PITTSBURGH EQUITY INDICATORS

2y ago
45 Views
2 Downloads
7.04 MB
150 Pages
Last View : 4d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Anton Mixon
Transcription

PITTSBURGH EQUITY INDICATORSA BASELINE MEASUREMENT FOR ENHANCING EQUITY IN PITTSBURGHANNUAL REPORT : 2018

earecentraltomyadministra heplanet;crea andperformancemeasurestomakesmartinvestments.Tobe weenPisburghers.Implemen ngtheEquityIndicatorsisanaconiden aselinereport.IwouldliketothanktheRANDCorpora lerFounda on,TheForbesFunds,andthenumerouslocalcivicorganiza yintegra greatestdisparies.Theseinvestmentsinclude: 10millionintotheHousingOpportunityFund, 2millionintofundingqualitychildcarecenters,and 500,000intoanewStoptheViolenceinia rgyandtransporta swithfounda ons,communityorganiza ons,universiesandresearchorganiza ortsaregearedtowardsclosingthegapswe’veiden dtocallhome.Pleasejoinme.WilliamPeduto,Mayor

Pittsburgh Equity IndicatorsA progress update on the state of equity in PittsburghAnnual report: 2018About the AuthorsThis report was prepared by Linnea Warren May, Serafina Lanna, Jordan Fischbach, Michelle Bongard,and Shelly Culbertson of the RAND Corporation; Rebecca Kiernan of the Division of Sustainability andResilience in the City of Pittsburgh Department of City Planning; and Ricardo Williams of the Bureau ofNeighborhood Empowerment in the Mayor’s Office at the City of Pittsburgh. Strategic and financialsupport provided by Elizabeth DeWolf, Jocelyn Drummond, Victoria Lawson, and Julia Bowling from theInstitute for State and Local Governance at the City University of New York.AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank our local partners for their help in providing data, feedback, and supportthroughout this project. A SchoolsAllegheny Conference on Community DevelopmentAllegheny County Conservation DistrictAllegheny County Department of Human ServicesAllegheny County Health DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityCitiparksCity of Pittsburgh Department of City PlanningCity of Pittsburgh Department of Innovation andPerformanceCity of Pittsburgh Mayor’s OfficeCity of Pittsburgh Office of Community AffairsCity of Pittsburgh Office of Management & BudgetFourth Economy ConsultingThe Forbes FundsGrounded Strategies Just HarvestMongalo-Winston Consulting, LLCNeighborhood AlliesPartner4WorkPittsburgh Association for the Education of Young ChildrenPittsburgh Bureau of PolicePittsburgh Citizen Police Review BoardThe Pittsburgh PromisePittsburgh Public SchoolsPittsburgh Public Schools, Career and Technical Education DivisionPittsburgh Water and Sewer AuthoritySouthwestern Pennsylvania CommissionSustainable PittsburghUrbanKind InstituteUniversity of Pittsburgh Center for Social and Urban ResearchUniversity of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public HealthWestern Pennsylvania Regional Data CenterWe gratefully acknowledge the role of 100 Resilient Cities (pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation)for its strategic support to integrate this effort with the city’s ONEPGH Resilience Strategyimplementation. We also thank Sarah Hunter, senior behavioral scientist at the RAND Corporation, andChristopher Briem, Regional Economist at the University Center for Social and Urban Research at theUniversity of Pittsburgh, for their thorough reviews of this document and helpful comments andsuggestions.Executive SummaryThrough its ONEPGH Resilience Strategy, Investment Prospectus, and other local initiatives dedicatedto equity citywide, the City of Pittsburgh and its partners have demonstrated a commitment toimproved opportunities and outcomes for all city residents. As a first step in assessing progress towardequitable opportunities and outcomes for Pittsburghers of all races, genders, and incomes, and to informthe city’s investment decisions moving forward, the Pittsburgh Department of City Planning’s Division of1

Sustainability and Resilience partnered with the Bureau of Neighborhood Empowerment to undertakethe Pittsburgh Equity Indicators project in 2017. Supported with funding and strategic guidance fromthe City University of New York Institute for State and Local Governance (CUNY ISLG), the researchteam led by the RAND Corporation developed a framework and associated indicators to measureequality in both outcomes and opportunities in Pittsburgh. A report for 2017 describes the methods andresults of the first round of Equity Indicators data analyses. This report represents a progress update onthe indicators described in the 2017 report and includes two years of data for each of the EquityIndicators in the framework.Defining and Scoring the Equity IndicatorsThe purpose of the Equity Indicators is to investigate whether Pittsburgh is making progress in reducinginequity and inequalities on an annual basis. The 80 Equity Indicators measure change, either toward oraway from equality, in four domains: Health, Food, and SafetyEducation, Workforce Development, and EntrepreneurshipHousing, Transportation, Infrastructure, and EnvironmentCivic Engagement and Communications.Structure of the Equity IndicatorsFramework with 4domains4 domains with 5topics per domain20 topics with 4indicators per topic80 indicatorsTo portray existing inequity and inequality within Pittsburgh, we analyzed two years of data for differentsubgroups to understand disparities, as well as changes in those disparities between the reporting years.Indicators were scored according to the relative difference in outcomes between two comparisongroups, with the embedded assumption that different outcomes for different groups is undesirable. Eachof the 80 indicators in the framework was scored on a scale from 1 (higher inequality) to 100 (higherequality), and scores are aggregated to produce topic, domain, and overall city equality scores. A scoreof 100 indicates that there is either no inequality between subgroups, or the group that one mightexpect to experience worse outcomes actually experienced better outcomes than the comparisongroup. Change scores were also calculated for each indicator, topic, and domain by subtracting the 2017equality score from the 2018 equality score.This report presents the second round of equality scores for Pittsburgh. The first round of equalityscores, as well as information on the process of developing the framework and selecting the indicatorsand data sources, were presented in the 2017 annual report. In this report, we build upon the existingframework, indicators, and data sources from the 2017 report and present information on the extent of2

the change for each of these metrics in Pittsburgh since the first report. To better understand year-toyear changes in the context of larger trends, we also acquired additional historical data for a subset ofindicators when it was available.FindingsThe results presented in this report reveal that the overall city and domain scores are about the same in2018 as they were in 2017: Pittsburghers were still experiencing inequitable access to opportunities andoutcomes, represented by an overall city equality score of 55 that did not change from 2017 to 2018.However, underlying this score were some improvements in specific areas, including public safety,student success and discipline, infrastructure quality and investment, and civic engagement (grassrootsand city-led), which were represented by positive change scores. In contrast, results show greaterinequality in other metrics, including health outcomes, household income, and poverty, represented bynegative change scores. For example, income and poverty was the topic with the largest change score(–10) between 2017 and 2018, placing it as the topic with the third-lowest equality score (28) andindicating that inequality was increasing for key economic outcome measures.At the indicator level, the underlying data show a number of interesting changes between the 2017 and2018 reporting years. Between this period, 28 indicator scores improved, 35 worsened, and 17remained the same (or data were not available to score the indicator in 2017, represented with a changescore of 0). We summarize indicator-level changes within each domain: In Health, Food, and Safety, the indicators asthma hospitalizations, domestic violence, homicides,and property crime victimization all improved in the 2018 reporting year relative to 2017 for bothblack and white Pittsburghers. Other health outcomes, like diabetes rates, improved in highincome areas but worsened slightly in low-income areas.In Education, Workforce Development, and Entrepreneurship, outcomes were mixed:Access to quality childcare improved across the board. Economic outcomes like median householdincome and poverty rates improved for white residents, while they continued to decline for blackresidents.Related to Housing, Transportation, Infrastructure, and Environment, notable changesincluded improvements across subgroups in homelessness, access to high-frequency transit networks(HFTN), and blood lead levels, though outcomes did not improve to the same degree for blackand white residents. Additionally, traffic accidents involving bikes and pedestrians in high-incomeareas increased relative to low-income areas.Finally, Civic Engagement and Communication indicators showed positive changes forblack residents relative to white residents, including in the presence of opportunities forvolunteering in neighborhoods, applications to the city’s Civic Leadership Academy (CLA), andneighborhoods participating in the Beautify Our Burgh (BOB) program.The figure below illustrates the relationship between changes in the raw data for each subgroup andchanges in equality score for a subset of indicators, as just described. Positive year-to-year changes inoutcomes for each subgroup are shown in shades of blue (darker for more positive changes). Negativeyear-to-year changes in outcomes are shown in shades of orange (darker for more negative changes).Changes in equality scores for each indicator are also color coded in shades of blue and orange torepresent the magnitude of change toward or away from equality between subgroups.3

DomainHealth, Food, and SafetyIndicatorAsthma hospitalizationsChange Values BetweenReporting YearsBlackWhiteEqualityResidents ResidentsScore Domestic violence –Homicides Property crime –Education, WorkforceDevelopment, andEntrepreneurshipAccess to quality childcare Median household income– –Poverty– –Housing, Transportation,Infrastructure, andEnvironmentHomelessness Lack of access to a HFTN –Blood lead levels Civic Engagement andCommunicationOpportunities for volunteering Applications to CLA Participation in BOB –NOTE: Colors refer to the percentage change in outcomes for each subgroup and indicator change for equalityscores, according to the cut-offs shown below.Below –100–66 to –100–33 to –66 0 to –330 0 to 3333 to 6666 to 100Above 100Change scores simply represent progress toward or away from equality. As the figure illustrates,because change scores measure the change in disparity and not the outcomes themselves, they maymask some of the changes observed in the underlying data. As such, positive change scores do notnecessarily represent improvements for the population as a whole. Similarly, negative changes in equalityscores do not represent declines for the population as a whole: For some indicators, improvementswere made across all subgroups, but greater improvement was observed among white residents thanblack residents, resulting in greater disparity in 2018. For a select few indicators, improvements wereobserved for black or low-income residents, and declines were observed for white or high-incomeresidents, resulting in less disparity in 2018. As such, readers are encouraged to examine the data thatcontribute to indicator scores (Appendix D) to understand the changes driving fluctuations in equalityscores.Conclusion and Next StepsPittsburgh’s second comprehensive snapshot of inequity based on CUNY ISLG’s Equality Indicatorsmethodology provides an update and comparison to the data reported for Pittsburgh in 2017. Whilesignificant disparities still exist, the city is now able to use the annual indicators update to track howoutcomes may change with the introduction of new investments and to determine where to targetresources to attempt to close gaps.Within the City of Pittsburgh, the 2017 report led to a partnership between the Sustainability ResilienceDivision within the Department of City Planning and the Bureau of Neighborhood Empowerment withinthe Mayor’s Office. The intention of the partnership is to use the Equity Indicators to allocate cityresources and staffing capacity to drive results. The city and external partners are also using thesestatistics as a catalyst for deeper analyses to determine the root causes of poor outcomes and4

disparities, especially for the lowest-performing indicators. As a result of the 2017 report, the city hasincreased attention to homicides, homelessness, access to banking services, infant mortality andchildhood asthma hospitalizations, and developed a partnership with The Forbes Funds to turn thestatistics into action items. The city plans to continue this work in 2019 by disseminating information byneighborhood, understanding changes in populations in neighborhoods, and taking action throughresource allocation, collaboration, and programming.While work is underway, there is still much work to be done as indicator scores shift over time. Withthe completion of CUNY ISLG funding and support, in 2019 the City of Pittsburgh seeks toinstitutionalize annual updates to the Equity Indicators and use the data as inputs into city budgeting aswell as to help coordinate funding distributed through the ONEPGH Fund, set to launch in 2019.5

Table of ContentsAbout the Authors . 1Acknowledgments . 1Executive Summary . 1Defining and Scoring the Equity Indicators . 2Findings . 3Conclusion and Next Steps . 4Abbreviations . 8Introduction . 9Equity Indicators: From Baseline to Year 2 . 9Purpose of the Equity Indicators and This Report . 10Organization of This Report . 11Updating Pittsburgh’s Equity Indicators. 11Changing Demographics in Pittsburgh . 11Updated Data and Analyses . 12Change Scores and Recent Trends . 17Findings . 182018 Pittsburgh Equality Score . 18Domain, Topic, and Indicator Scores . 18Reporting Year 2018 and 2017 Domain Scores. 18Reporting Year 2018 and 2017 Topic Scores . 19Reporting Year 2018 Indicator Scores . 22Limitations and Future Research . 40Conclusion. 42Appendix A: Data Sources . 43Appendix B: 2018 Indicators and Definitions . 45Appendix C: 2018 Technical Notes on Indicator Calculations . 49Appendix D: Detailed Findings .

This second Equity Indicators Report takes another look at the same indicators examined in the baseline . religion, socioeconomic status, gender or neighborhood. . our responsibility. With that in mind, we are forging new and innova ve partnerships with founda ons, community organiza ons, universi es and research organiza ons, and the .

Related Documents:

Callan Periodic Table of Investment Returns Returns Ranked in Order of Performance (as of June 30, 2019) Equity Cap Large-9.11% Equity Cap Large-11.89% Equity Cap Large-22.10% Equity Cap Large 28.68% Equity Cap Large 10.88% Equity Cap Large 4.91% Equity Cap Large 15.79% Equity Cap Large

AAPL UW Equity APPLE 情報技術 MSFT UW Equity MICROSOFT CORP 情報技術 AMZN UW Equity AMAZON.COM 一般消費財・サービス GOOGL UW Equity ALPHABET A コミュニケーション・サービス TSLA UW Equity TESLA 一般消費財・サービス GOOG UW Equity ALPHABET C コミュニケーション・サービス

101 Hill Avenue Carnegie PA 15106-3006 412-276-9233 chabassol@verizon.net Vice President Robert A. Milisits 6382 Morrowfield Avenue Pittsburgh PA 15217-2505 . versity of Pittsburgh Chess Club & Organized by the Pittsburgh Chess League. December 7. 49th Annual Pittsburgh Chess League : Round 4. 30/90, SD/60. Assembly Room, Main Floor , William .

0003e00063000000 17th ward - pittsburgh 425 e carson st pittsburgh pa 15203 5/28/2019 6/5/2019 . pittsburgh 30 -62 s 6th st pittsburgh pa 15203 1/28/2019 2/6/2019 . pittsburgh 11 5th

BSN, University of Pittsburgh, 1977 . MSN, University of Pittsburgh, 1981 . Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of . School of Nursing in partial fulfillment . of the requirements for the degree of . Doctor of Philosophy . University of Pittsburgh . 2010

Printed for the Patent Law Association of Pitts burgh by and with ttie compliments of Pittsburgh Printing Company, 580-584 Fmmando Stareet. THE PATENT BAR OF PITTSBURGH BAYAKI) H. CHRISTY When Mr. Stebbins asked me to prepare an his torical paper, on the Patent Bar of Pittsburgh, my first thought was that compliance should he easy. Remember

All contiguous periods from 1996 to 2015 show a private equity PME 1 except for 2006 to 2015 Kaplan: " Phalippou's definition of private equity is too broad" Phalippou's private equity universe includes real assets, real estate, infrastructure and energy. When private equity is defined just as buyout, growth equity and venture capital

2. Private equity in South Africa Private equity is an asset class which differs in nature from most other assets, including listed equity. Typically, private equity fund investments show low correlation to quoted equity markets and are relatively illiquid, particularly in the early years. Private equity will normally show a drop in net asset value