Safe Routes to School Funding in Underserved Communities in Underserved Communities Are Your Underserved Communities Receiving Their Are Your Underserved Communities Receiving Their Fair Share of SRTS Funding? Fair Share of SRTS Funding? Brent Hugh Brent Hugh g Eric Bunch Eric Bunch Sarah Shipley Sarah Shipley p y p y Missouri Safe Routes to School Network Missouri Safe Routes to School Network MoBikeFed org/ MoBikeFed org/UnderservedCommunities MoBikeFed.org/ MoBikeFed.org/UnderservedCommunities UnderservedCommunities UnderservedCommunities
SRTS & Underserved Communities Are underserved communities Are underserved communities Are underserved communities Are underserved communities in Missouri getting their fair in Missouri getting their fair in Missouri getting their fair in Missouri getting their fair share of SRTS funding? share of SRTS funding? s a e o S s a e o S S u d g S u d g
SRTS & Underserved Communities Executive Order Executive Order Executive Order Executive Order [E]ach Federal agency shall make achieving [E]ach Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations . and low income populations . The President’s Order for Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898
SRTS & Underserved Communities USDOT Guidance USDOT Guidance USDOT Guidance USDOT Guidance Objective: Objective: j j To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse di ti t l hi h d d human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects , on minority economic effects , on minority populations and low-income populations populations . . . An Overview of Transportation and Environmental Justice , U.S. Department of Transportation
SRTS & Underserved Communities USDOT Guidance USDOT Guidance USDOT Guidance USDOT Guidance Objective: Objective: j j To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of f f benefits by minority and low-income y y populations. An Overview of Transportation and Environmental Justice , U.S. Department of Transportation
SRTS & Underserved Communities •Defining “underserved” Defining “underserved” •How did we collect the data? How did we collect the data? •What did we discover? What did we discover? •What can we do about it? What can we do about it?
Defining “Underserved” •Low Income Students Low Income Students Low Income Students Low Income Students
Defining “Underserved” •Low Income Students Low Income Students Low Income Students Low Income Students •Minority Students •Minority Students Minority Students Minority Students
Defining “Underserved” Why these groups? Why these groups? Why these groups? Why these groups? • Low Low ‐ income and minority populations are at income and minority populations are at y p p y p p much greater risk of obesity and inactivity much greater risk of obesity and inactivity • They are historically underserved by • They are historically underserved by They are historically underserved by They are historically underserved by application based funding sources application based funding sources • They tend to lack the parental involvement They tend to lack the parental involvement exhibited by affluent schools exhibited by affluent schools exhibited by affluent schools exhibited by affluent schools • Fewer champions Fewer champions • Specifically mentioned in Executive Order Specifically mentioned in Executive Order
Defining “Underserved” •Low Income Students Low Income Students - % free Low Income Students Low Income Students % free % free % free & reduced lunch eligible & reduced lunch eligible students students •Minority Students •Minority Students Minority Students - % as Minority Students - % as % as % as reported by school reported by school p p y y
Underserved: Poverty vs. Minority Poverty Poverty Minority Minority 500 500 Mean Mean 400 400 chools 300 300 300 300 mber of sc 200 200 Num 100 100 0 0 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percentage of free & reduced Percentage of minority students lunch students
Underserved: Poverty vs. Minority 100.0% 75.0% h ed Lunch Correlation /Reduce 0 41 0.41 50.0% (moderate) Free/ 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% Minority
Underserved: Poverty vs. Minority 100.0% We’re We’re starting starting . . . but . . . but to reach to reach 75.0% 75.0% not this not this t thi t thi this . . . this . . . unch uced Lu 50.0% ree/Red 25.0% Fr 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% Minority
The Data How we got the data How we got the data How we got the data How we got the data • General school General school data for the entire nation at data for the entire nation at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/
The Data How we got the data How we got the data How we got the data How we got the data • General school General school data for the entire nation at data for the entire nation at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ • List of Missouri SRTS awards from List of Missouri SRTS awards from MoDOT f f d f d f MoDOT • Look up minority, free & reduced lunch data Look up minority, free & reduced lunch data p p y, y, • from NCES from NCES • Specific instructions in handout S Specific instructions in handout S ifi i ifi i t t ti ti i h i h d d t t
The Data: How we analyzed it Low Income Students Low Income Students – schools with schools with • 0 0- -25% free/reduced lunch 25% free/reduced lunch • 25% 25%- -50% free/reduced lunch 50% free/reduced lunch • 50% 50% 75% f 50%-75% free/reduced lunch 50% 75% free/reduced lunch 75% f / / d d d l d l h h • 75% 75%-100% free/reduced lunch 75% 75% 100% free/reduced lunch 100% free/reduced lunch 100% free/reduced lunch Minority Students Minority Students Minority Students – schools with Minority Students schools with schools with schools with • > State average (24.8% in Missouri) > State average (24.8% in Missouri) • < State average < State average
The Data: How we analyzed it Our question: Are these groups Our question: Are these groups q q g g p p getting their fair share of SRTS getting their fair share of SRTS funding? funding? f f di di ? ? • Example: Schools in Missouri with greater than Example: Schools in Missouri with greater than Example: Schools in Missouri with greater than Example: Schools in Missouri with greater than average minority population average minority population • 182,337 students in those schools 182,337 students in those schools 8 ,33 8 ,33 stude ts stude ts t ose sc oo s t ose sc oo s • 30% of Missouri’s school population 30% of Missouri’s school population • Are these schools receiving 30% of Missouri’s A Are these schools receiving 30% of Missouri’s A th th h h l l i i i i 30% 30% f Mi f Mi i’ i’ SRTS funding? SRTS funding?
Underserved Communities: Results Missouri SRTS Funding by Low Income Population, 2007 ‐ 2010 300 300 Received re) 200 200 Fair Shar unding R 100 ent of Fu (100%= 0 Perc 0 ‐ 25% 25 ‐ 50% 50 ‐ 75% 75 ‐ 100% Free/Reduced Lunch Percentage
Underserved Communities: Results Missouri SRTS Funding by Minority Mi i SRTS F di b Mi it Population 2007 ‐ 2010 200.00% 200.00% d Received are) Funding R =Fair Sha 100.00% 100 00% (100%= cent of F 0.00% Average or Less Than Greater Than Average Perc Average Minority Minority Population Population Minority population of the school Minority population of the school
Award Distribution Missouri Population Distribution Distribution
Award Distribution Actual Awards Actual Awards By Population By Population
Population Distribution Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Minority Minority Minority Minority (Top 25% of schools ranked by FRL% (Top 25% of schools ranked by FRL%) (Top 25% of schools ranked by minority pop.) (Top 25% of schools ranked by minority pop.)
Population Distribution Poverty Distribution Poverty Distribution Poverty Distribution Poverty Distribution Award Distribution Award Distribution Award Distribution Award Distribution (Top 25% of schools ranked by FRL%) (Top 25% of schools ranked by FRL%) (if by population) (if by population)
Population Distribution Missouri Student Minority Population by Missouri Student Minority Population by Urban Classification 100 0% 100.0% pulation ntage ority Pop y Percen by Mino 0.0% Ci City: Ci City: Ci City: S b Suburb b Town T R Rural l Large Mid ‐ size Small Locale Type
Population Distribution Missouri Free and Reduced Lunch by Mi i F d R d d L h b Urban Classification 100.0% 100.0% d Received are) unding R =Fair Sha (100%= cent of F 0.0% City: City: City: City: City: City: Suburb Suburb Town Town Rural Rural Perc Large Mid ‐ size Small Locale Type
Underserved: Poverty vs. Minority 100.0% 75.0% h ed Lunch Correlation /Reduce 0 41 0.41 50.0% (moderate) Free/ 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% Minority
Recommend
More recommend
