C. State
Center for Health Statistics. However,
the 2002 figure does not exceed any of
the figures before 2001. Growing
numbers of mothers who received adequate or intermediate prenatal care
most likely account for the dramatic
reduction in infant mortality over the
previous decade. Prenatal care ensures
the mother’s health, and has been
proven to contribute to the child’s
health after birth. With a focus on the
health of expectant mothers, strides
can be made to limit the infant
mortality rate, although economic
hardship may hamper efforts at
improvement.
4. Immunization rates have been
steadily rising since year 2000,
and they surpassed the national
average in 2003. (Table 3)
Figure 18
16
birth weight births can also be attributed to improved medical care and
technology. Babies with lower birth
weights can have greater rates of survival because of these advances, thus
we may see a plateauing or perhaps a
slowly decreasing rate of low birth
weight births.
D.C. Department of Health, State Center for Health Statistics Administration
28
The federal Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention conducts a
survey every year to determine rates
of immunization for major childhood diseases in all states and the
District of Columbia. The U.S.
National Immunization Survey
tracks the coverage of several vaccinations. The vaccination most commonly given to young children is
called “3+DTP” and protects against
Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis
(whooping cough). It is generally
given in three or more doses to children
from 19 to 35 months of age.
lies are provided with free immunizations at neighborhood clinics and larger facilities. Furthermore, the D.C.
Department of Health also provides
express immunization clinics where
appointments are not necessary.
Figure 19 Infant Mortality Rate Under One-Year Old in DC
1990 - 2002
25
20 20.2
Deaths per 1,000 live births
20
18.3
18.2
16.7
16.1
15
5. The total number of new cases of
the three most common sexually
transmitted diseases diagnosed
in children and youth under
20-years old in the District —
chlamydia, gonorrhea, and
syphilis — increased by 5 percent
in 2003. (Fig 20)
15
14.4
13.1 12.5
11.9
10.6
11.5
10
5
0
Source:
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
There were a total of 2,041 new cases
of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis
diagnosed in persons under age 20 in
2003. This was an increase of 97 new
cases or 5 percent. This increase was
primarily driven by a higher incidence
of gonorrhea which increased by 90
cases between 2002 and 2003, a 14
percent rise. The number of new
chlamydia cases increased slightly from
the previous year as well: 22 new
cases, or a 2 percent increase. Syphilis
dropped dramatically from 17 cases in
2002 to 2 cases in 2003, an 88 percent decrease.
2002
D.C. Department of Health, State Center for Health Statistics Administration
Table 3
Vaccination Coverage – 3 or More
Shots for Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis
DC and the United States 1999 - 2003
District of
Columbia
United
States
1999
94.4
95.9
2000
90.8
94.1
2001
91.6
94.3
2002
94.2
94.9
2003
96.5
96.0
Source: U.S. National Immunization Survey
The District’s vaccination rate for
3+DTP has generally been a percentage point or so under the national
level. In 2000, however, it fell more
substantially behind. Each year since,
the District has made steady gains on
the national average. In 2003, the
District surpassed the national average:
96.5 percent of District children in
the appropriate age range received the
3+DTP vaccinations, compared to
96.0 percent nationally.
The District’s immunization rates for
3+DTP has surpassed other central
cities in 2003, further highlighting the
gains the District has made in this
area. Last year, New York, Chicago,
and Philadelphia all had higher immu-
nization rates than the District. This
year, however, the District’s rate is
higher than in all three of those cities.
Several factors may explain the
improvement in immunization rates
for children in the District. D.C.
Public Schools have always required
that students be vaccinated before
starting school, but the school system
has recently become more vigilant in
enforcing
F i g u r ethis
2 0policy. Uninsured fami-
Figure 20
Cases of Clamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis Diagnosed
in People Under Age 20 in DC
1998 - 2003
1,600
1,400
Number of New Diagnoses
1990
1,305
1,331
1,297
1,228
Syphilis
Gonorrhea
Chlamydia
1,480
1,294
1,272
1,200
1,007
1,000
758
800
758
745
655
600
400
200
26
27
5
17
18
2
0
1998
Source:
1999
2000
D.C. Bureau of STD Control, Surveillance Unit
29
2001
2002
2003
Figure 21
There have been fewer than five
reported new AIDS cases among children 12 years and younger in the
District since 1999 and the number of
new cases for 2003 remains the same
according to the D.C. Administration
for HIV/AIDS. (For confidentiality
reasons, the exact figure is not shown
when the number of cases is fewer
than five.) The most common way
children ages 12 years and younger
contract AIDS is infection from their
pregnant mothers who are HIV positive. The dramatic decline in the number of cases since the mid-1990s is due
largely to the widespread use of
Zidovudine or AZT in pregnant
women who test positive for HIV.
This procedure began in 1994, when
clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad
showed that this medication reduced
maternal-child transmission of HIV
by two-thirds.
Figure 21
AIDS Cases Diagnosed Among Children 12-Years Old and Younger
1988 - 2003
25
22
21
20
Number of New Cases
6. The number of new AIDS cases
diagnosed in children 12-years
old and younger remains small
and steady in 2003. (Fig. 21)
17
15
15
16
15
15
12
10
10
8
7
5
<5
<5
<5
0
1988
1989
Source:
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 1999* 2000- 2003*
2002*
D.C. Department of Health, Administration for HIV-AIDS
*Numbers are not shown for years with fewer than 5 new cases.
Figure 22
Figure 22
AIDS Cases Diagnosed Among Children 13- to 19-Years Old in DC
1990 - 2003
7. New diagnoses of AIDS cases for
District children and youth ages
13 to 19 years increased slightly
in 2003, although the number
remains low. (Fig. 22)
The number of new AIDS cases for
children 13- to 19-years old rose
slightly in 2003, from less than five
to six cases. (Figure 22 is slightly misleading because of the suppression of
the less than five new cases category. It
appears that there was a large increase
between 2002 and 2003, which there
was not.) All those youth diagnosed
with AIDS were between 16- to 19years old. Half contracted the disease
10
9
9
8
8
Number of New Cases
Of the few children who were diagnosed with AIDS in 2003, all were
African American, a pattern consistent
with 2002. The fact that most are
African American is most likely due to
insufficient prenatal care among
women who cannot afford this service
because they lack health insurance.
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
<5
<5
<5
<5
1999
2000 2000-2002 2003
0
1990
Source:
1991 1992-1994 1995
1996
1997
1998
D.C. Department of Health, Administration for HIV-AIDS
*Numbers not shown for years with fewer than 5 new cases
from heterosexual contact, and the
other half from homosexual contact.
Similar to the younger age ranges discussed earlier, AIDS victims among
adolescents 13- through 19-years old
were also predominantly African
American. Of the persons with AIDS
30
tracked between 1980 and 2004,
96 percent (or 77 adolescents) were
African American.
Safety and
Personal Security
1. The number of deaths of children
and teens remained nearly the
same in 2002, decreasing by only
two cases.
Deaths to children and teens did not
change greatly in 2002 according to
data gathered by the D.C. State Center
for Health Statistics. The number
decreased from 153 deaths in 2001 to
151 deaths in 2002. Although youth
deaths have plateaued during the past
few years, great reductions have
occurred since the late 1990s. In 1997,
there were 222 youth deaths. By 1998
the number had dropped to 185, but
then rose to 194 in 1999.
2. Deaths to children less than
one-year old account for the
largest share of deaths to youth,
and this age group grew slightly
in 2002. (Fig. 23)
As in previous years, the first year of
life is the most tenuous. Deaths to
children less than one-year old constituted 57 percent of all youth deaths
(that is, deaths to children ages under
19 years), totaling 86 deaths in 2002.
This is an increase from the 81 deaths
that occurred to children under age
one in 2001. However, the 2002 figure is still lower than the 2000 figure
and the two previous years.
3. Deaths to children ages 1 to
14 years decreased by nine cases
in 2002. (Fig. 23)
Most of deaths in the first year of life
occurred from conditions originating
in the perinatal period, from congenital malformations or from ill-defined
clinical findings like Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome. Prenatal care can
improve the mother’s health and has
been shown to lead to a child’s well
health after birth. While not all of
these deaths can be explained, a portion of the decline in deaths can be
attributed to the improvement of prenatal care over time.
Deaths to children ages 5 to 9 years
have continued their steady and slow
decrease since 1998. In 2002 there
were six deaths, a decrease of one
death from the previous year.
The number of deaths to children ages
1 to 14 years decreased by nine cases
in 2002. Looking at the age groups
separately, six children in the 1- to 4age group died in 2002. This is a drop
of nearly half from the year before,
when 11 children died.
In 2002, the number of deaths in the
10- to 14-year-old age group declined
after rising sharply in 2001. It had
risen by five deaths between 2000 and
2001, but then declined by three
deaths, totaling seven deaths in 2002.
4. Older teens accounted for
one-third of youth deaths in
2002. (Fig. 23)
Figure 23
Figure 23
Number of Child and Teen Deaths by Age Group in DC
1998 - 2002
120
113
1998
1999
Child and Teen Number of Deaths
100
96
2000
91
86
2001
81
80
2002
60
49
53
44
40
46
In 2002, 46 deaths occurred to
youths ages 15 to 19 years. This
follows the gradual trend upward
since 2000. While the number of
deaths in this age group is
increasing, the figures are lower
now than they have been over the
course of the last decade.
Throughout the 1990s, the figures were double or nearly double
the numbers in 2002 (not shown
in Figure 23).
5. Violent deaths to 15- to
19-year-olds have increased
very slightly. (Fig. 24)
40
24
14 15
20
13
11
6
8 7 7 6
10
3
6 5
7
0
<1 year
Source:
1 - 4 yrs
5 - 9 yrs
10 - 14 yrs
D.C. Department of Health, State Center for Health Statistics Administration
31
15 - 19 yrs
Violent deaths (accidents, suicides, and murders) accounted for
39 of the 46 deaths to older
teens, or 85 percent. Until 2002,
violent teen deaths were on a
downward trend. This very slight
rise brings the total above the previous two years, but does not
exceed any figure before 2000.
Figure 24
Murders to teens ages 15- to 19-years
old rose between 2001 and 2002,
from 29 to 33, respectively. In 2002,
five older teens died in accidents and
one committed suicide.
Figure 24
Violent Deaths to Teens Aged 15-to-19 Years Old
(Accidents, Suicides and Murders)
1989 - 2002
Between 1990 and 1993, cases
brought before the courts for child
abuse (Fig. 25) dropped by 54 percent,
from 530 to 244, respectively. Since
then, the number has fluctuated up
and down with no clear trend. For
2003, 239 new abuse cases were filed,
an increase of 37 cases, or 18 percent,
from 2002. This large increase almost
negates the decline experienced in the
previous year (a drop of 25 percent).
Cases filed for child neglect (Fig. 26)
continued the downward trend that
started in 1998, and have decreased
significantly in 2002 and 2003. The
number of new neglect cases in 2003
was 614, a decrease of 289 cases, or
32 percent, from 2002. The decrease
between 2001 and 2002 was almost as
great – a 26 percent decline.
To put the abuse and neglect filing
numbers into context, changes have
occurred in the agencies that work
with abused and neglected children,
namely, the D.C. Child and Family
Service Agency (CFSA), the agency
responsible for protecting foster care
children who have been at risk for
abuse and neglect, and Family Court,
a division of the D.C. Superior Court.
The U.S. District Court placed CFSA
in receivership in 1995 due to a history of poor performance. The U.S.
District Court appointed an overseer
of the agency to ensure CFSA was in
full compliance. This receivership was
withdrawn five years later in 2000,
with a one-year probationary period.
106
Number of Violent Deaths to Teens
Fig. 26)
120
100
89
88
87
84
86
78
76
80
62
60
46
44
40
37
36
2000
2001
39
20
0
1989
1990 "199"1 1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2002
Figure 25
Source: D.C. Department of Health, State Center for Health Statistics Administration
Figure 25
Cases Filed for Child Abuse in DC
1990 - 2003
600
530
500
Number of Violent Deaths to Teens
6. The number of cases filed for
child abuse increased in 2003,
approaching a recent high in
2001. Child neglect cases
continued a downward trend
that started in 1998. (Fig. 25 and
400 397
400
304
273
274
300
244
268
253
239
189
200
202
192
156
100
0
1990
Source:
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
District of Columbia Courts, 1990-2003 Annual Reports
CFSA was back under District authority in 2001 and the responsibility for
child abuse and neglect investigations
was transferred from the District’s
Metropolitan Police Department to
CFSA during this time.
CFSA is required under the Adoption
and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997
32
to place children in permanent homes
in a timely manner. This changed the
focus of CFSA from prolonged
attempts at reuniting families to moving children into safer, permanent
homes. The CFSA is assessed to
ensure they keep performing at an
adequate level by such organizations as
the Council for Court Excellence, the
Figure 26
tions (requiring abusers to stay away
from those whom they were abusing),
establish custody of children, and
mandate child support. Judges’ rulings
hold effect for up to 12 months.
On average, the majority of people
requesting relief from domestic violence are women (approximately 85
percent).
Figure 26
Cases Filed for Child Neglect in DC
1990 - 2003
1,600
1,512
1,386 1,381
1,323 1,343
Number of Cases Filed
1,400
1,268 1,261
1,222
1,131
1,200
954
1,000
903
800
614
600
432
400
288
200
0
1990
Source:
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
District of Columbia Courts, 1990-2003 Annual Reports
Center for the Study of Social Policy,
and the U.S. General Accounting
Office. All three organizations have
pointed to reforms that CFSA has
made and areas where more improvement is needed.
The Family Court has made changes
as well. In 2004, the Family Court
completed the transfer of all abuse and
neglect cases to Family Court judges.
Previously, judges in other divisions
presided over abuse and neglect cases.
In addition, the court has fully implemented the “one judge, one family”
case management model, which
ensures that the same Family Court
judge hears an abuse or neglect case
from the beginning to end, as well as
any other family law cases involving
the same family. These two changes, as
well as others, were enacted by
Congress through the D.C. Family
Court Act of 2001.
In addition, the Family Court went
through a three-year physical rehabilitation that was completed in the fall
of 2004. The Family Court has been
redesigned to be more child friendly,
and many of the court functions formerly scattered throughout the city are
now housed in one building.
7. The total number of filings for
order of protections increased in
2003, but the percent granted
did not significantly change in
the same year. (Fig 27)
Victims of domestic violence can seek
protection from their abusers via the
Domestic Violence Unit of the D.C.
Superior Court. Domestic violence
judges
can grant civil orders of protecFigure 27
The effect of domestic violence on
families is profound. The American
Academy of Experts in Traumatic
Stress show that children from homes
where domestic violence occurs are
physically or sexually abused or seriously neglected at a rate 15 times the
national average. More than half of
the school-age children in domestic
violence shelters show clinical levels of
anxiety or posttraumatic stress disorder, and, without treatment, are at
significant risk for dropping out of
school, acquiring a substance abuse
problem, and developing difficulties in
their own relationships.
According to the Domestic Violence
Unit of the D.C. Superior Court, the
number of new filings made for civil
protection orders increased by 299
new filings or 8 percent in 2003. As
shown in the box in Figure 27, the
number of filings has gradually
Figure 27
Disposition of Civil Orders of Protection Against Domestic Violence
D.C. Superior Court
2003
7%
Denied or Withdrawn
Number of New Filings for
Civil Orders of Protection
D.C. Superior Court
26%
Consent
Agreement
50%
Petition
Dismissed
11%
Order to Comply
Source:
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
6%
Order by Default
Domestic Violence Unit, Superior Court of the District of Columbia
33
3,481
3,715
3,738
3,895
4,194
Figure 28
Of the remaining filings that were
ruled on by a judge, 6 percent in 2003
were granted an order of protection by
default (i.e., “order by default”). This
means that the person being accused
of domestic violence, while given the
opportunity to be heard, did not
appear in court and the judge ruled an
order of protection was necessary. The
percentage of order by default findings
did not change between 2002 and
2003.
The percentage of filings where a
judge ruled that an order of protection
should be granted when the defending
party did not agree (or “order to comply”) remained at 11 percent in 2003.
The percentage of filings where both
parties agreed to stay away from one
another (or “consent agreement”) was
26 percent in 2003. The percentage of
order of protections that were denied
by the judge or withdrawn by the parties (or “orders denied”) was 7 percent.
8. Juvenile cases referred to the D.C.
Superior Court increased slightly,
breaking the downward trend of
the past six years. (Fig. 28)
In 2003, 2,412 new criminal cases
were filed against juveniles, an increase
of 171 new cases, or 8 percent,
according to the D.C. Superior Court
2004 Annual Report. This broke the
downward trend started in 1997.
While criminal cases increased in
2003, the number is just over half the
Figure 28
Total Number of Juvenile Cases Referred to DC Superior Court
1990 - 2003
6,000
Number of Juvenile Cases
5,000
4,713 4,767 4,646
4,461 4,492
3,931 4,012
4,000
3,395
3,080
2,748
3,000
2,495 2,390
2,241
2,412
2,000
1,000
0
1990
Source:
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
District of Columbia Courts, 1990-2003 Annual Reports
number filed in 1994. The overall
increase was driven by increases in
property crime, specifically auto theft,
which
is discussed in greater detail
Figure 29
below.
Figure 29
Number of Juvenile Cases Referred to DC Superior Court for
Acts Against Public Order
1990 - 2003
2,500
2,000
Number of Juvenile Cases
increased since 1999, implying that
more of those needing legal protection
have approached the court. However,
as shown in the pie chart, the percentage of filings where the requesting
party did not follow through with the
legal process due to not appearing in
court to begin the proceedings or
explaining to the court that the parties
reconciled (i.e., “petitions dismissed”)
was 50 percent in 2003. The proportion of petitions dismissed has hovered
around 50 percent since 2000. In fact,
the percentage of the remaining four
types of dispositions all remained
approximately the same since 2000.
1,870 1,875
1,548
1,629 1,579
1,441
1,500
1,307
1,180 1,183
1,081
940
1,000
795
696
688
2002
2003
500
0
1990
Source:
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
District of Columbia Courts, 1990-2003 Annual Reports
34
1998
1999
2000
2001
9. “Acts Against Public Order” of
which juveniles were accused
decreased very slightly,
maintaining the fifth consecutive
year of decline. (Fig. 29)
crimes. Seventy-five percent of all
property crimes were due to “unauthorized use of auto,” i.e., automobile
theft or joy riding. This was up from
i g u r e 3 in
0 2002. In fact, unautho68F percent
Public order crimes include a variety
of offenses, but mainly involve drugs
and weapons. The number of new
cases decreased in 2003 by eight cases
or 1 percent. Of all new cases brought
against youths in 2003, one-quarter
were due to possession of marijuana,
one-quarter for sales or possession of
narcotics, and almost one-quarter due
to possession or carrying of a weapon.
The remaining new cases fall into
other categories.
rized use of an automobile made up
27 percent of all juveniles’ crimes
occurring in the District in 2003, not
just property crimes. This problem of
unauthorized use of autos and some
Figure 30
Number of Juvenile Cases Referred to DC Superior Court for
Acts Against Property
1990 - 2003
2,000
Number of Juvenile Cases
1,549
10. Property crimes increased in
2003, breaking a general
downward trend since 1997.
Automobile thefts greatly
increased in 2003, causing alarm
in the District. (Fig. 30)
1,506
1,417
1,500
1,343
1,145 1,110 1,168
992
1,000
864
798
766
803
1999
2000
2001
866
742
500
The number of property crimes in the
District increased by 124 new cases in
2003, or 17 percent. This increase
breaks
decline in property
F i g uar efive-year
31
0
1990
1991
Source:
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2002
2003
District of Columbia Courts, 1990-2003 Annual Reports
resulting fatal car wrecks prompted
the D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department to enact a crime-emergency plan that gives commanders
more resources to target juvenile auto
theft.
Figure 31
Number of Juvenile Cases Referred to DC Superior Court for
Acts Against Persons
1990 - 2003
Number of Juvenile Cases
2,000
1,500
11. “Acts Against Persons” by
juveniles increased after years of
decline and three years of staying
constant. (Fig. 31)
1,337 1,355 1,352
1,039
1,125 1,102
1,075
1,180
1,000
893
719
760
676
675
664
2000
2001
2002
500
0
1990
Source:
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
District of Columbia Courts, 1990-2003 Annual Reports
35
2003
In 2003, District youth were charged
with a total of 760 “acts against persons.” This is an increase of 96 cases
or 14 percent from 2002. This alters
the trend in the past three years of
keeping relatively constant or plateauing. Almost half of the offenses against
persons were simple assault (42 percent).
Education
12. Since 1994, the proportion of
crimes charged to juveniles has
changed. The proportion of
property crimes has increased
while there have been proportional decreases in public order
crimes. (Fig. 32)
Three different types of schools operate in the District of Columbia to provide primary and secondary education
to the city’s children: the District of
Columbia Public Schools (DCPS),
public charter schools, and independent or private schools. DCPS is the
traditional, historic administration
that oversees public schools for children in the District. Public schools are
open to the children of all families
who live in the District of Columbia
and charge no tuition. However, children who wish to attend a DCPS
school in a neighborhood other than
where they live must make an “out-ofboundary application” and generally
be accepted via a lottery system to
attend a different DCPS school.
From 1994 to 2003, the total number
of juvenile cases declined from 4,492
to 2,412, or 46 percent, according to
the D.C. Superior Court 2004 Annual
Report. Comparing those two time
periods, only the share of crimes
against persons remained relatively
constant at 30 percent and 32 percent,
respectively.
At the same time, the share of public
order crimes (drugs and weapons)
declined from 35 percent in 1994 to
28 percent in 2003. Property crimes
increased from 25 to 36 percent
between 1994 and 2003, and the
combined total of Interstate Compact
cases (persons fleeing from justice in
another jurisdiction) and PINS cases
(persons in need of supervision)
decreased from 10 to 4 percent
between 1994 and 2003.
Public charter schools were established
with the passage of the U.S.
Congressional D.C. School Reform
Act of 1995. The first District charter
school began operating in school year
1997-98. To establish a charter school,
founders must submit a detailed application with such information as articles of incorporation, by-laws, demo-
Figure 32
Figure 32
graphic analysis, an educational plan
including the mission and philosophy
of the school and curriculum, a business plan that describes the profile of
the founding group and how the
school will be financed, and an
accountability plan that determines
how well the students and school
performed in the school year, among
other things. Two boards authorize
and oversee public charter schools
in the District: the D.C. Board of
Education and the D.C. Public
Charter School Board.
Charter schools are publicly funded
but operate independently from the
DCPS administration. Like regular
public schools, charter schools are
open to all children in the District and
may not charge tuition. Charter
schools have no catchment areas, however, so a child may attend any charter
school regardless of where he or she
lives in the District. By statute, charter schools must have open enrollment. They accept eligible students
using a lottery if more students apply
than they can accept. If fewer students
apply, the school accepts them all.
Charter schools are also held accountable for achieving the educational outcomes specified in
their charters.
Change in Proportion of Charges Against Juveniles in DC
1994, 2002 and 2003
100
Crimes against
person
90
30%
30%
32%
80
Property crimes
Percent
70
60
25%
33%
36%
Public order
crimes
50
Interstate
and PINS
40
35%
30
31%
20
10
10%
6%
4%
1994
2002
2003
4,492
To t a l n u m b e r o f c h a r g e s
2,241
2,412
0
Source:
28%
District of Columbia Courts, 1994, 2002 and 2003 Annual Reports
36
Independent schools are
privately- and independentlyrun schools, either parochial
or secular, where students
must pay tuition and must be
admitted to attend. Most
independent schools are
accredited by state or regional
member associations. For
instance, independent secular
schools in the District of
Columbia can be accredited
through the Middle States
Association of Colleges and
Schools. The purpose of these
associations is to function as a
certifying body, not unlike
that of the public accrediting
bodies, to guarantee the quality of the schools and to
ensure that the public interest
Figure 33a
is well served by member schools. The
National Association of Independent
Schools (NAIS) serves as umbrella
organization for many state and
regional membership associations.
In addition, Catholic parochial schools
are overseen by the Catholic Schools
Office of the Archdiocese of
Washington.
The sections below briefly describe the
characteristics of the public and public
charter school systems operating in the
District. In addition, DCPS students’
educational outcomes are presented.
For future editions of the Kids Count
Fact Book, we hope to have educational outcomes for public charter and
independent schools as well.
1. District of Columbia Public
School enrollment continues to
decline, but the racial makeup
remains the same as last year.
(Fig. 33a and 33b)
There were 168 DCPS schools as of
2003: 108 elementary, 21 middle and
junior highs, 22 high schools, 14 citywide special education schools, and
3 alternative schools according to the
DCPS Summary of Membership
Report. This count includes “schools
within schools,” that is, separate
schools established within the same
physical building.
Enrollment continued to decline for
DCPS. As of the 2003-04 school year,
65,099 children were enrolled, a
reduction of 2,423 children or a 4 percent decrease from the previous year
and a decline of 25 percent since
school year 1990-91 (see Figure 33a
and 33b). While this reduction in
DCPS enrollment is dramatic, public
charter school enrollments have been
increasing – making up some of this
difference (this is described in more
detail below). Another factor in the
decline in child DCPS enrollment is a
drop in the child population living in
the District since 1990.
Of those enrolled in public schools,
84 percent are African American, 10
Figure 33a
Racial/Ethnic Composition of DCPS Student Body
1990 - 1991
1% 898 Asian/Other
4%
3,123 White
5% 4,199 Hispanic
90%
72,474 African American
Total Enrollment = 86,894
Source:
Kids Count Fact Book 2003
percent Hispanic, 5 percent nonHispanic white, and 2 percent Asian
or other (see Figure 33b). These are the
same proportions as the 2002-03
school year. Comparing the 2003-04
school year to the 1990-91 school year
(Fig. 33a), the student body has
become slightly more diverse as the
share of Hispanic students has
increased by five percentage points,
whites and
by one
F i gAsians
u r e 3 increased
3b
percentage point each, and the share of
African American students decreased
by six percentage points.
The proportion of DCPS pupils eligible for free or reduced-price lunches
stayed the same between 2002 and
2003, 65 percent. This implies that the
DCPS student body remains as poor as
the previous year.
Figure 33b
Racial/Ethnic Composition of DCPS Student Body
2003 - 2004
2% 1,124 Asian/Other
5%
3,167 White
10% 6,344 Hispanic
84%
54,429 African American
Total Enrollment = 65,099
Source:
District of Columbia Public Schools, Summary of Membership Report October 7, 2003
37
2. Enrollment in public charter
schools continues to rise – the
sixth consecutive increase since
the first charter school was
established in 1997. This increase
partially offsets the declining
enrollments in traditional public
schools. (Fig. 34)
There were 37 charter schools on 40
campuses in D.C. in 2003-04 according to the D.C. Public Charter School
Association. As noted earlier, public
charter schools have open enrollment
meaning that students living in any
part of the city are eligible for attendance. Enrollment in the charter
schools has increased sharply over the
past six years, making charter schools
a significant component of the educational system in the District. The
number of children enrolled in charter
schools in the 2003-04 school year
was 13,743, a 282 percent increase
since 1998 and an 18 percent increase
from the 2002-03
F i gschool
u r e 3year.
4 This
increase in charter school enrollment
means that the total public school
addition, each state and the District
must develop a plan to ensure all
teachers are highly qualified in core
subject areas by the 2005-06 school
year.
3. No Child Left Behind
Legislation requires annual
assessment of public school
students.
The District of Columbia initially
selected the Stanford Achievement
Test 9th Edition, also referred to as the
Stanford-9, to assess its public school
students for NCLB, a test that it had
already been using for several years.
However, the Stanford-9 will be
replaced starting in school year 200405 by another assessment tool, which
has yet to be determined. The sections
below examine the results of the
Stanford-9 assessments for DCPS
students through the 2003-04 school
year. (We do not have average
Stanford-9 test scores for public charter schools at this time because the
two governing boards provide only
individual public charter school scores.
We hope to aggregate these data for
future Kids Count Fact Books.)
The federal No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) legislation, signed into law in
January 2002, creates assessment and
accountability requirements for all
school districts that receive federal
funds. Each state and the District of
Columbia must put in place accountability systems that apply to all public
schools, including public charter
schools. They must develop or select
an annual assessment or “testing” system for reading/language arts, math,
and, eventually, science. These tests
must be administered annually to all
public school students and the measurements must be reported schoolby-school and district-by-district. In
Enrollment for DCPS and DC Public Charter Schools Combined
1990 - 2003
85,000
DCPS only
80,000
Total w/ Charter
Number of Students
Figure 34
population (including both DCPS
students and public charter students)
in the District decreased by only
1,852 students, or just 2 percent,
between 1990 and 2003.
75,000
70,000
65,000
60,000
55,000
50,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
*
Total w/charter
DCPS only
80,694 80,618 80,937 80,678
Source:
75,483 77,742 78,806 78,644
79,125 78,842
80,450 79,802 78,648 77,111 71,889 70,762 68,925 68,449
67,522 65,099
DCPS enrollment from previous Kids Count Fact Books
DC Public Charter school enrollment from the DC Public Charter School Association
*1997 enrollment not available
38
between 2003 and 2004. The remaining six grades’ NCE scores remained
the same. Only first graders surpassed
the national average (that is, had a
score above 50) in reading in 2004.
All other grades fell below the national
average. Some grades, such as 10th
grade, had average scores as low as 35.
4. DCPS students’ Stanford-9
reading test scores increased
slightly or remained the same in
2004. This is an improvement
over last year’s decline in reading
scores, although the scores still
fall below the national average.
(Fig. 35)
time or students who remain in the
system may be learning less than students do on average nationally.
5. DCPS students’ Stanford 9 math
scores also increased slightly or
remained the same in 2004.
Five of the grades scored above
the national average in 2004.
Looking at the reading scores over
time, one can see a clear and disquieting trend. First through 3rd grades’
scores tended to increase over the fiveyear time period, while grades 9th and
10th tend to slope downward. It
should be noted, however, that we are
looking at scores across grades at fixed
points in time. A more accurate measure of school performance would be to
track the educational achievement of
the same cohort of students as they
move through the school system.
Nevertheless, the data we have suggest
that the level of academic performance
tends to fall off in the higher grades.
Two possible explanations for this are
that the higher performing students
leave the public school system over
One way to assess students’ performance in the Stanford-9 is the students’
Normal Curve Equivalence (NCE)
scores. This score is a “norm reference
scale,” which allows individual scores
to be compared to the entire population of test takers. A NCE score of 50
is the national average of all students
taking the test. A score of more than
50 means that a student scored in the
top half of all scores in the country; a
NCE score of below 50 means that
the student scored in the bottom half
of the nation.
Five of the 11 grades (1st, 2nd, 3rd,
8th, and 11th) tested for reading performance by the Stanford-9 increased
their
F i gaverage
u r e 3 5NCE scores slightly
(Fig. 36)
Four of the 11 grades (2nd, 3rd, 5th,
and 6th) tested for math performance
in the Stanford-9 increased their average NCE scores in 2004. Six of the
remaining grades scored the same as
2003, and one grade (7th) scored
lower in 2004. On average, DCPS
students have higher math scores than
reading scores. For instance, 1st
through 3rd grades and 5th and 6th
grades scored above the national NCE
average of 50 and in no grade did students rate lower than an average NCE
score of 40, which is higher than the
lowest reading scores.
Analyzing the math scores over time,
Figure 35
Stanford 9 Achievement Test Scores for Reading
DCPS Students
2000 - 2004
60
54
51
55
56
52
50
48
50
47
48
48
46
47
47
45
44 44
47
47
45 45 45 45
National Average
47 47
44
45
46
46 46
44
44 44
44
42
43
41 41 41
43
42
39 39 39
40
Mean NCE
42
37 37
38
41 41 40
39
37 37
35 35
30
2000
2001
20
2002
2003
2004
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
GRADE
Source:
District of Columbia Public Schools, Academic Performance Database System
39
8
9
10
11
Figure 36
Figure 36
Stanford 9 Achievement Test Scores for Math
DCPS Students
2000 - 2004
60
53 53
54
56
55 55
54
50
50
51
49
50
51
52
52
50 50
47
48 48 48
51 51 51
51
50
50
52
50
48 48 48
47
45
46
44
49 49
47
45 45
43
48 48
48 48
46 46
44 44
45
National Average
47
45 45
44 44
Mean NCE
40
2000
30
2001
2002
2003
20
2004
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
GRADE
Source:
District of Columbia Public Schools, Academic Performance Database System
Figure 37
6. The percentage of DCPS
students scoring proficient or
advanced in Stanford-9 reading
and math in 2004 decreased
significantly in the higher grades.
(Fig. 37)
Another method to assess students’
performance from the Stanford-9 is to
look at the percentage of test takers
ranked as advanced, proficient, basic,
and below basic. This ranking is a “criterion reference scale” that scores the
percent of questions the student
answered correctly and compares them
Figure 37
Percent Scoring Proficient or Advanced for
Stanford 9 Test in Reading and Math
DCPS Students
2004
60
53 52
Math
Reading
50
38
40
Percent
the 1st through 6th grades (excluding
4th grade) show a general upward
trend in their math scores, while the
older grades (9th through 11th) show
a general downward trend. This is
similar to the pattern exhibited by the
reading scores. It suggests either that
higher-skilled students are leaving the
system as they get older or that students learn less math while in DCPS
than in other systems.
38
34
30
33
29
27
23
25 25 24
24
21
20
12
13 14 13 12
13
7
10
8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
GRADE
Source:
District of Columbia Public Schools, Academic Performance Database System
40
11
Figure 38
7. When compared
to other urban
areas, DCPS and
public charter
students generally
rated lower on
average in 2003.
Figure 38
Comparison of National Assessment of Educational Progress Scores for
DC and Other Urban Cities
Grade 4
Math
Reading
242
250
216
216
Average Score
220
214
207
206
205
200
215
227
197
188
194
195
National average math 234
226
226
219
Often policy makers and
researchers compare the
District of Columbia to
other states – a misleading comparison since the
District is entirely an
urban area and, therefore, its demographics
and student population
differ sharply from those
of the states. Because not
all school districts are
required to use the same
assessment test, comparisons across jurisdictions
can also be difficult. In
order to compare the achievements of
District public school students to others in the country, the National
150
100
50
0
District of
Columbia
Source:
Atlanta
Los Angeles Cleveland
Chicago
Boston
Houston
San Diego
Charlotte
New York
City
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
to a standard. When looking at the
percentage of DCPS students who
rated as advanced or proficient in the
2004 Stanford-9 reading and math
tests, we see that more than half of
students start out as proficient or
advanced in the first grade. The percentage scoring at these higher levels
declines as one moves through the
grades, however, with only 13 percent of 11th graders scoring proficient or advanced in reading and
only 8 percent scoring these levels in
math.
of Hispanic students scored proficient or advanced in math, compared
of white students.
F i to
g u 85
r e percent
39
Figure 39
Comparison of National Assessment of Educational Progress Scores for
DC and Other Urban Cities
Grade 8
Reading
Math
290
279
National average math 276
280
270
264
266
264
260
254
253
250
245
240
239
240
246
244
243
248
250
262
262
National average reading 261
Average Score
The test results also indicate wide
disparities in academic performance between racial and ethnic
groups (not shown in Figure 37).
Across all grades, only 34 percent
of Hispanic and 35 percent of
African American DCPS students
scored proficient or above in reading, compared to 83 percent of
non-Hispanic white students. For
math, the gaps between scores were
slightly narrower but the differences between groups remained.
Only 42 percent of African
American students and 50 percent
(Fig. 38 and 39)
National average reading 216
210
208
198
252
252
240
234
230
220
210
Los Angeles District of
Columbia
Source:
Atlanta
Cleveland
Houston
Chicago
San Diego
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
41
Boston New York City Charlotte
The NAEP tests were administered to
4th and 8th grade students in the 10
urban areas. The results are summarized in Figures 38 and 39. District
public and public charter school children in both grades scored lower on
average for math than their counterparts in each of the other nine cities,
although the average math score for
District 8th graders was only one
point lower than those for Atlanta.
The highest math scores were in the
Charlotte, North Carolina school district, whose 4th graders had an average
score of 242, 37 points higher than
the District, and whose 8th graders
had an average score of 279, 36 points
higher than the District.
For reading, District public and public
charter school students had lower
average NAEP scores than nine of the
other cities in the 4th grade, and lower
average scores than eight of the nine
other cities in the 8th grade. Fourth
graders in the District had the lowest
average score of 188. For 8th graders,
the District only surpassed Los Angeles
with a score of 239 versus 234. Again,
the highest average reading scores in
both grades were for students in
Charlotte, 219 for 4th graders and
262 for 8th graders.
SAT scores for DCPS students have
historically been below the national
average. This continues to hold true
in 2004. The national average combined (verbal and math) score was
1,020 in 2004, compared to the
DCPS average combined score of 814.
On a positive note, however, DCPS
students raised their combined average
SAT score by 14 points from 2003 –
an increase of 6 points in math and 8
points in verbal. It is also encouraging
that more DCPS students took the
SAT in the spring of 2004 than in the
previous year – a modest increase of
41 students totaling 3,565 students –
suggesting that slightly more youth in
the District are preparing for the possibility of college.
8. DCPS average SAT scores
remained below the national
average in 2004 although their
scores increased slightly from the
previous year. (Fig. 40)
The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is
a nation-wide test taken primarily by
high school juniors and seniors. It is
one of two major tests, the other being
the ACT, used to judge whether a secondary school student is prepared for
college. The SAT is intended to measure two sets of skills – verbal and
mathematical reasoning – that students need for college-level work in
any academic area. Most colleges and
universities require that students submit
F i their
g u r eSAT
4 0 or ACT scores as part
of the application process.
Figure 40
SAT Verbal and Math Scores DC vs Nation
2003 and 2004
800
700
Verbal
600
508
Average Score
Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) can be used. Like the
Stanford-9, the NAEP tests on specific
math content and basic reading skills.
A representative sample of DCPS and
public charter students, along with
samples of students from nine other
large urban school districts, voluntarily
participated in the Trial Urban District
Assessment (TUDA), which was conducted by the National Assessment of
Educational Progress in the spring of
2003. Because all of these students
took the same test at the same time,
the results allow us to directly compare academic performance across
different urban areas.
518
500
396
404
404
410
400
300
200
100
0
DC 2003
Source:
DC 2004
The College Board SAT, summary reporting service
42
US 2004
Math
V.
SELECTED INDICATORS BY WARD
AND RACE/ETHNICITY
I
n this section, we compare the
District’s eight wards with the city
as a whole and with each other on
various measures of child well-being.
We also compare these selected indicators by race and ethnicity. The indicators shown here are among the few for
which we could obtain usable data at
the ward level or for those where racial
data were collected.
Comparing the Wards
There are two tables plus a map. The
map on this page shows the locations
of each of the eight wards. The tables
present statistics on certain indicatorsboth numbers of children affected and
rates, usually in terms of percentagesfor the city as a whole and for each
ward or each racial/ethnic group.
To compare the health indicator data,
please note the following pattern for
many of the indicators (using births
to single mothers as an example):
First we list the total number of births
to single mothers: 4,233 in the entire
city, 587 in Ward 1.
The table on page 44 compares the
city total to the eight wards. The first
three rows are general demographic
indicators (estimated population,
children under 18, and live births).
The rest are indicators of children’s
health and well-being and those
receiving public assistance.
Second, the percentage of all live
births in the city or ward that were to
Single Mothers: 56 percent of all
births in the city were to single
mothers, as were 55 percent of those
in Ward 1.
LOCATIONS OF WARDS IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
4
3
1
5
2
6
7
8
Third, the percent of all single births
in the city or ward that occurred in
that location: 100 percent occurred in
the city as a whole, and 17 percent of
them occurred in Ward 1.
Indicators by Race and Hispanic
Ethnicity
The table on page 45 shows how each
race/ethnicity groups ranks among the
others. The indicators are formed in
the same way as the ward table. In
many areas, the racial/ethnic gap is
stark compared to the ward divisions,
while in others it is more modest.
43
TABLE 1
Comparing District Wards on Indicators of Child Health, Mortality and Child Welfare Recipiency
Washington, D.C.
District of Columbia
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
Total Population, 2000
% of Total Population
572,059
100%
72,978
13%
69,351
12%
73,804
13%
74,939
13%
71,504
12%
68,038
12%
70,545
12%
70,900
12%
Children Under 18, 2000
% of Population that is under 18
% of City’s Child Population
114,332
20%
100%
13,029
18%
11%
5,445
8%
5%
8,725
12%
8%
15,332
20%
13%
15,272
21%
13%
11,739
17%
10%
19,425
28%
17%
25,364
36%
22%
7,494
100%
1,064
14%
581
8%
748
10%
1,058
14%
852
11%
791
11%
922
12%
1,420
19%
Births to Single Mothers
% of Live Births
% of Births to Single in City
4,233
56%
100%
587
55%
14%
176
30%
4%
38
5%
1%
519
49%
12%
620
73%
15%
400
51%
9%
748
81%
18%
1,113
78%
26%
Births to Teen Mothers (Under 20)
% of Live Births
% of Teen Births in City
956
13%
100%
132
12%
14%
33
6%
3%
4
1%
0%
116
11%
12%
148
17%
15%
86
11%
9%
169
18%
18%
266
19%
28%
Birth to Child Mothers (Under 18)
% of Live Births
% of Child Births in City
369
5%
100%
47
4%
13%
12
2%
3%
0
0%
0%
46
4%
12%
6
7%
16%
34
4%
9%
73
8%
20%
95
7%
26%
69%
71%
71%
87%
68%
66%
69%
59%
58%
Low Birthweight Babies (Under 5.5 Pounds
% of Live Births
% of Low Birthweights in City
866
12%
100%
112
11%
13%
52
9%
6%
50
7%
6%
114
11%
13%
111
13%
13%
85
11%
10%
122
13%
14%
207
15%
24%
Infant Deaths (Under 1 Year)
Rate (per 1,000 Live Births
% of Infant Deaths in the City
86
11.5
100%
13
12.1
15%
7
11.8
8%
4
5.3
5%
11
10.4
13%
9
10.7
11%
12
15.4
14%
16
17.2
18%
13
9.2
15%
Deaths to Children and Youth (1-19 Years
% of Child and Youth Deaths in City
65
100%
9
14%
2
3%
4
6%
9
14%
3
5%
6
9%
15
23%
15
23%
Deaths to Teens (15-19 Years)
% of Teen Deaths in City
46
100%
6
13%
1
2%
2
4%
5
11%
3
7%
5
11%
11
24%
12
26%
Teen Murders (15-19)
% of Teens Murders in City
33
100%
4
12%
0
0%
0
0%
3
9%
3
9%
3
9%
11
33%
8
25%
Total Number of Children Receiving TANF
% of Children Receiving TANF
33,211
100%
2,636
8%
2,978
9%
22
0%
2,422
7%
4,628
14%
4,579
14%
6,608
20%
9,338
28%
Total Number of Children Receiving Food
% of Children Receiving Food Stamps
38,990
100%
3,155
8%
3,485
9%
37
0%
2,762
7%
5,346
14%
5,357
14%
7,964
20%
10,884”
28%
Total Number of Children Receiving Medic
% of Children Receiving Medicaid
71,953
100%
7,938
11%
11,283
16%
408
1%
7,755
11%
8,647
12%
7,920
11%
12,113
17%
15,885
22%
Babies Born Alive, 2002
% of Live Births in City
Health and Mortality Indicators (2002)
Percent of Births with Adequate Care
Welfare Indicators (June 2004)
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000; District of Columbia State Center for Health Statistics, 2002.
44
TABLE 2
Comparing Racial and Ethnic Groups on Indicators of Child Health, Mortality and Child Welfare Recipiency
Washington, D.C.
Non-Hispanic
White
Non-Hispanic
Black
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Other*
Unknown
Total
Total Population, 2000
% of Total Population
572,059
100%
160,525
28%
346,354
61%
45,015
8%
20,165
4%
-
Children Under 18, 2000
% of Population that is under 18
% of City’s Child Population
114,332
20%
100%
13,545
8%
12%
85,179
25%
75%
11,183
25%
10%
4,425
22%
4%
-
7,494
100%
1,699
23%
4,509
60%
1,000
13%
250
3%
36
0%
Births to Single Mothers
% of Live Births to Race/Ethnicity Group
% of Births to Single in City
4,233
56%
100%
130
8%
3%
3,461
77%
82%
589
59%
14%
37
15%
1%
16
44%
0%
Births to Teen Mothers (Under 20)
% of Live Births to Race/Ethnicity Group
% of Teen Births in City
956
13%
100%
18
1%
2%
778
17%
81%
146
15%
15%
9
4%
1%
5
14%
1%
Birth to Child Mothers (Under 18)
% of Live Births to Race/Ethnicity Group
% of Child Births in City
369
5%
100%
7
0%
2%
301
7%
82%
55
6%
15%
2
1%
1%
4
11%
1%
69%
87%
61%
64%
74%
63%
Low Birthweight Babies (Under 5.5 Pounds)
% of Live Births to Race/Ethnicity Group
% of Low Birthweights in City
866
12%
100%
105
6%
12%
655
15%
76%
95
10%
11%
9
4%
1%
2
6%
0%
Infant Deaths (Under 1 Year)
Rate (per 1,000 Live Births)
% of Infant Deaths in the City
86
11.5
100%
12
7.1
14%
66
14.6
77%
3
3.0
3%
5
20.0
6%
0
0.0
0%
Deaths to Children and Youth (1-19 Years)
% of Child and Youth Deaths in City
65
100%
5
8%
59
91%
1
2%
0
0%
0
0%
Deaths to Teens (15-19 Years)
% of Teen Deaths in City
46
100%
3
7%
42
91%
1
2%
0
0%
0
0%
Teen Murders (15-19)
% of Teens Murders in City
33
100%
1
3%
32
97%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Total Number of Children Receiving TANF
% of Children Receiving TANF
33,211
100%
46
0%
32,341
97%
714
2%
76
0%
33
0%
Total Number of Children Receiving Food Stamps
% of Children Receiving Food Stamps
38,990
100%
82
0%
37,504
96%
1,216
3%
160
0%
27
0%
Babies Born Alive, 2002
% of Live Births in City
Health and Mortality Indicators (2002)
Percent of Births with Adequate Care
Welfare Indicators (June 2004)**
*Note: The non-Hispanic other category includes multiple races.
**Note: The racial categories for the welfare indicators are white, black, Hispanic, other and unknown. They are not explicitly ethnically-exclusive (i.e., non-Hispanic
white, non-Hispanic black, etc.) as for the other indicators. Racial breakdowns were calculated by applying proportions obtained from July 2004 TANF and Food Stamp
client data to June 2004 totals; racial breakdowns were not available for the Medicaid recipients.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000; District of Columbia State Center for Health Statistics, 2002; D.C. Data Warehouse, Urban Institute
45
46
VI.
Selected Indicators
of Child Well-Being
by Neighborhood Cluster
I
n this section, we present four maps and data tables on selected
indicators of child well-being at the neighborhood level. The maps
are infant mortality rate, percent of low weight births, deaths ages
1- to 19-years old, and percent of births to mothers 19-years old or
younger.
The neighborhood level data reported here are based on 39 neighborhood clusters into which the District has been divided by the D.C.
Office of Planning. The Mayor's office developed and released 39
Strategic Neighborhood Action Plans (SNAPs) based on these cluster
designations.
The cluster-level data in this section provide an opportunity for members of the community to review the situation of children in their own
neighborhoods, and possibly to provide feedback on what actions they
believe should be included in future SNAPs.
Each cluster is identified with a number on the maps. These cluster
numbers can be used in connection with the table accompanying each
map. The table shows the ward in which the cluster is located, the cluster number, and the names of the individual neighborhoods contained
in each cluster. (Cluster boundaries sometimes overlap ward boundaries, and in such cases the ward containing the largest part of the cluster is given as its location.)
With these clearly marked and shaded maps, along with the detailed
data charts accompanying each, readers will be able to identify where
in the city specific problems exist and determine what level of each
problem exists in their own neighborhood. Equipped with this information, we hope that they will be in a position to act and advocate
more effectively for the well-being of the District's children.
47
MAP 1
Infant Mortality Rate by Neighborhood Cluster
Washington, D.C.
2002
48
2002
Ward
Neighborhood
Cluster Number
Neighborhoods Cluster Name
Infant Mortality Rate
(per 1,000 live Births)
1
1
Kalorama Heights, Adams Morgan, Lanier Hights
6
1
2
Mt. Pleasant, Columbia Heights, Park View
12
1
3
Howard University, Ledroit Park, Cardozo/Shaw
21
2
4
Georgetown, Burleith/Hillandale
5
2
5
West End, Foggy Bottom, GWU
0
2
6
Dupont Circle, Connecticut Ave., K St.
0
2
7
Logan Circle, Shaw
23
2
8
Downtown, Chinatown, Penn Quarters, Mt.Vernon Square, North Capitol St.
27
6
9
Southwest Employment Area, Waterfront,Fort McNair, Buzzard Point
0
4
10
Hawthorne, Barnaby Woods, Chevy Chase
0
3
11
Friendship Heights, Tenleytown, American University Park
0
3
12
North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills, Van Ness
0
3
13
Springs Valley, Palisades, Wesley Heights, Foxhall Crescent, Foxhall Village, Georgetown Reservoir
6
3
14
Catherdral Heights, McLean Gardens, Glover Park
21
3
15
Cleveland Park, Woodley Park, Massachusetts Heights, Normanstone Terrace
9
4
16
Colonial Village, Shepard Park, North Portal Estates
26
4
17
Takoma, Brightwood, Manor Park
12
4
18
Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth
11
4
19
Lamond Riggs, Fort Totten, Queens Chapel, Pleasant Hill
0
5
20
North Michigan Park, Michigan Park, University Heights
0
5
21
Edgewood, Bloomingdale, Truxton Circle, Eckington
0
5
22
Brookland, Brentwood, Langdon
0
5
23
Ivy City, Arboretum, Trinidad, Carver Langston
32
5
24
Woodridge, Fort Lincoln, Gateway
22
6
25
Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park
14
6
26
Capitol Hill, Lincoln Park
23
6
27
Near Southeast, Navy Yard
12
8
28
Historic Anacostia
0
7
29
Eastland Gardens, Kenilworth
0
7
30
Mayfair, Hillbrook, Mahaning Heights
9
7
31
Deanwood, Burrville, Grant Park, Lincoln Heights, Fairmont Heights
14
7
32
River Terrace, Benning, Greenway,Dupont Park
7
7
33
Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning Heights
29
7
34
Twining, Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Penn Branch, Fort Davis Park
16
7
35
Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Hillcrest, Summit Park
12
8
36
Woodland/Fort Stanton, Knox Hill, Garfield Heights
8
8
37
Sheridan, Barry Farms, Buena Vista
10
8
38
Douglass, Shipley Terrace
11
8
39
Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands
10
Source: D.C. Department of Health State Center for Health Statistics Administration 2002
49
MAP 2
Percent of Low Weight Births by Neighborhood Cluster
Washington, D.C.
2002
50
2002
Ward
Neighborhood Cluster
Number
Neighborhoods Cluster Name
Total
Number
of Births
Number of
Low Weight
Births
Percent of
Low Weight
Births
1
1
Kalorama Heights, Adams Morgan, Lanier Hights
165
5
3.0%
1
2
Mt. Pleasant, Columbia Heights, Park View
823
89
10.8%
1
3
Howard University, Ledroit Park, Cardozo/Shaw
94
17
17.9%
2
4
Georgetown, Burleith/Hillandale
190
7
3.7%
2
5
West End, Foggy Bottom, GWU
35
6
16.0%
2
6
Dupont Circle, Connecticut Ave., K St.
98
6
6.5%
2
7
Logan Circle, Shaw
261
33
12.6%
2
8
Downtown, Chinatown, Penn Quarters, Mt.Vernon Square, North Capitol St.
111
16
14.4%
6
9
Southwest Employment Area, Waterfront,Fort McNair, Buzzard Point
94
10
10.6%
4
10
Hawthorne, Barnaby Woods, Chevy Chase
171
7
4.1%
3
11
Friendship Heights, Tenleytown, American University Park
148
9
6.1%
3
12
North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills, Van Ness
125
8
6.6%
3
13
Springs Valley, Palisades,Wesley Heights, Foxhall Crescent, Foxhall Village, Georgetown
178
15
8.4%
3
14
Catherdral Heights, McLean Gardens, Glover Park
94
6
6.4%
3
15
Cleveland Park, Woodley Park,Massachusetts Heights, Normanstone Terrace
117
11
9.2%
4
16
Colonial Village, Shepard Park, North Portal Estates
39
<5
2.6%
4
17
Takoma, Brightwood, Manor Park
252
32
12.7%
4
18
Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth
613
70
11.4%
4
19
Lamond Riggs,Fort Totten, Queens Chapel, Pleasant Hill
112
11
9.8%
5
20
North Michigan Park, Michigan Park, University Heights
87
12
13.8%
5
21
Edgewood,Bloomingdale,Truxton Circle, Eckington
246
31
12.6%
5
22
Brookland, Brentwood, Langdon
120
23
19.2%
5
23
Ivy City, Arboretum, Trinidad, Carver Langston
222
24
10.8%
5
24
Woodridge, Fort Lincoln, Gateway
91
15
16.5%
6
25
Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park
356
37
10.4%
6
26
Capitol Hill, Lincoln Park
176
13
7.4%
6
27
Near Southeast, Navy Yard
83
12
14.5%
8
28
Historic Anacostia
111
21
18.9%
7
29
Eastland Gardens, Kenilworth
38
<5
10.5%
7
30
Mayfair, Hillbrook, Mahaning Heights
99
17
17.5%
7
31
Deanwood, Burrville, Grant Park, Lincoln Heights, Fairmont Heights
218
29
13.1%
7
32
River Terrace, Benning, Greenway,Dupont Park
153
18
11.8%
7
33
Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning Heights
207
32
15.5%
7
34
Twining, Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Penn Branch, Fort Davis Park
183
25
13.7%
7
35
Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Hillcrest, Summit Park
85
6
7.1%
8
36
Woodland/Fort Stanton, Knox Hill, Garfield Heights
125
22
17.6%
8
37
Sheridan, Barry Farms, Buena Vista
201
32
15.9%
8
38
Douglass, Shipley Terrace
178
28
15.7%
8
39
Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands
603
81
13.4%
Source: D.C. Department of Health State Center for Health Statistics Administration 2002
51
MAP 3
Mortality Rates for 1- to 19-Years Old by Neighborhood Cluster
Washington, D.C.
2002
52
Ward
Neighborhood
Cluster Number
Neighborhood Cluster Name
2002
Death Rate Age 1
to 19 (per 1,000)
1
1
Kalorama Heights,Adams Morgan,Lanier Hights
0.5
1
2
Mt. Pleasant, Columbia Heights, Park View
0.5
1
3
Howard University, Ledroit Park, Cardozo/Shaw
0.7
2
4
Georgetown,Burleith/Hillandale
0.0
2
5
West End, Foggy Bottom, GWU
0.0
2
6
Dupont Circle, Connecticut Ave., K St.
1.1
2
7
Logan Circle, Shaw
0.3
2
8
Downtown, Chinatown, Penn Quarters, Mt.Vernon Square, North Capitol St.
1.5
6
9
Southwest Employment Area, Waterfront,Fort McNair, Buzzard Point
1.5
4
10
Hawthorne, Barnaby Woods, Chevy Chase
0.8
3
11
Friendship Heights, Tenleytown, American University Park
1.0
3
12
North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills, Van Ness
0.0
3
13
Springs Valley, Palisades,Wesley Heights, Foxhall Crescent, Foxhall Village, Geor
0.0
3
14
Catherdral Heights, McLean Gardens, Glover Park
1.1
3
15
Cleveland Park, Woodley Park,Massachusetts Heights, Normanstone Terrace
0.0
4
16
Colonial Village, Shepard Park, North Portal Estates
0.0
4
17
Takoma, Brightwood, Manor Park
0.5
4
18
Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth
0.6
4
19
Lamond Riggs,Fort Totten, Queens Chapel, Pleasant Hill
0.0
5
20
North Michigan Park, Michigan Park, University Heights
0.5
5
21
Edgewood,Bloomingdale,Truxton Circle, Eckington
0.0
5
22
Brookland, Brentwood, Langdon
0.4
5
23
Ivy City, Arboretum, Trinidad, Carver Langston
0.3
5
24
Woodridge, Fort Lincoln, Gateway
0.0
6
25
Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park
0.0
6
26
Capitol Hill, Lincoln Park
0.0
6
27
Near Southeast, Navy Yard
0.0
8
28
Historic Anacostia
0.5
7
29
Eastland Gardens, Kenilworth
0.0
7
30
Mayfair, Hillbrook, Mahaning Heights
0.0
7
31
Deanwood, Burrville, Grant Park, Lincoln Heights, Fairmont Heights
0.7
7
32
River Terrace, Benning, Greenway,Dupont Park
0.8
7
33
Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning Heights
1.2
7
34
Twining, Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Penn Branch, Fort Davis Park
0.8
7
35
Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Hillcrest, Summit Park
0.5
8
36
Woodland/Fort Stanton, Knox Hill, Garfield Heights
1.2
8
37
Sheridan, Barry Farms, Buena Vista
0.0
8
38
Douglass, Shipley Terrace
0.2
8
39
Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands
0.8
Sources: D.C. Department of Health State Center for Health Statistics Administration, 2002
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000
53
MAP 4
Percent of Births to Mothers Under Age 20 by Neighborhood Cluster
Washington, D.C.
2002
Births to Mothers Under Age 20
54
2002
Ward
Neighborhood Cluster
Number
Neighborhoods Cluster Name
Births to Teen
Mothers (Under 20)
Percent of Births
to Teen Mothers
(Under 20)
1
1
Kalorama Heights,Adams Morgan,Lanier Hights
11
6.7%
1
2
Mt. Pleasant, Columbia Heights, Park View
114
13.9%
1
3
Howard University, Ledroit Park, Cardozo/Shaw
9
9.5%
2
4
Georgetown,Burleith/Hillandale
0
0.0%
2
5
West End, Foggy Bottom, GWU
<5
2.8%
2
6
Dupont Circle, Connecticut Ave., K St.
<5
3.1%
2
7
Logan Circle, Shaw
27
10.3%
2
8
Downtown, Chinatown, Penn Quarters, Mt.Vernon Square, North Capitol St.
15
13.5%
6
9
Southwest Employment Area, Waterfront,Fort McNair, Buzzard Point
12
12.8%
4
10
Hawthorne, Barnaby Woods, Chevy Chase
0
0.0%
3
11
Friendship Heights, Tenleytown, American University Park
0
0.0%
3
12
North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills, Van Ness
0
0.0%
3
13
Springs Valley, Palisades,Wesley Heights, Foxhall Crescent, Foxhall Village, Georgetown Reservoir
0
0.0%
3
14
Catherdral Heights, McLean Gardens, Glover Park
<5
3.2%
3
15
Cleveland Park, Woodley Park,Massachusetts Heights, Normanstone Terrace
<5
0.9%
4
16
Colonial Village, Shepard Park, North Portal Estates
<5
5.1%
4
17
Takoma, Brightwood, Manor Park
24
9.5%
4
18
Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth
86
14.0%
4
19
Lamond Riggs,Fort Totten, Queens Chapel, Pleasant Hill
17
15.2%
5
20
North Michigan Park, Michigan Park, University Heights
12
13.8%
5
21
Edgewood,Bloomingdale,Truxton Circle, Eckington
41
16.7%
5
22
Brookland, Brentwood, Langdon
30
25.0%
5
23
Ivy City, Arboretum, Trinidad, Carver Langston
41
18.5%
5
24
Woodridge, Fort Lincoln, Gateway
10
11.0%
6
25
Union Station, Stanton Park, Kingman Park
36
10.1%
6
26
Capitol Hill, Lincoln Park
6
3.4%
6
27
Near Southeast, Navy Yard
17
20.5%
8
28
Historic Anacostia
22
19.8%
7
29
Eastland Gardens, Kenilworth
11
28.9%
7
30
Mayfair, Hillbrook, Mahaning Heights
17
17.5%
7
31
Deanwood, Burrville, Grant Park, Lincoln Heights, Fairmont Heights
39
17.7%
7
32
River Terrace, Benning, Greenway,Dupont Park
27
17.6%
7
33
Capitol View, Marshall Heights, Benning Heights
50
24.2%
7
34
Twining, Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Penn Branch, Fort Davis Park
35
19.1%
7
35
Fairfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Hillcrest, Summit Park
11
12.9%
8
36
Woodland/Fort Stanton, Knox Hill, Garfield Heights
27
21.6%
8
37
Sheridan, Barry Farms, Buena Vista
41
20.4%
8
38
Douglass, Shipley Terrace
34
19.1%
8
39
Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands
111
18.4%
Source: D.C. Department of Health State Center for Health Statistics Administration 2002
55
VII.
A Few Words About the Data
DATA DEFINITIONS AND
SOURCES
(in alphabetical order)
W
e attempt to define our
indicators clearly and adequately in the Fact Book
and to indicate data sources in the text
and in all figures and tables. However,
some data sources may need more
description and certain limitations
may need to be discussed. Therefore,
in this section we provide additional
information on definitions, sources,
and data limitations for a number of
the indicators presented.
The D.C. Kids Count Fact Book
reports the latest data available. For
some indicators, like those on the
District’s economy and the Income
Maintenance Administration programs,
the data published are from 2004.
Some health data, such as common
sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/
AIDS, and vaccinations, are from
2003. Vital statistics data (which
include all indicators pertaining to
births and deaths) collected by D.C.
Department of Health, State Center for
Health Statistics Administration are
from 2002. The reason for the delay in
reported vital statistics data is because
these data apply to D.C. residents
regardless of where they were at the
time of the birth or death, so these data
must be gathered through an interstate
network and are not available until the
second year following their collection.
All data presented in the Fact Book
have been compiled by the Urban
Institute’s DC Data Warehouse.
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE CRITERIA FOR ADEQUACY OF PRENATAL CARE
Category
If Gestation is
(in Weeks):
Adequate
13 or Less
14 to 17
18 to 21
22 to 25
26 to 29
30 to 31
32 to 33
34 to 35
36 or More
(care initiated in
the 1st trimester and)
And Number of Prenatal
Visits Is at Least:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
And Number of Prenatal
Visits Is No More Than:
Inadequate
(care initiated in
the 3rd trimester or)
Intermediate
14 to 21
22 to 29
30 to 31
32 to 33
34 or More
0
1
2
3
4
All Combinations Other Than Above
Source: Shawstack JA, Budetti PP and Minkler D. American Journal of Public Health. 1984, 74, pp 1003-1008.
56
Babies Born Without Adequate
Prenatal Care
How Defined: The annual average
number and percentage of infants
born to mothers who received no prenatal care, adequate care, inadequate
care, or intermediate care, based on
the Institute of Medicine criteria, as
shown in the adjoining table.
Source: The index was computed by
the Urban Institute from the D.C.
Department of Health, State Center
for Health Statistics Administration.
Data are as of 2002.
Limitation(s): Reporting of prenatal
care is voluntary, usually at the mother’s
discretion, and while many hospitals
link doctor’s office visit records with
self-reported data, the level of reporting varies widely from year to year. In
2002, prenatal care levels could be
determined for 86 percent of all births
to mothers living in the District. We
were unable to determine the care levels for the remaining 14 percent or
1,025 births.
Births to All DC Mothers
How Defined: Birth records are part of
the vital statistics system and are collected for all District residents even if
the mother gives birth in another
jurisdiction.
Source: D.C. Department of Health,
State Center for Health Statistics
Administration. Data are as of 2002.
Births to Single Mothers
How Defined: The annual number and
percent of births that occur to mothers who do not report themselves as
married when registering for the birth.
Source: D.C. Department of Health,
State Center for Health Statistics
Administration. Data are as of 2002.
Births to Teenage Mothers
D.C. Public School Enrollment
Juvenile Cases
How Defined: The annual number and
percent of births that are to women or
girls between 15 and 19 years of age.
How Defined: The number of children
enrolled as of October 7th of each
given year. This number is used to
approximate the number of children
enrolled for the entire school year.
How Defined: The annual number of
new cases filed against juveniles (under
age 18) in the D.C. Superior Court.
Source: D.C. Department of Health,
State Center for Health Statistics
Administration. Data are as of 2002.
Limitation(s): Note that many of these
young mothers aged 18 or 19 are
legally adults. Vital statistics by age are
normally reported for five-year age
groups, e.g., 15- to 19-years old. The
national KIDS COUNT Data Book
reports these numbers in the same way.
Child Abuse and Neglect Cases
How Defined: The annual number of
new cases filed with the D.C. Superior
Court alleging child abuse or neglect.
Source: The Annual Reports of the
District of Columbia Courts. Data are
as of 2003.
Limitation(s): These are cases alleging
child abuse or neglect filed in court;
they do not constitute verified occurrences of abuse or neglect. The D.C.
Government does keep track of verified instances of child abuse, however,
and the numbers are considerably
smaller than those provided by the
Court data. Nonetheless, there may be
a variety of reasons why actual abuses
might not be verified and therefore
both measures likely understate the
extent of the problem. Either source
can probably serve better as indicators
of change in the problem over time
rather than as exact measures of the
magnitude in a particular year. Court
statistics are not available for wards or
other sub-areas of the District.
Child Support Cases
How Defined: The annual number of
new cases filed for child support in the
District of Columbia.
Source: The Annual Reports of the
District of Columbia Courts. Data are
as of 2003.
Source: The D.C. Public Schools
official web site (http://www.
k12.dc.us/dcps/home.html). Most
recent data are from the 2003-04
school year.
Homeless Children and Families
How Defined: Data are a yearly snapshot of the “literally homeless” and the
“permanently supported homeless.”
The literally homeless are those who
are on the streets, in emergency shelters temporarily, in transitional housing temporarily, or in precarious housing at imminent risk of losing it and
looking into shelters. The permanently
supported homeless are those who live
in permanent supportive housing but
who would be at risk of becoming
homeless again without this housing
because of extreme poverty or serious
mental or physical disabilities.
Source: The Homeless Services
Planning and Coordinating
Committee of the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments
and the Coalition of the Homeless.
Data for number of homeless are as of
2004 and number of families seeking
shelter as of 2003.
Limitation(s): Homeless statistics are
not available for wards or other subareas of the District.
Infant Mortality Rate
How Defined: The number of deaths
to infants under one-year old per
1,000 live births. Note that this is not
a percentage.
Source: D.C. Department of Health,
State Center for Health Statistics
Administration. Data are as of 2002.
Limitation(s): Court statistics are not
available for wards or other sub-areas
of the District.
57
Source: The Annual Reports of the
District of Columbia Courts. Data are
as of 2003.
Limitation(s): Court statistics are not
available for wards or other sub-areas
of the District.
Low Birth Weight Babies
How Defined: The annual number of
babies born at weights under 5.5
pounds or 2,500 grams.
Source: D.C. Department of Health,
State Center for Health Statistics
Administration. Data are as of 2002.
Paternity Cases
How Defined: The number of new
cases alleging paternity filed with the
D.C. Superior Court.
Source: The Annual Reports of the
District of Columbia Courts. Data are
as of 2003.
Limitation(s): Court statistics are not
available for wards or other sub-areas
of the District
Public Charter School
Enrollment
How Defined: The aggregate number
of children enrolled in the public charter schools for the school year.
Source: The D.C. Public Charter
School Board. Data are as of school
year 2003-04.
Limitation(s): There are two boards
responsible for overseeing public charters, the D.C. Board of Education and
the D.C. Public Charter School
Board. There is no one centralized
location providing data on public
charters and often sources differ on
the number of children enrolled in
public charter schools.
Poverty Rate
How Defined: The Social Security
Administration (SSA) developed the
original poverty definition in 1964,
which federal interagency committees
subsequently revised in 1969 and
1980. To determine a person's poverty
status, one compares the person's total
family income with the poverty
threshold appropriate for that person's
family size and composition. If the
total income of that person's family is
less than the threshold appropriate for
that family, then the person is considered poor, together with every member of his or her family, including all
children. The poverty thresholds are
revised annually to allow for changes
in the cost of living as reflected in the
Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The
poverty thresholds are the same for all
parts of the country - they are not
adjusted for regional, state or local
variations in the cost of living. (For a
detailed discussion of the poverty
definition, see U.S. Census Bureau,
Current Population Reports, ''Poverty
in the United States: 1999,'' P-60210.)
Source: The U.S. Census Bureau for
year 2000 and the Current Population
Survey (CPS) for years 2001, 2002,
2003, and 2004.
Limitation(s): The federal poverty rate
is one of the most widely used and
recognized measures of economic
security nationally and is therefore
very useful in tracking the economic
well-being of children and families
over time. It should be noted, however,
that while the poverty levels or thresholds are updated annually in accord
with changes in the federal cost of living index, many experts – including
Mollie Orshansky, who developed
them decades ago – believe them to be
based on outdated concepts and far
too low. For instance, in 2003 the
poverty threshold for a single parent
with one child under 18 was only
$12,682 – slightly over $1,000 per
month – while the threshold for a
two-parent, two-child family was only
$18,660. In comparison, the Economic
Policy Institute’s “living wage” for a
family of four in the District, which is
meant to represent the “income
required to have a safe and decent,
though basic, standard of living” and
is based on actual local costs, is almost
three times this amount at $53,375
per year.
The U.S. Census Bureau collects
nation-wide data every 10 years. In
order to show the poverty rate for
2000 through 2003, we used the U.S.
Census Bureau’s Current Population
Survey (CPS). Results from the CPS
are not directly comparable to those
from the Census, as in the past the
CPS has often yielded considerably
lower poverty estimates. This is mainly
because the CPS is based on a smaller
sample and less effort is made to
obtain results that are completely representative than the Decennial Census,
which makes greater efforts to reach
respondents. Poor people are generally harder to contact, and thus are
more likely to be missed in the CPS.
However, the CPS survey expanded
its sample in 2002 from 50,000 to
80,000 people. This was specifically
done to add more households with
children. Furthermore, the CPS collects a greater amount and more
detailed information on households,
income and employment. Combined,
these data are used to determine levels
of poverty. For these reasons many
believe that the CPS figures are more
accurate at reading levels of poverty
from year to year as compared to the
Census.
Poverty statistics from the CPS are not
available for wards or other sub-areas
of the District.
TANF (Welfare) Payments
How Defined: TANF stands for
Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families and it replaced the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children
program in 1996. The TANF data
represents the number of children that
received TANF payments in a given
time period (year or month).
Source: D.C. Department of Human
Services, Income Maintenance
Administration. Data are as of June
2004.
Teen Violent Deaths
How Defined: The annual number of
deaths from violent causes (accident,
murder, or suicide) to persons aged 15
to 19.
Source: D.C. Department of Health,
State Center for Health Statistics
Administration. Data are as of 2002.
Mecca Sawyer - “Daddy’s Little Girl”
58
VIII.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
C
ongratulations are extended to
advocates of the District’s
Children, including individuals, families, neighborhoods, organizations and communities who have
advocated for children and who have
made the publication of this annual
Fact Book possible.
We are particularly grateful to the following people and organizations,
which contributed their efforts this
year:
Peter Tatian, Jennifer Comey, and
Jessica Cigna of the Urban Institute,
for their expert data collection, analysis, reporting, and dedication;
Latisha Atkins, J.D., Director of
Public Policy, D.C. Children’s Trust
Fund and Project Director, D.C.
KIDS COUNT, for her text contributions and for editing and managing
the production of the Fact Book;
Robin Johnson for her administrative
support;
Kinaya C. Sokoya, Executive Director,
D.C. Children’s Trust Fund for the
Prevention of Child Abuse; Jennifer
Riccards, Turning the Page; Jo-Anne
Hurlston, D.C. Public Charter School
Association; Susie Cambria, D.C.
Action for Children; Elva Anderson,
Children’s National Medical Center;
and Dr. Krisha Roy, Evaluator, La
Clinica Del Pueblo; for their skillful
editing and contributions to the production of the Fact Book;
Ingrid Gehle with Gehle Design
Associates, Inc. for the design and layout of the Fact Book;
Dr. Fern Johnson-Clarke, Chief,
Research and Statistics Division, D.C.
Department of Health, State Center
for Health Statistics Administration;
Mary Levy, Consultant to Parents
United for the D.C. Public Schools;
Cora Thorne, Statistical Officer,
Research and Development Division,
District of Columbia Courts; Kate
Jesberg, Administrator, and Terri
Thompson, D.C. Department of
Human Services, Income
Maintenance Administration; The
Community Partnership for the
Prevention of Homelessness; Paul
Roddy, Director, Domestic Violence
Unit, D.C. Superior Court; Kompan
Ngamsnga, Epidemiologist, D.C.
Administration for HIV/AIDS,
Epidemiology Division; Michelle
Amar-Harried, Surveillance
Coordinator, D.C. Department of
Health, Bureau of STD Control,
Surveillance Unit; Peter Tatian,
Research Associate, The Urban
Institute, D.C. Data Warehouse;
Christine Kaucher, Program Manager,
Child Care Services Division, D.C.
Office of Early Childhood
Development; for contributing the
excellent data without which the Fact
Book could not exist.
Members of the D.C. KIDS COUNT
Collaborative for Children and
Families for their continued support
and assistance with dissemination of
the Fact Book: Ora Graham,
Supervisor of Community Resources,
Child and Family Services Agency;
Chrissy Rivers, Manager, Community
Relations, Children’s National Medical
Center; Heather McClure, Policy and
Research Director, Council of Latino
Agencies; Angela M. Jones, Executive
Director and Susie Cambria, Director
59
Correy Kennedy - Brea
of Public Policy, DC Action for
Children; Ellen London,
Communications and Development
Manager, DC Children and Youth
Investment Trust Corporation; Julie
Koo, Outreach Coordinator, D.C.
Mayor’s Office of Asian & Pacific
Islander Affairs; Jo-Anne Hurlston,
Associate Director for Membership
Services, D.C. Public Charter School
Association; Maria Harris, Chief,
Children’s Division, D.C. Public
Library; Tahi Reynolds, Ph.D.,
Researcher and Policy Analyst, D.C.
VOICE; Kendra Dunn, Executive
Director, Prevent Child Abuse of
Metropolitan Washington; Peter
Tatian, Senior Research Associate, The
Urban Institute, D.C. Data
Warehouse (provided neighborhood
data, maps, and analysis); and Jennifer
Riccards, Vice President, Turning the
Page.
Photos provided by:
The William Wendt Center for Loss
and Healing
Turning the Page.
IX.
2004 Literacy Through Photography:
Turning the Page Writings and Photos
Arnice Cottom
Ms. Walker
Third Grade
Garfield
Spring 2004
“Friends Forever”
F
riends forever
Can’t you see
You and me
Friends forever
Just let us be
Friends forever
We’re like tow
Me and you
Friends forever
Always together
Having fun
Sharing time
In the sun
Friends forever
You and me
Bryanna …
Ms. Walker
Third Grade
Garfield
Spring 2004
“Playing Tag”
P
laying tag is a game of fun and laughter. Tag can be
played in any weather: sunny, cloudy or … its does
not matter. If you have more than one person you
can play tag. It is fun and challenging. One person is
“it” and that person has to catch the other people. It is
hard to catch the fast people. Some others are the tricky
ones. There are lots of variations of tag.…
This is also my favorite game.
60
Curtis Canty
Ms. Allen
Fourth Grade
Aiton
Winter 2004
Jamaie Brown
Ms. Allen
Fourth Grade
Aiton
Winter 2004
“My Brother & Sister”
M
y family is my mother, sister, and brother.
I love them. I am the older brother. I
need to se the example and be a role
model for them. We are always dressed in full uniform and always on time for school. Hair is done.
Our shirts are crisp and white. Our tennis shoes
are clean. As we get dressed the music is playing.
On the other side of the door is the Play
Station 2, the VCR, toys, and the TV. In the clean
closet are lots of clothes. The room has twin beds
and Barbie.
“My Amazing Teacher”
M
s. Kubbard was not only my teacher, but
my friend. She taught me things that I
did not know. She is a nice and pretty
teacher. Ms. Kubbard loves bubble gum. She chews
and pops it all day long. She loves to change her
hairstyles everyday.
Ms. Kubbard love to learn new things from her students. Her classroom is very nice. She eats ham
sandwiches for lunch. She loves her students. She
really likes when they make her laugh.
Literacy Through Photography, developed by photographer Wendy Ewald, is a
nationally recognized methodology that helps children use photography as a tool to
explore their world. Guided by their teachers, students photographed scenes from their
daily lives. The photographs then served as inspiration for writings on the themes of
“self”, “family”, or “community”.
The program was coordinated by Turning the Page and sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Education and an anonymous supporter. For more information on the
Literacy Through Photography program, contact Turning the Page at 202-628-7856.
61
“Little Brother with a
Make Believe Camera”
My little brother thought he was
holding a real Camera.
I
was outside in my back yard
with my brothers and sister.
They were playing but I wasn’t.
I asked them, “Can I take a picture
of you?” Then they started running
and I went after them. I caught
them and pulled my camera out of
the camera bag. My little brother
saw me and made his hands like a
camera. My other brothers saw him
and said “Take a picture of him like
that.” So, I took a picture just like
that. After I took a picture of him
he started laughing.
Sha Kia Dozier
Ms. Allen
Fourth Grade
Aiton
Winter 2004
The picture I took of him turned
out a lot better than the one he
took of me!
“Winter Wonderland”
Ryan Kemper
3rd Grade
Mrs. Walker
Garfield
I
took a great photo of the outdoors
around my way. The way I see it is in
my eyes. It shows that the outside does
not always have to be loud and full of trouble. It can be peaceful, beautiful, and a
great place to live. The shadows from the
trees and the footprints in the snow.
Throwing snowballs and making snow
angels. My winter wonderland on the
ground and in the sky.
62
D.C. CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND
1616 P Street, N.W.
Suite 150
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-667-4940
Fax: 202-667-2477
E-mail: dckidscount@dcctf.org
Website: www.dcctf.org & www.dckidscount.org