1 / 11

Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

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

gerd
Download Presentation

Accurately measuring disadvantage in the Inyo-Mono region

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

  3. Defining the Problem • Mismatch between data and reality • Not all communities represented in the data • Such as Native American Indian tribes • Inconsistency in data available (Census vs. ACS) • Communities with similar characteristics differ in DAC status • Census geographies differ from functional boundaries, such as service areas • DWR identified some communities as DACs that have no ACS data and are clearly not DACs • Missing data necessitate costly income surveys • More to disadvantage than income

  4. Alternative Definitions • Process: • Quantitative Data • Qualitative Observations • Test in 10 regional communities – known DACs and non-DACs • Develop recommendations based on outcome of pilot tests

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

  6. Qualitative Observations • Subjective metrics based on qualitative observations of community • Possible pitfall: different interpretations by different observers

  7. Putting it all together • Use 10 communities (known DACs and non-DACs) as case studies • Develop recommendations based on results • If applicable, propose changes to State definition

  8. Questions to ponder • Are we shooting for one number, such as an index? • What should be considered disadvantaged – i.e., how far away from the California average for any indicator? • How do we combine qualitative and quantitative information? • How can we keep the definition simple and not create a burden for DACs to identify themselves? • Is it realistic to aim to change the Statewide definition, or is this undertaking moot?

  9. THANK YOU! • Holly Alpert 760-709-2212 holly@inyo-monowater.org • Janet Hatfield 760-387-2747 janet@inyo-monowater.org

More Related