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

Defining the Problem  2000 Decennial Census  American Community Survey (ACS) Data

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

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

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

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

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

Questions to ponder 1.Are we shooting for one number, such as an index? 2.What should be considered disadvantaged – i.e., how far away from the California average for any indicator? 3.How do we combine qualitative and quantitative information? 4.How can we keep the definition simple and not create a burden for DACs to identify themselves? 5.Is it realistic to aim to change the Statewide definition, or is this undertaking moot?

THANK YOU!  Holly Alpert  Janet Hatfield